Show: THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER Date: February 7, 2018 Guest: Stephanie Hamill; Christina Greer; Lanny Davis; Joe Crowley; Karen Loeffler; Betsy Woodruff; Natasha Bertrand
CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ari.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Chuck, I like a draft tweet.
TODD: You are trying that one?
MELBER: Draft tweet, I think, because that speaks to people. We have twitter politics, a twitter President, people get that I think.
TODD: There you go. Yes, that tweet is not going to draft folder. OK.
MELBER: In the draft folder.
Thank you, Chuck Todd.
We begin tonight with live pictures of Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi right now. She is heading into her eighth hour on the house floor. She is spotlighting, she says, the fight for Dreamers as Congress debates funding and immigration. You may know the old saying, you can`t drink all day if you don`t start in the morning, well, congressman Pelosi started in the morning first thing, 10:04 a.m.
And we can report, this is now, well you are looking it in your screen, the longest speech in the history of the United States House of Representatives. Pelosi`s push for Democrats to be bolder is coming, at the same time that the Senate is brokering a compromise deal with Republicans and Democrats are celebrating a win last night in a Trump district in Missouri.
Meanwhile, the President is focusing on his unusual order for a military parade. Tonight, we will question a Trump surrogate about that particular idea.
Also, important, new warnings from Trump`s top diplomat. Russia, meddling in the midterms right now. That news comes as Democrats name a new leader of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His lawyer joins me tonight for an exclusive.
So as you see I think we have a lot going on including following Pelosi`s ongoing address. But we begin with this ongoing standoff between Bob Mueller and Donald Trump. Will Trump testify like Bill Clinton ultimately did? Will he take his subpoena fight to the Supreme Court like Nixon did? Or is there a third way, an alternative route?
There is news on that front tonight on a middle ground where Trump could lawfully stonewall Mueller without risking a constitutional crisis. Now if you love Trump, you might not like this legal idea. And if you loathe Trump, you might not like this idea either.
That is why I called it a middle ground. It comes from of all places, a former judge, a former prosecutor, a former attorney general. It comes from Eric Holder who is making ways tonight by offering this alternative road for Donald Trump to sit down with Mueller but then invoke his constitutional right not to incriminate himself, his fifth amendment privilege.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIC HOLDER, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: It`s entirely possible that, you know, he could use his fifth amendment privilege, which would be, you know, almost fatal for any other politician. But as this President says, you know, he could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and not suffer any negative political consequences, fifth avenue. There is also the fifth amendment. And I don`t know, you know, I think that is at least a possibility.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: From Fifth Avenue to the fifth amendment. Now that`s on the legal strategy. Holder also spoke about some broader criticisms of Donald Trump`s leadership. I have that for you later in the show. While another senior Obama administration colleague also speaking out about Trump`s attack on law enforcement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is the first President to make a full throated unvarnished attack on the entirety of the FBI. Not going after J. Edgar Hoover, who was one person in the FBI and exonerate. This was to discredit the FBI and discredit his own justice department.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: We have a lot at the top of the show. But we begin with our super panel, "the Daily Beast" Betsy Woodruff, former federal prosecutor Karen Loeffler who has worked with the FBI on hundreds of cases and "the Atlantic`s" Natasha Bertrand.
Karen, I begin with you. When you hear your former colleague Eric Holder say Trump could take the fifth, is that a good idea?
KAREN LOEFFLER, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, really, you know, it should be a political fiasco. But I mean, as a citizen of the United States, he has the right to take the fifth amendment. But really, and of course it would be unprecedented. But to sit there and say, you know, I will talk to you, but only under, I will assert my fifth amendment or I want a grant of immunity, you know, should be political suicide. But we have seen so many, you know, amazing firsts that are sort of shocking. I`m really bound to say who knows?
MELBER: And Karen --
LOEFFLER: You know, it shouldn`t exist.
MELBER: Right. Karen, I always respect your candor. And you are saying, basically, wow, to this whole idea. I want to know that your legal receptivity to it. You point out that this is a legally possible thing to do, echoes what Eric Holder said. But you, Eric Holder and Roger Stone are all overlapping tonight. I don`t know who you feel about that. You don`t have to state an opinion, I will just say that Roger and Eric Holder usually don`t usually overlap.
Here is what a longtime Trump`s adviser Roger Stone says. The President could asserts his fifth amendment privilege and tell Mueller to quote : shove it." But as I recognize the political and legal danger of just stiffing the guy.
I turn to you on the law, Karen. What is legal danger in this context when you are a subject of a probe and you say I can`t speak based on the fifth?
LOEFFLER: Well, I mean, certainly it`s happened in many cases. You say I can`t speak based on the fifth and then the probe goes forward gathering all the other evidence. But you can`t later go into court and, you know, say this is what I wanted to say and they didn`t want to listen to me.
