IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Hours away from another government shutdown. TRANSCRIPT: 2/8/2018. The Beat with Ari Melber

Guests: Tim Miller; Nick Ackerman; Kate Brennan; Margaret Carlson; Kirsten Haglund

Show: THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER Date: February 8, 2018 Guest: Tim Miller; Nick Ackerman; Kate Brennan; Margaret Carlson; Kirsten Haglund

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST, MTP DAILY: How about Washington, D.C.? The uni code consortium as you covered two. Get it?

So Maine, congratulations! The lobster will be a great addition to our menu of icons. Now we just need one for draw in butter (ph).

That's all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow with more "MTP Daily."

"The Beat" with Ari Melber starts right now.

Good evening, Ari.

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chuck. Thank you.

Tonight, we begin with new reports on Vladimir Putin, yes, meddling in the upcoming midterms.

Also, the Dow dropping four percent give or take today. But more importantly, the big picture, it is now down from ten percent from a recent annual high, those market jitters probably not helped by, yes, I'm sorry to tell you, maybe another government shutdown. It is Republican Rand Paul now blocking a vote on that budget deal.

All those stories are developing, while a former vice President just said something you don't hear every day. Joe Biden says in public, the current President of the United States may be compromised by quote "information from a foreign power."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why do you think this President is so reluctant to take on Vladimir Putin?

JOE BIDEN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Look, you know, I want to give every American, including the President the benefit of the doubt. But I can't fathom any reason other than he is concerned what Putin might say or do or what information he may or may not have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: What information he may or may not have. If a President's compromised, that could affect how he handles attacks from a foreign power of any kind, including on the democratic system, they are strolling along tonight about the Trump administration's inactions. A group of House Democrats calling for urgent and immediate hearings to address the future Russian meddling that stored the Trump administration appears to take little if any action to secure or election systems.

Now as we often ask in the news, is this another partisan fight, is it Dems against Trump, Republicans for Trump and is that what this story is? The fact is not really. Donald Trump's own chief diplomat this week also sounded this alarm about Russian meddling. He said this is a problem. The issue is Trump administration follow through, the issue, according to people across the spectrum is whether this administration is going to do anything about Russian meddling. And here is another top Republican making news tonight by rebutting Donald Trump's denials of Russian meddling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's pretty clear evidence that the Russians meddled, whether they affected the outcome is another question, but they meddled and that's dangerous for democracy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Dangerous. We have that as audio because it was from a speech the President was giving. Now in a moment I will speak to a top Congress person about what should be done about all this.

As for what Bob Mueller is doing? His former colleague Eric Holder telling Rachel Maddow that as a technical matter, Mueller already has a case for obstruction of justice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC HOLDER, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: It I think you technically have a case of obstruction of justice, I'm not saying that this is a case you would necessarily bring at this point and I don't know what other evidence the special counsel has, but I think on the basis of what's been reported in the media and assuming those reports are accurate, I do think you have a technical case of obstruction of justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Now, that's not nothing. But in watching the reception to the attorney general's comments in the news last night. There are some people who think Eric Holder said all of this means that Mueller will pursue obstruction or even if Mueller has the legal authority to indict a sitting President. Some might even like that idea.

Let's be clear tonight, that's not what the former attorney general who chooses his words carefully, that's not exactly what he said.

To dig in, I want to go to Nick Ackerman, a former Watergate special prosecutor now at "Dorsey and Whitney," Kate Brannen write about law and the Russian probe for just security and Tim Miller, a former senior aid to Jeb Bush,

Kate, I start with you, because the attorney general on the one hand says a lot of bad stuff. On the other hand, he certainly did not suggest, and most justice departments have never suggested that the immediate solution to potential Presidential crimes is indictment of a sitting President.

KATE BRANNEN, DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR, JUST SECURITY: That's right. And former attorney general Holder admitted that it's unsettled law whether you can indict a sitting President. There's these two memos from the office of legal counsel that currently control the sort of conventional wisdom on this which is that you can't. He also indicated that while a technical standard for obstruction he believes has been met, he also said that, this is an incredibly unusual high stakes political situation. So whether or not special counsel Mueller would bring the case is an entirely different question. And Holder admits he doesn't have all the information at his disposal so he doesn't know what Mueller's looking at and whether he has sort of reached that standard.