So I mean, in many cases, and especially when you are talking about targeting the President of the United States, you know. You want to give them an opportunity to answer the questions that they have. But the probe will continue whether he says, you know, I`m willing to speak or not. But, you know, in some sense you lose the high ground of saying, well, I really wanted to tell them the truth, but they didn`t want to hear from me.
MELBER: Right. It kind of disavows the ability later -- go ahead.
LOEFFLER: I`m sorry, I just mean it`s strategically doesn`t come across very well. Go ahead, I`m sorry.
MELBER: No, no, you`re in Alaska, so we have a slight tape delay.
Betsy Woodruff, you are view on what we are hearing here. And I hate to go meta, but the meta of this why are we, why is Eric Holder, why is Trump`s aide Roger Stone even talking about the fifth?
BETSY WOODRUFF, REPORTER, THE DAILY BEAST: It`s interesting that we are hearing sort of this more aggressive and legally creative approach to how the President can respond to this situation with Mueller. I had a conversation just a little bit earlier today with the person who is quite familiar with the thinking on the President`s legal team. And this person told me not to underestimate or not to understate the significant role that Jay Sekulow is playing in the negotiations between Trump`s legal team and Mueller`s.
Now in the past there`s been this kind of view that Sekulow, given that he is a first amendment litigator who doesn`t have any criminal law experience maybe could have been sidelined in those conversations. But according to this person, that would be a very incorrect way of thinking about it.
This person actually said that Sekulow is a force that can see around corners. And I think it`s possible when we look at some of these potentially hardball tactics that the President`s team could be considering, that Sekulow could be contributing to that line of thinking in large part because look, he spent months this year going on FOX, on a very regular basis, lambasting Mueller and his team and being a very aggressive voice. So I think if we see aggressive steps, it could be in part because of Jay.
MELBER: If you are keeping score, and I don`t blame you at home if you are not because it`s a lot. But Sekulow was, of course, the one who sees on some of the alleged conflicts of interest in FBI, to argue there should be a second special counsel. We have seen that. That argument gain more traction at least among conservatives.
Your view Natasha.
NATASHA BERTRAND, THE ATLANTIC: Yes. And Sekulow is, of course, one of the advisors to Trump that doesn`t want to sit down with Mueller. I think it is really interesting they are also considering a third option which is to provide written answers to the special counsel. Now, there are number of people who say that Mueller would never agree to that. Mostly because Trump himself is the subject of this investigation, whereas Nixon who was the last President to provide written answers to President Reagan, who was the last person to provide answers to, a special counsel, was not himself a target of the investigation, Trump himself is, of course, with the obstruction of justice aspect, with the, you know, probe into whether or not he did his chances. His campaign team did collude with the Russians. So they are really trying to kind of figure out a best way for Trump to go into this interview and not perjure himself, which is remarkable, if you think about it. They are genuinely worried that he will lie to the special counsel.
MELBER: And lastly, Karen, when you look at these reports from Joe Biden and saying, you know, they really couldn`t have done more before the election, that`s seems to a reach, right. Isn`t the larger a bit of evidence that they should have done more?
LOEFFLER: Well, you mean, in terms of protecting the United States from having a foreign government influence our election? Yes.
MELBER: And -- I have to jump in. We are going to dip in and look at Nancy Pelosi`s getting applause, surrounded by her colleagues. Let`s listen in as she has just finished her record breaking speech.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: It`s a privilege to read the eloquent statement of the Dreamers as they express their commitment to America. Their commitment to a better future for our country and their families` better futures. It was this double to do so with the recommendations at the testimony that you all extended, presented, recommended these testimonials. And to have so many of you here in the course of the day, a real tribute to the respect that we have for our dreamers.
So I accept your applause on behalf of them because it was their story in their words by and large that I told. In addition to the bible and the catholic conference of bishops and Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, so many other religious groups that we have. But I thank all of you.
And our basic request is honor the House of Representatives. Give us a chance to have a vote on the floor. The Republican leader in the Senate --
(APPLAUSE)
MELBER: There you hear. That is the core message from Nancy Pelosi, finishing up here an eight-hour and ten-minute record breaking speech, the longest address ever in the history of the United States House of Representatives. And she rounded out saying what she wants, what she says Democrats deserve is this vote to resolve this long running debate with Donald Trump on DACA.
I want to thank my panel. And thank you for bearing with us on some breaking news.
And I turn now to a colleague of Nancy Pelosi, New York congressman Joe Crowley. He is chair, of course, the House Democratic caucus.
Congressman, so much to get to you about. We in the newsroom and from what I could see in other indications around the nation people watching your colleague Nancy Pelosi.
What did she do? What does this achieve? Do you get any closer to this DACA vote?
REP. JOE CROWLEY (D-NY), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS: Well, she used what we know is called the magic minute. It`s a minute that`s given to the leader of a minority, and there`s no limit on the time she has able to speak on the House floor. But never in my years here in the House of Representatives have I ever seen anyone use it so effectively and as long as Nancy Pelosi just did today. And I think show`s doing that, Ari, because this is something she believes in. And she believes this is a civil rights issue about time.
MELBER: And congressman, I just want our viewers to know we are watching the live footage. She is high-fiving multiple members of Congress (INAUDIBLE), hugs.
PELOSI: With that I yield back to Maxine Waters.
MELBER: And she is yielding to Maxine Waters, someone who knows her way around parliamentary procedure herself.
CROWLEY: She is literally just steps from me here right now.
MELBER: So it seems like a quite a scene. It seems dramatic. And I ask you, how does this get you closer to the DACA vote? And do you think that the Senate Democrats have wavered a little bit because they seem to be extending Republican compromises and funding now, without getting -- I`m watching the same feeds as you are, I didn`t see a DACA vote yet and they are now going to do another funding CR is what they want to do.
CROWLEY: Well, I think what she is speaking to, is that over 80 percent of Americans who have expressed they want to see some type of solution for those folks who find themselves in DACA today, in a state of limbo that the President of the United States put them in. That she was speaking to, you know, the moral question here, the issue of civil rights and their future. And so that`s what I think is significant of what Nancy Pelosi did today.
In terms of looking at the House and the Senate, there are two different animals. The promise of the remain (ph) in the Senate don`t necessarily, in fact, they don`t apply to the House of Representatives.
MELBER: I get that. I got to jump in. I`m not trying to give a hard time. Are they broken promises? Is your view that Mitch McConnell broke the promise to get the DACA vote or is your view that your colleagues in the Senate are holding too quickly. I mean, they did hold the shortest shutdown in American history.
CROWLEY: Well, my understanding is that Mitch McConnell has said that he will actually bring legislation to the floor. That (INAUDIBLE) was not made in the House of Representatives. Paul Ryan never made that commitment. In fact when they actually passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate, the House never took it up.
So what Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi was talking about tonight is a moral imperative but there as also, Ari, an economic imperative here as well. And as for the President broadens out the hostage taking beyond the DACA and the potential DACA to 1.8, there are 225,000 El Salvadorians here on temporary protective status. They have been throw to the mix as Haitians for a temporary protective status. And other, they have here for 25 or 40 years. They have homes and business. Their children and grandchildren are American citizens. And now they are being told they will be sent home in 18 months. So the President didn`t have to do that. He continues to make even more hostages to get his wall built and he get his agenda through. We simply just don`t want to see that happen.
MELBER: Well, Congressman, I hear you on that. It`s clearly an important issue and the debate continues. And so I thank you for joining us.
CROWLEY: Thanks, Ari.
MELBER: Also, you know, I deal with facts congressman, I have to point out, I don`t think you have ever given a 10-hour floor speech.
CROWLEY: Well, you know, under the rules, I can`t. If I was the leader, I would be able to. But I admire what Nancy Pelosi did today. It showed a lot of stamina and it showed a lot of heart. I think our conference is proud of her. I think the American people are proud of her as well.
MELBER: Congressman, you are teaching me that it all comes back to the law and the rules.
CROWLEY: The rules mean everything and the law unfortunately.
MELBER: Thank you, congressman. A busy time down there.
I want to turn now to the next thing, because I told you and I meant it, we had a lot here at the top of the show. We have a very special guest to dig into how a White House deals with a criminal probe.
Lanny Davis, you may recognize from the many hats he has worn, a former spokesman when the special counsel was investigating Bill Clinton, you see him there with Hillary Clinton. He is a long time lawyer and advocate of them. His new book "the unmaking of the President 2016" how FBI director James Comey, cost Hillary Clinton the presidency.
First of all, thanks for coming.
LANNY DAVIS, CLINTON ADVISER: Thank you for having me.
MELBER: Before we get to your book, the first news item I want to talk to you about is how a White House deals with the very difficult situation of having an open criminal probe? Your grade of how the Trump folks are dealing with it, separate from any ideological disagreements? And are they following one of the maxims that you have outlined over the years, which is be honest, be fast, be first.
DAVIS: Well, the answer was expose by this nonsense that the President taking the fifth amendment is his constitutional right. So the answer is they couldn`t be doing it more wrong. From every direction, every decision, it`s about protecting the truth from coming out. If Donald Trump had nothing to worry about, I don`t buy perjury traps, if he has the truth, he would speak the truth to Mueller. Taking the fifth amendment, I don`t care what the rules are, that Donald Trump doesn`t have to follow. The American people will not forgive a President taking the fifth.
MELBER: You think it`s a bad look for a President under a probe?
DAVIS: It simply the opposite of my philosophy in crisis manager which is tell it early, tell it all, tell it yourself the truth and Donald Trump hasn`t done that. He has done exactly the opposite and appears to be hiding the truth of any involvement with the Russian meddling.