MELBER: You mentioned those memos. We are going to hear more about this, Nick, this is something that usually lawyers only talk to each other about in private company and we don't try to bore anyone else about it.

But Kate refers to a process inside the justice department, that is sort of the DOJ's DOJ, the office of legal counsel. Folks may remember, they were a big deal during the debate over torture because they had some memos that said, you definitely can't do these things, they amount to torture, and then under the Bush administration they seemed to change, which is a reminder, whatever you think of the issues these things can change.

I suspect though, that you have a slight disagreement with me about my interpretation of what Eric Holder said. I'm curious, your analysis.

NICK ACKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: In terms of what he said about the obstruction, I mean, first of all, I think he is right. There is technically a case for obstruction at this point. But I don't think Mueller is going to bring it unless he can show the obstruction has consciousness and guilt in motive for underlying crime. Which I also think he is going to be able to prove. I think there is going to be an indictment that's going to have a conspiracy charge.

MELBER: An indictment of whom?

ACKERMAN: And indictment -- maybe not of the President, but certainly some of his relatives and others.

MELBER: OK. Let me play for your response on that point. This is more of what attorney general Eric Holder, former attorney general said last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is it your view that a President could be indicted?

HOLDER: It's not settled law. And I have looked at all of those opinions and it seems to me that there are some, I think, fairly -- I think some fairly persuasive arguments that can be made that a President can be indicted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACKERMAN: I think there's an argument on both sides, I mean really there's no law. To say it's not settled means it's not nothing. There really is just a practical issue that's been raised, that if a President were under indictment, it would be very difficult for a President to carry out his duties because he would be concern about defending his case. He may have to spend six to eight weeks before a jury and a trial. So I think there is a practical concern that is out there which is why ultimately I don't think Richard Nixon was indicted for any of the crimes on which they had evidence, and we did have evidence, I understand he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator, and then it was left to the Congress to impeach. And at the point he would have been indicted. But Gerald Ford interceded and pardon Richard Nixon. So we never really got an answer to that question.

MELBER: Tim, do you think if Jeb Bush, your old boss, were president, we would be talking about on the news right now in his second year?

TIM MILLER, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR JEB BUSH CAMPAIGN: Well, I don't think that Jeb would have been cheering on the Russian interference in our elections, so no. And then, frankly, so I guess this is all speculation, but I don't think the Russians would have been siding with Jeb either in the election, for a variety of reasons, including their relationship potentially to this President and Jeb's hostility to them.

And so, look. I think the bigger question here, we get bogged down in my view in a lot of these daily scandals and a lot of the legalese around this. And the big picture gets lost, where the Russians interfered in our elections to benefit his opponent. He cheered them on. His son welcomed outreach from them. I mean, as far as I am concerned, he is politically guilty of behavior that would have been unacceptable among a leader of either party as recently as least two years ago.

MELBER: Let me play for you to that point a little more from that Joe Biden interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: It is negligence. It is absolutely negligence. I mean, here you have you are talking about secretary of state saying we know they are still doing this, and we can't stop them. What have he done?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Negligence on the ongoing Russian meddling.

Tim to your point, when you say Donald Trump's politically guilty, you mean as you put it, put aside the legalese, your assessment of him and his conduct with regard of his adversarial nation, Russia.

MILLER: Of course. And look. If you consider the context, and this is and somehow as Mitt Romney said, our number one geopolitical thumb would be they engaged in active measures against our country. That is not in debate by anyone except for the current President. Now the President's not acting on sanctions that Congress has passed against them. He is not taking a leadership role in any meaningful way in speaking out about how we can prevent this in the future. He is actually, you know, increasing the doubt that this might happen again or that this happened at all. And you know, there are potentially many other threats that this is impacting throughout the world, as we have seen, you know, yesterday in Syria Syrians, with the Russians' action backing Bashar Assad and their attacks against our troops. So you know, look. I think that this President, you know, is far past guilty with regards to how he has dealt with Russia.

MELBER: And Kate, when people do things over and over, sometimes get they get better at them. Have you ever noticed that, just generally?

BRANNEN: Yes. Not always in my case, but yes.

MELBER: OK. Well, you very modest.

But generally, and the Russians are doing this, and it has yielded results in 2016 on release the memo as we and other reporting last week. And now have the head of cyber security for DHS, again, under the Trump administration saying 21 states and some of them had their voter rolls penetrated NBC News reports. If they are doing it and they are getting better, what should we worry about as the implication for our next election?

BRANNEN: Well, I think the NBC report noted that the systems were penetrated but that no votes were tallied that we are aware of this time. So obviously that's a thing to worry about, when vote actually, you know, change.

As we were talking, though, I was reminded about sort of what has the Trump administration done in regards to the interference of the 2016 election. This gets to, you know, something that is right at the center of the Mueller probe, which are these phone calls that the former national security advisor at the time on the transition team Michael Flynn made to the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, saying we think as reported, hey look. You can sort of don't retaliate against these sanctions that the Obama administration is imposing. We will take care of those when we come in to office. I mean, that signal right out of the gate is this punishment for this incredible breach of U.S., you know, national security is going to go unpunished once we take office. And that's why those calls are so important.

MELBER: And it was the first priority before we even take office and that as Nick and others are pointing out on this program, that Mike Flynn felt the need to lie to the FBI about that.

Kate Brennan, Nick Ackerman and Tim Miller out in Oakland, thanks each of you for joining our coverage.

I want to turn to New York congressman Jerry Nadler. He is the top Democrat in House judiciary committee.

You are calling as we report tonight for these urgent hearings, why?

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY), RANKING MEMBER, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Well, we are calling for urgent hearings because we now have -- we have had reports for some time, but now the head of the cyber security division at DHS said yesterday that the Russians had penetrated -- had attacked the 21 states, penetrated a number of them. And we think they will do it again. That everybody from George Bush to the CIA director Mike Pompeo and to others, have all said the Russians attacked the elections. They are continuing to do it. And they will do it again. And this President alone apparently, even in his own administration, refuses to acknowledge that the Russians attacked us, refuses to defend us, to do anything to protect the integrity of our elections coming up.

Now the elections coming up are obviously important elections. But we depend on elections to govern us. That's what makes our government ours.

MELBER: Right.

NADLER: That's what makes a democracy.

MELBER: I'm sorry you have to say that, that's what's weird at a certain point.

I want to let you continue your point, but I also play for you what you cited, which was the public statements of DHS here that you are saying spurred some of the hearings. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We saw targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of that 21 were actually successfully penetrated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: For us to understand because you have made yourself an expert on this, what does penetration mean of voter rolls in that context.

NADLER: I'm not sure what she means by penetration.

MELBER: So you don't know either?

NADLER: No.

MELBER: I mean, does she mean that they are changing names or potentially extracting -- go ahead.

NADLER: I don't know that. I would assume it means at least that they have access to the data, and could release the data, to copy it. It maybe they could change it, I'm not sure. And that's one of the reasons why we have to have hearings.

Now a year ago in February, we got a promise from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that we would hold hearings on the subject and we have heard nothing since. At this point, given the fact that it is a year later, only a few months from our next major elections, we have got to get to the bottom of this and find out what we can do to protect our election, the integrity of our elections. And the fact that this administration is apparently doing nothing, because the President feels the psychological or the need to deny the attack in the first place or deny that there's a threat is incredibly threat into our democratic system.

MELBER: And congressman, while I have you, you and I have been able to talk over the years about the constitution. I know you think about it very deeply on the committee. And we have debated these things out as many people have. I'm curious as a matter of the constitution, not one's views on this or that President, your view of what has now become an increasingly heated debate about whether a sitting President can lawful be indicted.

NADLER: My view as a sitting President can lawfully be indicted. The law on that was worked out by the counsel and the Jaworski special counsel and Ken Starr for that matter 20 years later. But more importantly, to deny that a sitting President can possibly be indicted, whether he should be or not is another question obviously. But to deny categorically that a President can't be indicted is to say that the President is above the law. And no president - no person in this country may be above the law.

MELBER: Is it, sir,? Or is it the counter veiling constitutional argument that the matter of the Presidency as chief executive comes first. And if there is overwhelming evidence of the crime, the first mechanism it to remove from office, then the second would be to apply the law. I mean, there is --

(CROSSTALK)

MELBER: -- that does in position him as above the law, congressman.