MELBER: I want to talk to you about zealous advocacy as a lawyer, which is something that you have done. And lawyers as we all know on the jokes are there. They some get a bad rap. Ans yet anyone who has ever been in a tough spot knows that sometimes your lawyer and your family hopefully are the only people in the world looking out for you.
DAVIS: Right.
MELBER: When you think about that and the role that a lawyer has in this situation, do you think Donald Trump has been well served by the range of lawyers that we followed, some he had from the civil world and he has moved on from them. One of our reporters was just mentioning some, are not criminal defense specialists, and yet they are on this team. Given your expertise in this space, how would you grade them?
DAVIS: I grade Jay Sekulow and Ty Cobb who I don`t know. I know Jay for many years, very high respect. And I believe that Mr. Cobb`s approach of being respectful toward Mr. Mueller has been the right approach.
The problem they all face is the client not telling the truth. And they don`t know what he knows. And so the whole issue whether he should testify is about oh, my goodness, suppose he says something and he actually tells the truth? If he is hiding something, he is in great danger. So the answer is on a crisis management grade, I would give it a very poor grade. Intellectual skills, Jay and Ty Cobb and others, Mr. McGahn are all great lawyers.
MELBER: Yes. The only name I didn`t hear you name was John Dowd. We will save that for another day.
DAVIS: Yes. I don`t know Mr. Dowd.
MELBER: Now, when we look at what you are arguing in your book, what about it is relative to today? In other words some people want to relive the old campaign, some people don`t. But what about your argument or your evidence is relevant or legitimacy of the Trump presidency and the road ahead?
DAVIS: So I have something that`s dramatic that shows on the morning of October 28th, Hillary Clinton is stressing up by a large margin. She was up by six point, seven million votes and she would carry, if you can see the three states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The graph on the left shows a high point of seven or eight points ahead, the Comey letter is the black line, and look what happens. Precipitously no other explanation other than Comey. Now why do I write a book about that?
MELBER: Why is that relevant now?
DAVIS: Because Donald Trump was not elected in an unimpaired free election. It was impaired by the intervention of an FBI director who broke all the rules, did not care about breaking the rules and only thought about himself. And I do agree with Donald Trump on one thing, James Comey should have been fired but by Barack Obama because he violated all the rules, not because the reason Donald Trump had to fire him, which seemed to be an obstruction of justice effort.
MELBER: Lanny Davis, you put it all out there and I appreciate you coming on "the Beat."
DAVIS: Thanks, Ari.
MELBER: Thank you very much.
Again, the book if you are looking for it is "the unmaking of a President 2016."
Ahead, a stunning Democratic win in a Trump district. What Republican leaders are doing to undo it.
All that and my exclusive later tonight with another high powered White House lawyer, the one defending key figures in multiple cases.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: President Trump wants a military parade in Washington and there is blow back. That is our debate tonight. I go to professor Christina Greer from NYU and Stephanie Hamill who was an adviser to the Donald Trump national diversity coalition.
Let me start with you Christina. There`s a lot of evidence that this is a weird idea inspired by friends. But at the end of the day, some conservatives have said there`s an immediate blow back that will position Donald Trump defending a military parade and his critics attacking it and that will probably helps Donald Trump.
CHRISTINA GREER, ASSOCIATED PROFESSOR, NYU MCSILVER INSTITUTE: Yes. But you know, we have to realize we don`t have money, right. We -- if we are using our tax dollars to support this man`s individual idea and wanting a parade like a 7-years-old, then we also know there is a lot of this money could go towards veterans, it could go towards the physical and emotional needs that they have, it could actually go towards our military personnel whose families are really struggling still. We have mothers buying armor for their own children.
So this is a waste of money. And if we didn`t have other data points of this particular President, being someone who needs to satisfy self-serving needs, about putting the country first because he is not in public service, then I don`t think the question would be so intense. This is why.
STEPHANIE HAMILL, ADVISER, NATIONAL DIVERSITY COALITION FOR TRUMP: Yes. Well, you have to look at why he is doing this. This has nothing to do with President Trump himself. He is doing this to showcase the military men and women of this country and the hard work that they do. And it is not, you know, unreasonable to want to have a parade.
I mean, we are doing air shows across the country every single year. I actually blown (ph) enough 16 with the United States thunderbird. And they told me this is all about showing the pride and professionalism of the U.S. military and going out there and seeing the children watch these planes. I mean, these are warplanes, these drop bombs, but that yet have to respect the military because these are the men and women who are keeping us safe every single day. And I made phone calls to my friends today to see what they thought about it, some veterans and active military men and women, and they told me they love it and that it is about time.
GREER: Yes. So in D.C., we are going to spend $22 million. And I know the President doesn`t think that is a lot of money because he spends that in two weekends at Mar-a-Lago. But it is actually a lot of money and it is actually in D.C. And there are other ways that we can show support for our military personnel, not wasting money.
If we had money in the bank, that would be one thing. I don`t know if the Republican party has looked at the books, but we are broke right now and everyone else knows it. So there are other ways that we can show our might. We are still in the middle of two wars, right. There are individuals who are in this wars who weren`t even born when they started. So to have a parade down path the Trump hotel which we know it would be is a fundamental ways --
MELBER: So I was curious as a Trump surrogate, do you like that he got the idea from France?
HAMILL: I don`t dislike it. But of all the headlines today some said, he is channeling in his inner Kim Jong-un.
MELBER: If you don`t dislike it, does that mean you like it?
HAMILL: No. I love the idea of the parade. I`m saying that to showcase - -.
MELBER: Are you say - and I don`t want to take it not too seriously, but you know, "Washington Post" talks about concerns, the displace of missile launches might evoke a Pyongyang style nationalism more than more than American patriotism. They you have the Post also reporting that he got all the idea from France. So in tis one, you have to say this is France`s first.
HAMILL: Yes. It`s interesting to see how people perceive this and take it in the headlines today. So if you have Trump derangement syndrome, then you compare Trump to Hitler or to Russia or to any other evil brutal dictators which is absolutely absurd to compare him at Waters down, what this evil dictators do to their people. I mean, North Korea, they are starving their people.
MELBER: So Stephanie, I think you raise an interesting question then I will turn to Christina which is Stephanie races the point that sometimes the instant this President does something there is a freak out. And that if Barack Obama proposed a military parade, would there will be the same reaction?
GREER: Probably not because Barack Obama did not wake up at 7:00 in the morning tweeting to Kim Jong-un about my (INAUDIBLE) speaker, right. Part of this parade is to show these missiles and bombs which we never felt like we had an erratic President in Obama and Bush and Bush 41 and Reagan where they wake up one morning and say, you know what, I actually want to use this button because it`s mine is bigger and I can. So that is why people are freaking out. We don`t actually need a display of our might, because we are genuinely afraid that this man might use it for no reason at all.
MELBER: As the saying goes, tweet, tweet, who has got the keys to my jeep. I know you like (INAUDIBLE). Who doesn`t?
I want to thank you both for the parade debate, we had it, we had it here, we had both sides.
Christina Greer and Stephanie Hamill.
Up next, the Democratic candidate flipping a House seat and why Democrats -
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: -- story tonight goes beyond Washington but it may offer clues as to who could win this year`s midterms. Today, Donald Trump is tweeting about the volatile Stock Market and a private company`s rocket launch. Apparently that`s what he wants people to look at. Here`s something Donald Trump is not tweeting tonight, Democrats just flipped a State House Seat in a red Trump district in Missouri where Trump won by 18 points. How? Well, they didn`t turn to a Kennedy or a Clinton, they ran a first-time candidate. Here`s 27-year-old Mike Revis filling out his election form in December. Here he was yesterday canvasing with some other local volunteers, ousting ultimately last night a Republican incumbent by three points in a special election to fill a seat, and this was after the incumbent had quit to run for a different office. OK, but that`s one race, right?
Does it say anything about a larger trend? What if we could somehow know how all these local races tacked up? We do. Democrats in Missouri outperformed Hillary Clinton in two races by 18 and 25 points even when they lost to Republicans. Last night`s race was now the 35th seat that has changed from red to blue in the year since Trump became President. Another seat Dems have their eye on is Texas which has an open seat in the House. Here`s first-time candidate and Iraq war veteran Gina Ortiz Jones running there. She was a previously a federal service worker. She quits her job, she says because of Trump`s policies. And if elected, she would be the first gay-Filipina-American to fill a house seat from Texas. Or take Wisconsin, Democrats have won a seat there form the State Senator early this year.
Now, get this, Republican Governor Scott Walker says he won`t even hold special elections, instead leaving the seats vacant, that`s how worried he is Democrats would win them. There`s another way of cresting in another key state. Pennsylvania, Democrat say they could win majorities there. But suddenly a majority may not be enough to take power if Republicans get their way. Look at this map that Republicans proposed. It would say that even if Dems got about 50 percent of the vote, under a GOP gerrymandered map, they would still only win 28 percent of the Congressional seats. So I ask you, how is that even legal? And I have the news for you, it`s not.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the State`s Congressional map. It ruled that districts had been so heavily gerrymandered to benefit Republicans that it violated the State`s Constitution. Analyst says a nonpartisan redrawing could put as many as three seats under Democratic control.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 13 of the state`s 18 Congressional Districts went to Republicans into 2016. That`s 13 Republican, five Democratic, a Republican advantage that is completely out of whack in the swing state.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: You know who else thought that was whack, the Supreme Court because they apparently agreed leaving the ruling in place overruling that Republican power grab. So that means Democrats should be on pace to get more of the map. But look at this, look at the subject line right here from Pennsylvania Representative Cris Dush, threatening to impeach the State Supreme Court members who overruled that power grab map saying, the order contradicts in his view the Pennsylvania Constitution. This is an important story and if you haven`t heard about it, that`s important too because this as a factual matter is what it looks like.