NADLER: Not really. Because someone who cannot be indicted is above the judicial system and above the law. And that I don't think can be in this country.

An impeachment which is what you just referenced is a political act and is a defense is intended by the constitution to be a defense against a President or other official that would threaten liberty or threaten the separation of powers or threaten the structure or democratic republic. But this is a political act which is a very different from justice. And to say that a President cannot be indicted is to say that the President personifies is the executive branch. And I think there are a lot of implications to that which are not desirable as a matter of law or democratic theory.

MELBER: Congressman Nadler, thanks for joining "the Beat" tonight.

NADLER: You are quite welcome.

MELBER: Coming up, John Kelly under fire for supporting a very controversial White House aid.

Also, we will peel back some of the right wing claims about this supposed perjury trap for Trump and what could happen in a Mueller interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He would though to himself (INAUDIBLE) this night.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. I think he would do a good job when I think he should do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Also, something different tonight. The Actor, Jim Carey, pulling out of Facebook. I have special report on that.

And later, Sherrilyn Ifill from the NAACP legal defense come joins me for what she said is most important story you are not hearing about.

I'm Ari Melber. You are watching "the Beat" on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MELBER: New tonight, a top Republican criticizing White House chief of staff John Kelly for how he handled the dismissal of a staffer accused of abusing his ex-wives.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: What general Kelly knew and when he knew it is important. I like general Kelly. I have got a lot of confidence in him. But he will have to explain to the President what he knew and when he knew it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: John Kelly reportedly aware of aspects of this allegation for months. And he defended the staffer when the story first broke, he even tried to talk him into staying according to the "New York Times."

Now Kelly has been heralded as Trump's last best hope and a beacon of discipline. But all this disarray is raising questions and it comes as another former White House aid is speaking out where people speak out about matters on a reality TV show about Trump and the team that Kelly oversees.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does anybody say to him, what are you doing?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, I have try tried to be that person and then all the people around him attacked me. It was like keep her away. Don't give her access. And it's like (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who has that power to say what's going on?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know. I'm not there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Kirsten Haglund and Margaret Carlson join me.

Margaret, do you want me to use a low voice?

MARGARET CARLSON, THE DAILY BEAST: And wear a snuggly around you as Amarosa has.

MELBER: I think if I am really quiet it will show how serious this moment is.

CARLSON: But you also have to have a tear to wipe away.

MELBER: So there's the ridiculous part and the serious part. I will start with the ridiculous, which is Amarosa weighing in, this White House, this team, the loss of discipline, you write in your new piece that if Kelly was to impact Trump, it is quite the opposite.

CARLSON: Well, Trump might have let this go. But you would think that the general was brought in to bring discipline and not let it go.

You know, in fairness to the White House, when you know somebody, it's very hard to believe that they could be completely another person in another situation. On the other hand, you know, I'm thinking the way they treated it, if the White House were Miramax, you know, Harvey Weinstein would have been allowed to make another movie.

They heard this and like it was day in fight. Because the philosophy I think of the wider culture now is believe women when they tell you things and look at the evidence that supports her. Whereas in the White House, if you deny it, then that denial prevails above all else.

And you know, couple of months ago, Sarah Sanders said at a briefing that the fact that Trump denied the 11 women that accused him of various sexual conduct means that he didn't do it. And so therefore that's why there is no, you know, there is no push back against that because it's been settled, you know. He didn't do any of that.

But, you know, what was left with Rob Porter is for someone like general Kelly to do the hard thing, which is to say to somebody that you are close to, he called him a confidant and a friend, and to say, you know, this is unacceptable and I'm sorry, but you have to go, it's not to go, please stay and fight.

MELBER: Right. Kirsten Haglund, as a conservative analyst, your view?

KIRSTEN HAGLUND, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: It's unfortunate and it is extremely disappointing because so many of us had high hopes when John Kelly became the chief of staff that this was going to be the signal of some good change. Unfortunately, the judgment is not just there. And Senator Lindsey Graham was right and I think you will see many other Republicans coming out in the next couple of days.

MELBER: Is this a water shed for you in your view with John Kelly?