This is the evidence of what happens when some politicians realize they can`t hold on to power by just winning a majority and they start trying to undermine your democracy. Across history, I want to be clear. Both parties have used gerrymandering. But right now, at this moment in history, it is only some member of one party, the Republican Party taking this kind of measures to openly advocate four systems to undercut democracy. Today former Attorney General Eric Holder tied all this gerrymandering together to what he challenges as racial attacks like voter I.D.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIC HOLDER, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES: It`s not a coincidence. Where we see the greatest amount of gerrymandering, during the last round of redistricts in Texas, in Wisconsin, and then with North Carolina, I also see those states have passed some of the most oppressive and unnecessary voter I.D. laws.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Big new report in the New York Times today as well, that says Holder is saying he is determined to deny Republicans so-called trifectas in state governments won through these tactics. I`m joined by that very candidate, Gina Ortiz Jones, Congressional Candidate for U.S. House Seat in Texas as well as for a broader national perspective Jess McIntosh. She`s been an adviser to Hillary Clinton Campaign among other things. Jess, is all this stuff just sort of happening at once, or is this a coordinated campaign?
JESS MCINTOSH, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, HILLARY CLINTON 2016: It`s both. You`re seeing it from the grassroots up and you`re seeing infrastructure organizations, committees, the Democratic Party infrastructure really take this opportunity and run with it well. For a long time, Democrats have known that the key to everything was turning people out in races that were not the every four years presidential. Democrats are very good at getting their folks to come out then and really genuinely, historically pretty bad at getting folks to care about special elections, House races, State Legislative races, ballot initiatives, those little things that Republicans have out-organized us on in terms -- those are the things that add up to make national federal policy, those are the leaders of tomorrow that we are electing today, those are the people who are going to make the laws that affect you at home the most.
So if we can solve this problem, that`s the whole ball game. And what`s happened in 2017 and beginning in 2018, is we are seeing voter turnout that suggests progressives have cracked the code to getting their voters to care about these local elections. We`re seeing 46 percent turnout in special legislative elections that ought to be garnering nine and ten percent turnout. Even in the races that we lost last night, you`re saw double- digit over performance. If you apply it out across the national board, we`re in --
MELBER: If somebody -- if somebody is watching at home going, OK, I just said that, you just said that, but they`re not hearing about that, they`re hearing about Trump, they`re hearing about Twitter, they`re not hearing what you just said that in Missouri, and then your response in Texas is what you`re aiming for, these are not states that is Democrats just pick up House seats random -- State House seats randomly.
MCINTOSH: We picked up in Oklahoma. But so far it doesn`t matter that this hasn`t been a bigger national story, I think it will be especially now that we move into an electoral year but people are showing up anyway.
GINA ORTIZ JONES, CANDIDATE; TEXAS HOUSE SEAT: It will be in less than four weeks in Texas. The early voting starts in Texas in 13 days, right? And so the example of Virginia is not lost in Texas. That if we put up folks that excite and represent the base and are talking about the issues that matter, in my district, district that Hillary won was narrowly lost at the congressional level by just one point, right? When the Republican has to spend $2 million more dollars to do that, and only won by 3,000 votes, this is a race that we loses, not that they win.
MELBER: When a voter asks you, what`s the biggest reason they should vote for you?
JONES: Well, I`m going to fight for them. I know exactly what it`s like to be them, I am from the area, I, at my core though, understand that there are not a lot of kids that go from reduced launch to executive office of the president. When I left my federal career, that`s where I served, my country, my community invested in me, and this is about protecting those opportunities that allowed me to grow up healthy, get an education and serve my country.
MELBER: And you think Texas Democrats are talking too much about Trump or not enough?
JONES: Texas Democrats are talking about you know, what affects them every single day, and it`s the fact that we have the highest maternal mortality rate in developed world, one in ten kids in this country goes to school in Texas, our health statistics are abysmal, and the fact that we need to be investing in real economic opportunity, equitable economic opportunity and a frankly a fair immigration system that does not include a wall.
MELBER: Gina Ortiz Jones, we`ll be watching your race and wanted to hear directly from the ground and the grassroots and thank you as always. I have two big questions, one, why did Democratic Senator Bob Menendez just beat corruption charges? Two, why did Jared Kushner support the firing of Jim Comey.Well up next, my exclusive interview with the criminal defense attorney for both men and the discussion of both cases when we`re back in 90 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: As both parties debate how to counter Russia from meddling in the midterms, Democrats just named a new leader for the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Bob Menendez is taking back the top perch that he vacated two years ago when facing corruption charges.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tonight one of the most influential Democrats in Washington, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey has been indicted, facing federal corruption charges.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s not just a criminal case, it has implications on what the U.S. Senate could be.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The trial begins in the first federal bribery case involving a sitting senator in more than three decades.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Federal prosecutors touted a strong case with a range of evidence showing Menendez took $751,000 from a doctor, a donor who wasn`t from Menendez`s state. Prosecutors argued this is quid pro quo. Now, Menendez` lawyer Abbe Lowell has (INAUDIBLE) outlined a friendship defense. The legal strategy was what everyone thought of the underlying activity, it was friends vacationing not a donor giving benefits.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBE LOWELL, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: This jury could not, would not and did not return a verdict that validated any of the government`s charges. And at the end of the day, the fundamental reason for that is that this is what happens when you put a real 25-year friendship on trial.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That strategy did work on enough jurors, the case ended in a deadlock. One juror who left the case had prosecutors just weren`t clear enough about what was a gift.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Following more than a week of deliberations, a judge today declared a mistrial in Senator Bob Menendez` bribery trial after the jury reported it was deadlock.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They got it confused that this man wants to take him on any flight. And if that`s his friend, why does it have to be a gift?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: The DOJ planned to retry the case then folded dropping the all the charges against Menendez and vindicating Abby Lowell`s legal strategy. That top defense attorney joins me now. Abbe Lowell represented Menendez as well as former Presidential Candidate John Edwards and former Nevada Senator John Ensign. Thanks for being with me.
LOWELL: I`m happy to be here, thanks.
MELBER: Why did your strategy work?
LOWELL: I think my hour, it`s a collective effort, strategy worked, because from the day the Justice Department conceived to this case, it had a hidden flaw. It alleged a corrupt relationship when there was only a real friendship. And so the defense strategy was just to expose that flaw. It wasn`t that we were all that creative, it wasn`t that we were all that talented, it was that when you had a flaw that was so fundamental to the very core of the government`s charges, our job was to peel back the layers and expose the flaw.
MELBER: If you couldn`t prove that there was some kind of friendship would these acts then become illegal?
LOWELL: Not necessarily, and that is again that`s a little bit technical, so I`ll try to make it un-technical. There`s -- a couple of --
MELBER: I can handle it, the viewers can handle it. Go for it.
LOWELL: All right, all right. So there`s two different things going on here. In order to have a public corruption case, at the core, you need to have a corrupt relationship. You have to have a quid pro quo. You have to an agreement of this for that, that`s predicated on some corrupt arrangement. A real friendship tears away at the formula quid pro quo. On the other side of the equation is the quo, which is the Latin for the act. And in this case what Senator Menendez was charged with, was taking actions consistent with his experience and his history on matters of real Congressional oversight, but all of which were within the discretion of the executive branch.
MELBER: I want to broaden out from Menendez and ask you about policy, because I think you know, a lot of Americans across the spectrum are concerned about money and politics and potential corruption. And so I wonder if this case from the Supreme Court and now your case which was a a legal vindication, it wasn`t a not guilty plea but the case is over, provides a road where people can say they`re really good friends with ten or 20 or 100 donors and get away with things through friendship alleged that otherwise, they wouldn`t.
LOWELL: Friendship isn`t the solution to all allegations of corruption. In some theoretical way, a friend could still corrupt a friend. However, not in the way that the government said that these alleged bribes occurred. These weren`t bags of cash hidden in refrigerators, these weren`t gold relics, watches, in fact, the only watch that was ever in evidence, in this case, was the one that Senator Menendez gave his friend, not the other way around.
MELBER: Do you know what ultimately delivered it for the jurors that you did find agreed with you? We`ve just discussed a couple of topics. Was there a one big thing?
LOWELL: I think there was. We have interviewed, I think now probably six or seven of the jurors and two or three of the four alternates, so we have really spoken to quite a number of them, not all of them. I think what happened is that we all exposed that flaw and what the jury said was, this was a real friendship, number one, the kinds of things that they were doing together, personal hospitality, staying at a house, going on the guy`s own private plane with other people that were going anyway, having a perfectly proper campaign contribution are what friends do. There was nothing that was peculiar about that. So you establish the friendship, you show that the gifts are in keeping with friendship and you show that his actions are in keeping with his history and those are three things that the jurors glommed on to.
MELBER: And while I have you, Abe, given all the news, another client of yours is Jared Kushner. He spoke to the Special Counsel reportedly in November. Will he speak to Robert Mueller Again or is he done with that?
LOWELL: Not mixing apples and oranges, so I can only state the obvious which is that Mr. Kushner has cooperated with all relevant inquiries from all relevant bodies. We`ll just wait and see what those are.