HAGLUND: Absolutely, 100 percent. But I will say that I had reservations with him going in to begin with, because when you saw his short tenure and what he said during his time as secretary of, you know, the department of homeland security, he also had a very nationalist, populist tone which showed that he wasn't that far from the President at least as far as policy was concerned.

MELBER: Yes, nationalist tone. He said a school teacher ought to go to hell. He attacked member of Congress as an empty barrel. He said that, you know, maybe slavery was really not the main cause of the civil war. And you see it up here most recently this week, he said that people who don't register under DACA which could get him deported, depending on what happens, they are now lazy for doing that.

HAGLUND: Yes. So as much as people expected to enforce discipline, he doesn't seem like he has been able to enforce discipline with himself and what he is saying, right. And being cognizant of the way that he comes across. But you know what? I think, even more so, I don't think that the President would necessarily want to get rid of him or be forced to get rid of him because of the Rob Porter issue, unfortunately. It's going to be because he keeps getting bad press attention and it reflects badly on him.

MELBER: Well, Kirsten Haglund, appreciate your care and to Margaret Carlson, appreciate your analysis. Obviously, we will look to more news on this on "Dancing with the Stars" when other former aides leave the White House. Thank you both.

My question tonight, are we all living in a Truman show? And how is Facebook controlling what we see online including what Russians want us to see. I have a special look at that next.

Also, the Trump-Mueller showdown, you keep hearing about the strategy, but what is Mueller's goal and could it be a trap?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He would purge himself before he said his name.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. I think he would do a good job. And I think you should do it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I also think you would an excellent job. I too think you should do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: A quick take there on the other top story tonight, will Trump talk to Mueller and what if he lies?

Some of Trump's allies have been warning against that kind of interview, calling it, well, we'll let Admiral Ackbar take it from here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take evasive action. Very good. It's a trap.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Like the admiral, Trump's allies are worried, they say it's a trap, a perjury trap, which can be a way to catch someone in a lie when there's no other real crime or investigation going on. Clinton lawyers cried foul over their view that Ken Star's questioning in the Lewinsky case could also end up being a perjury trap. So this is something that comes up in people's defenses, but it's also something that almost never actually happens.

Today, we went out in our reporting and spoke to several former federal prosecutors each of whom said they couldn't come up with a single example where a judge has actually tossed a recent federal conviction because of a perjury trap. What you see more often is real perjury. Take the O.J. case, Defense Attorney Johnny Cochran used the case to put the LAPD on trial. And he alleged that there were officers who were racist and used racial epithets. Even the prosecutors ultimately had to admit that because an officer perjured himself by lying initially claiming on the stand that he'd never use such an epithet. Here's was that famous perjury moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you say on your oath that you have not addressed any black person as a (BLEEP) or spoken about black people as (BLEEP) in the past 10 years, Detective Fuhrman?

MARK FUHRMAN, FORMER DETECTIVE, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT: That's what I'm saying, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So if anyone who comes to this court and poke you as using that word in dealing with African Americans would be liar, would they not Detective Fuhrman?

FUHRMAN: Yes, they would.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All of them, correct?

FUHRMAN: All of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: That footage is what perjury looks like. He was lying on the stand under oath. There are recorded interviews and other witnesses who proved he had exactly used those racial epithets that he disclaimed on the stand and Fuhrman was, guess what, charged with perjury. There was also reverberations in the O.J. trial. No one thought it was a trap. Sometimes perjury is not a trap. It's a crime you get prosecuted for. Let me turn now to Ross Garber, he's a defense lawyer who's defended three Republican governors in impeachment proceedings. And you were, spoiler, one of the experts we called today because originally we thought we would show that perjury example against a famous example of a trap, but why is it so hard to find judicial rulings throwing out perjury traps?

ROSS GARBER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, I think the whole notion of a perjury trap is sort of a misnomer. I think what winds up happening and it's actually just as dangerous or more dangerous, it's sort of a clash of personalities and ideas which often have our prosecutors and agents who have been looking at a case, studying it, spending their days and nights with it, who get ready to do questioning, and then you have a witness who's supposed to be giving answers to the questions from the agents, and memories aren't perfect, recollections aren't perfect, people speak loosely. And so what you wind up happening, and I think if you ask those same defense lawyers whether they've had the situation, I bet all of them would say yes, it's where a prosecutor and an agent ask a question and a witness gives an answer, thinking that they're being straight up and the prosecutor and agent think they lied. And that's a big danger in this situation.