MELBER: If he`s asked to go back, he would speak to Mueller again?
LOWELL: I think I`ll stand by what I said, there is no reason why he would not respond as he`s done. He`s been completely cooperative with any relevant entity and let`s leave it at that.
MELBER: Understood. The only other item on that, I was curious about as I read in the Wall Street Journal that you said that Jared Kushner supported the termination of Jim Comey as a decision by President Trump. I`m wondering, did he also support the stated rationale that Russia was on the President`s mind?
LOWELL: I don`t understand that question, I`m sorry. I mean what I have said and I say it again here, is that when he was told about the decision, he supported it. And why he supported it and what else was going on at the time really is not something that I think anybody is really conjectured about. But, look, I for one, and let me you know, sort of remind folks about this, as somebody who did not come from the Republican side of events, back last summer, the summer before this summer, and then in the fall before the election, I was as strong a voice as anybody that what FBI Director Comey did was wrong, violated the precedence of the Justice Department and the FBI, was absolutely untoward and really undermined his ability to be a leader of that agency.
And I too would have been one of the voices that said that a President of the United States should seriously consider whether his actions merited his being fired. And so what`s ironic in that way is that you had for a long time, what, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of public official Democrats all over the country yelling and screaming for Director Comey to be fired and ultimately that was what happened and it was deserved. Now, people can question timing and events and language, but he had obviously undermined his own ability to lead that agency and I think we have to leave it at that.
MELBER: Well, I mean, you go there, there`s wide legal expertise in support for part of the argument you just made but isn`t the legal question that Bob Mueller is looking at is whether anyone involved in that firing had a corrupt intent to obstruct justice, that it is -- it was about stopping an investigation, like the Russia probe. I mean, that`s why --
LOWELL: I don`t know. I think you`ll have to ask Bob Mueller what it is that he`s looking at in terms of that. I can`t answer that question.
MELBER: I`m glad you came on THE BEAT to share your views of the Menendez trial and other issues in the news. Thank you.
LOWELL: Thank, Ari.
MELBER: Several key legal points there. Former Federal Prosecutor Joyce Vance joins me next to walk through that interview and how Comey figures into the rest of the Russia probe.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LOWELL: -- FBI Director Comey did was wrong, violated the precedence of the Justice Department and the FBI, was absolutely untoward and really undermined his ability to be a leader of that agency. And I too would have been one of the voices that said that a President of the United States should seriously consider whether his actions merited his being fired.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That was moments ago here on THE BEAT. Jared Kushner`s Criminal Defense Attorney Abbe Lowell discussing why James Comey deserved in his words to be fired. As promised, I`m joined by Joyce Vance, a former Federal Prosecutor. What struck you about the interview?
JOYCE VANCE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It`s a really remarkable jump, right to the chase because this is the key question for Kushner. If he supported the firing of Jim Comey, what was his motive? And you know, Ari, what I always notice here is that it might have been fair and legitimate for the President to replace Jim Comey when he walked in the door at the White House thinking that he didn`t like how Comey handled the Hillary Clinton investigation. But it doesn`t look like that`s what actually happened. There is a gap of several weeks if not months.
And then he suddenly comes up with this idea that he was going to fire Comey, tells Russians in the Oval Office that was due to Comey`s involvement in the Russia case. Now, I finally got that monkey off my back and goes on national television and tells the American public it was really about Russia. So although Abbe Lowell tries to side step the question a little bit here, he doesn`t really answer it. And I`m sure what Bob Mueller asked Jared Kushner about but perhaps more importantly than asking has tried to discern from other sources was Kushner also concerned about Comey because of the investigation.
MELBER: Right. And there are reports that we haven`t confirmed but in books like Fire and Fury and elsewhere and Steve Bannon has done his share of casting aspersions about that, you know, what did you think of the defense attorney saying, well, he doesn`t understand the question but here are the previous Democratic criticisms of Comey which is true. A lot of Democrats, we had one on the show today, Lanny Davis mad at Comey.
VANCE: Right. I mean, you know, he immediately told you that he didn`t understand the question. And then he proceeds to answer it. But we both know that Abbe Lowell is a great lawyer. He`s the kind of defense lawyer that you hire when you intend to go to the mattresses, not when you intend to plead out early on in the case. So he has to realize that the issue here is whether or not Kushner was involved in terminating Comey because Comey was perceived as being a threat.
MELBER: Right. Joyce Vance, a busy news night, thank you for making time for us.
VANCE: Thanks for having me, Ari.
MELBER: We`re going to fit in a break and show you a little more Nancy Pelosi. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: Our show began with Nancy Pelosi making a little parliamentary history, the longest speech ever on the floor of the House calling for that DACA vote. And we wrap up here with a little programming note. Eric Holder will be on "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" tonight. Something worth watching. "HARDBALL" starts now.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END