MELBER: Which is -- but that as you explain is not a trap, that is the disagreements you see. Listen, though, to the trump Allies here, using the t-word.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a process crime, perjury trap.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it only takes a couple of slip-ups for them to say to his lawyers, we caught your client in a lie.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's what they call a perjury trap.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't give them that opportunity. Don't help them prosecute you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Like some of those individuals, you have been on the side of several high -profile Republican cases, but you're telling me that legally, they're wrong. That there isn't a common perjury trap and that it's not likely Mueller would bet the farm on it.

GARBER: Yes, what I'm saying is I think people are using the word perjury trap for something a little bit different. I think it's not necessarily a perjury trap, I think it's a big danger that anybody who gives an interview with the government, anybody who testifies is definitely in grave danger of saying something that the government thinks is not true.

MELBER: But Ross, isn't that the point? Mike Flynn didn't take the process seriously, he felt a need by his own guilty plea to lie about sanctions, phone calls, and other things and he got busted. But we're seeing from some of those folks including former Judge Napolitano there that I played is people who do know better, who know how this works, pretending that that problem would be the investigator's fault for asking questions in a proceeding where you could get in trouble. That's not the investigator's fault, is it?

GARBER: Not necessarily the investigator's fault, but two things to note. One is, Ari, you're a lawyer, I promise you that anybody sitting in front of you for hours if you had unlimited time and resources to prepare, would say something during the course of that that you didn't think was completely accurate, that's one. And two, especially if the person who's being questioned is somebody who's used to be in charge, who's used to selling, you know, I found executives to be very, very difficult clients in terms of being questioned by the government. So not necessarily a trap, but certainly, danger. And the other thing I note --

MELBER: Right, legal liability. Quickly, Ross, we got to go.

GARBER: Yes. All right, hey, thank you.

MELBER: You can finish the thought, but quickly.

GARBER: Oh yes, I was just going to say. The other thing I would note is you don't know where this transcript or where these notes are going to go. And for example, you know, this information could go to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who's been a harsh critic in the Democrat of the President, and he could take something that seems innocuous to some people and try to make more out of it than it is. And so --

MELBER: Well, you make two points above the level of exposure and you make a point, I'm sure you know, the Flynn plea agreement, unlike some already committed him to cooperate with any future state prosecutors that Mueller chooses, so you make a very interesting point here. I don't mean to do this, but you called me a very talented lawyer, Ross, I don't know about that, I appreciate it but I have to call you a very talented. So there, we did that.

GARBER: Thanks, Ari.

MELBER: And I appreciate you bringing your expertise, Ross.

GARBER: Thanks for having me.

MELBER: Facebook, is there any way out or are we all now living in the Truman show? You remember Jim Carrey movie where you can't tell what's fake and what's real? Up next, my special look at Facebook's new attempt to deal with fake news, that's when we're back in 90 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MELBER: Now we turn to our look tonight on whether Russians are still gaming one of the most powerful media outlets in the world. A timely question considering it was a sophisticated online campaign that helps push Republican propaganda on the release the memo. Propaganda works by deceiving people into thinking that fake people or fake news are real. We're all more vulnerable online, of course, but we're more likely to live in all kinds of information bubbles. You can think of it like a less extreme version of the 1998 classic the Truman Show where Jim Carrey played Truman Burbank. He lived in an entirely inside a propaganda bubble, which he perceived as real but it was all fake, fake people, fake streets, fake news, built for the ulterior motive of producing the first 24/7 self- enclosed reality show. Truman began blissful in his ignorance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good morning!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good morning!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good morning!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, and in case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening and goodnight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: But then the bubble begins to crack. Truman begins to grasp the clues to his own propaganda prison.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will see a lady on a red bike, followed by a man with flowers, and a Volkswagen Beetle with a dented fender. Look. Lady, flowers, and --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Truman, this is silly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There it is. There it is. There's the dented Beetle, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Once Truman sees that truth, he can't go back, this is, of course, an insight as old as humanity. Fake news isn't appealing because it's fake. It's appealing because it purports to be true, a comforting fantasy. That's what Jim Carrey shows in the Truman Show, just like the famous Allegory of Plato's Cave that people will literally live in an alternate reality if they don't know about the real world out there or even the story of Adam and Eve where it is new knowledge that sets you free and makes you unable to return to your original naked state. In the movie, once Truman discovers his life was literally fake news, his choice was clear.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am the creator of a television show that gives hope and joy and inspiration to millions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Then who am I?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're the star.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening and good night.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Beautiful. Now the real Jim Carrey says in brand new news, he's leaving another bubble because another powerful media executive, he says, failed to address Russian interference and fake news. Carrey posting this new dramatic picture that's supposed to be Zuckerberg saying they're not friends anymore. Carrey says he's deleting his Facebook account, selling his stock and asking other investors to join him. He's putting his money down and using his public following to do this corporate activism which is true because we've been reporting Facebook seems to react more to financial and user pressure than it does to Congress. In fact, remember when Congress held those hearings on Russian interference, Zuckerberg sent that guy, his lawyer in place. But when Kremlin went on to meet about Facebook, Zuckerberg went personally to meet with Putin deputy, even gave him a Facebook t-shirt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, FACEBOOK: We made a shirt for you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Great, thank you so much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Facebook's pressure of campaign and the pressure it's facing is not letting up. The company has gone from denying responsibility for the Russian meddling to admitting there's a fake news problem and they've proposed some vague reforms. And before the election, some of the most shared items on Facebook were fake news. Now the company says it's going to prioritize different content post from friends and is now studying how to play up factual journalism and deemphasizing conspiracies. How they do that has consequences for all of us. Many tech companies have a profit incentive to play up the clickiest things even when they are conspiracies, false, even slanderous.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRISTAN HARRIS, FORMER DESIGN ETHICIST, GOOGLE: If you can make it trend, you can make it true. As soon as it's trending, you can gain that friending algorithm, you can make it true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: That's scary. And so as part of Facebook's proposed solution to change what news trends on the site. They're now holding a vote among users for what sites are most popular. I'll show you this survey, it asks questions like do you recognize the following sites and how much do you trust each site. What? This media company that claims it's not a media company is now holding a popularity contest to decide which news is more credible? Now we called Facebook and I asked, which news outlets will people be able to vote on in this context? Will it be a choice among factual sources, is it New York Times versus Wall Street Journal, OK, or is Facebook's solution to their fake news problem having people choose between news and fake news or news and opinion. If that's what they're doing, they don't get it.

And do you want to know Facebook's answer? So do I. But they declined to provide the list or any examples of any of the news outlets that they're currently surveying in this popularity contest. Now, I will tell you this, on background they told me that publishers who are trusted by people with a range of reading habits will be, they say, valued more favorable that sites that are voted down by their users. Again, it sounds like a popularity contest. And they won't tell us what they're really doing inside. This is a company which makes billions knowing everything about you, gathering and monetizing your data, this company doesn't want you to know much of anything about it. And they were the ones always touting transparency.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZUCKERBERG: The more transparency in communication with the government could do about how they're requesting data from us, the better everyone would feel about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Mark Zuckerburg's flat form, transparency for everyone else, privacy for him. And that brings us back to Jim Carrey. It shows why he's leaving the platform. Though it is revealing that this post about his decision is on another platform, Twitter which has failed to combat this propaganda as well. Leaving and boycotting the bubble one solution. But Carrey apparently is not leaving Twitter, and I don't blame him. These tech companies are now so central to American life and commerce, most people cannot afford to just boycott them.

And let's be clear, the more affluent you are, the less choice you probably have. If you need a social media presence to network, just trying to get your next job and build a professional reputation, the boycotting and financial pressure is one part of this debate. The larger goal can't just be to ditch any one company or end all social media, we're people, we're social, we consume media, and just like parties or dining or fashion, social media is something that will never be finished, as Zuckerberg's own character famously said in another movie, the Social Network.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So it will be finished?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It won't be finished, that's the point, the way fashion is never finished.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fission, fashion is never finished.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're talking about fashion? Really, you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm talking about the idea of it and I'm saying that it's never finished.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Facebook is never finished. Today, it's more influential than ever. And as right now our politics, media, and discourse are convulsing in a time of chaos, the truth deserves more the underlying popularity contest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MELBER: -- serious allegations of widespread abuse by eight different police officers in elite Baltimore gun task force. Prosecutors in trial accusing these officers of being worse than many criminals, planting evidence, stealing drugs, selling drugs and carrying fake guns around so they could potentially plant them on dead bodies to frame people for murder. One officer accused of using his powers to straight up rob people stealing $20,000 from a home. Another woman saying two officers forced their way into her home without a warrant and then arrested her on what she called fake charges.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOVONNE WALKER, ALLEGED TASK FORCE VICTIM: It's about time it's coming to light. To have your life turned upside down for almost two years being incarcerated for you know, three days, luckily we were able to be bailed out, but it's just not something that a person that's never been exposed to should ever have to endure over crooked cops.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: I'm joined by Sherrilyn Ifill, President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Sherrilyn, what were these officers allegedly doing on this task force and what is the root cause in your view of this level of alleged crime by police?

SHERRILYN IFILL, PRESIDENT, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: Well, this task force, Ari, was designed to help deal with what many recognize as a serious public safety problem which is the proliferation of guns and particularly illegal guns on the streets of Baltimore. This is supposed to be an elite unit focused on a particular set of activities that we think contribute to violent crime. And yet, this group of officers were essentially conducting a criminal enterprise as police officers. They were using the position that they have, they were using their access to rob residents of Baltimore, to shake down people, to rob drug dealers to do home invasions and steal money from the safe of individuals in the city.

They sold dirt bikes, they sold drugs, they worked with bail bondsmen in Baltimore County to sell drugs. There are allegations that there were cover-ups regarding how a killing of one motorist occurred in which it's reported that the individual was killed because the police officers simply didn't want to chase him with their car. There are allegations that they covered up all of this activity and much of this activity happened even after they knew they were under, the department was under federal investigation as a result of the pattern and practice investigation that began after Freddie Gray's death.

MELBER: Right. And that's such an important point you raised. Number one, some people watching say, oh, well, these are allegations against cops. A lot of people have an ax to grind against cops. As you know, and I want you to walk us through this, a lot of the most damning testimony is from cops. Let me read from Officer Ward here who says officers kept BB guns in their vehicles so if we accidentally hit somebody or got into a shoot-out, a killing, we could plant them. Sherrilyn?

IFILL: Yes, I mean, this is what has been so riveting and so devastating to hear is that these are not allegations coming from just residents. Although I have to say, Ari, these are things that residents and community members have been saying in Baltimore for years.

MELBER: They know. Apparently, they know.

IFILL: And they have been -- yes -- they have been disbelieved, they have been gaslighted. People wondered you know when the national media with all the cameras came to Baltimore to say why are people engaged in this unrest after Freddie Gray is killed, this has a piece of that puzzle. And so it's been known but what you have in this case is you have actual police officers and a number of them who have pled guilty in this case, by the way, describing the criminal enterprise, describing the actions they engaged in, describing and identifying the other officers who worked with them as part of this criminal enterprise.

And Ari, it's important, these are not individual one-offs. This reveals a structural problem beyond the magnitude I think that we confronted with the pattern and practice investigation because the question is, how could this level of corruption so deep and so heinous go on without being caught. This has only been unearthed because of the federal investigation and the indictments issued by the way, by Rod Rosenstein who was then the U.S. Attorney before he took the job as Deputy Attorney General to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

MELBER: Well, and as you say, federal pressure began in the Obama administration, has crossed over, but also the on-duty killing of a police officer who was scheduled to testify in this trial, something we covered before and I know you shined a light on. Sherrilyn, thank you for joining us and I hope you'll come back to stay on the story with us.

IFILL: Thank you, Ari.

MELBER: We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MELBER: We are back and so is the clock. It's right here. It's because of Congress. We are now five hours away from another potential government shutdown based on the standoff. I can report this hour the White House telling agencies to get ready for that. Senator Rand Paul is the one now blocking a vote a new spending bill to avoid a shutdown.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END