Show: THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER Date: July 30, 2018 Guest: Michael McFaul
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, the pressure is building on President Trump. Leaks suggesting that there may be evidence linking him to that Trump tower meeting which does put him closer to an alleged knowing and willful conspiracy to collude with Russia.
And tonight, I can report, there is actually more bad news in here for Trump. But it comes from his own current lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
And before we get into the details, I want to put in like this. Here is how to think about how tonight is so revealing about the mood at the White House, which is quite dark. If you are accused of murder, the best defense is usually denial, I didn`t do it. If that becomes impossible to claim because there is strong public evidence that you did kill someone, then the next offense typically in law becomes justification. I did it, but it`s not a crime, because the killing was in self-defense, for example, and then it`s not a crime, killing a terrorist on 9/11 is not a crime, in fact, it`s heroism.
Keep those two defenses in mind denial versus the kind of justification. When you hear Giuliani`s new defense, he is not saying no collusion. Today, he is saying collusion is not a crime.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP`S ATTORNEY: I have been sitting here looking under the federal code trying to find collusion.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE:
GIULIANI: Collusion is not a crime.
I`m not even know if that`s a crime, colluding about Russians.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.
GIULIANI: You start analyzing the crime. The hacking is the crime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Giuliani may not always sound that cogent or coordinated. But look, he is on this media blitz, wall the White House, departs from the past strategy, a largely (ph) avoiding mentioning Bob Mueller by name. Donald Trump now claiming Bob Mueller has a legal conflict. The White House won`t even put out support, though, for that claim.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What`s he referring to?
GIULIANI: He is referring to a dispute which I imagine Mueller - I imagine, he disclosed it to Rosenstein when he appointed him because it involved something last year wasn`t , you know, settled to this day.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is that?
GIULIANI: That`s up to the President and Mueller to describe.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What`s the conflict?
GIULIANI: I can`t tell you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you saying that the business conflict that Mueller and President Trump had, is that about his golf course.
GIULIANI: I`m not going to go any further.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: He Ii not going further on that.
Now, there were some specifics when Giuliani talked about other alleged meetings before the Trump tower meeting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The meeting with the Russians, how can you be sure that the President didn`t know before. You are saying it is just he said she said.
GIULIANI: Nobody can be sure of anything. In a situation like this you have two things that argue against Cohen. Two-on-one -- sorry, three things. Then you get to the other meeting he says he was at the President wasn`t at, three to four on one and then he added or Lanny Davis has added that there was a meeting two days before the meeting took place with Donald Junior, Jared, Manafort and two others, gates and one more person.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And that`s a real meeting? You`re saying --
GIULIANI: That`s a real meeting on another provable subject in which (INAUDIBLE).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: If there was a real pre-meeting it hasn`t been discussed in public. Now hours later, Giuliani says this phantom meeting, if you want to call it that, was investigated recently by two publications but the meeting never happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: Had a meeting, an alleged meeting three days before, according to Cohen or according to the leak, maybe Cohen will withdraw this, I don`t know, they haven`t pursued it, the two publications won`t publish it, I think they sound independent contradictions. He says there was a meeting with Donald Junior with Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort with Gates and possibly two others in which they out of the presence of the President, discussed the meeting with the Russians. We checked with their lawyers, the ones we could check with, which was four of the six, that meeting never ever took place. It didn`t happen. It is a figment of his imagination or he is lying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: OK. Let`s deal with the figments clearly.
Giuliani says the only reason he brought up this other meeting he says did not happen, that he wanted to get out in front of a leak. Ruddy is saying Michael`s big secret evidence, if he has it, is actually nothing.
You can think of this attack that is an argument that Michael Cohen is like Geraldo and he is going to open this famous vault but the vault is actually empty, no meeting. So if Giuliani is right, if Michael Cohen`s big vault of evidence doesn`t have anything in it that will deal with the probe, well, then we will see.
But Michael Cohen and Lanny Davis are not Geraldo. They are not standing in front of a vault. This whole thing is weird which is why we are reaching for weird references. How do you accuse someone going full Geraldo, promising a vault, in this case, a meeting, when they haven`t done it and there`s no vault.
I begin with this absurd line of questioning with a very serious panel. Mara gay, member of the "New York Times" editorial board, Shelby Holliday, a reporter for "The Wall Street Journal" and Neera Tanden, a former top aide to Hillary Clinton and president and CEO of the Center for American Progress.
Shelby, let me start with you. What does it mean when Rudy Giuliani says Michael Cohen might come forward in front of this vault but the vault is empty and yet we are at a period in this debate where Michael Cohen haven`t done that.
SHELBY HOLLIDAY, REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: There is a lot of ways to interpret what Rudy Giuliani is saying. But one thing that is very interesting is in the past he has come out to try to get ahead of other stories like the Stormy Daniels payment. And it`s been his job to sort of leak information that might be coming out anyway to do a little bit of damage control for when that information does come it. It`s unclear if that is what he is doing here because he is on some networks denying this alleged meeting ever took place.
But on CNN it was a little more confusing when he seemed to say that it was a meeting and that it would be four against one or five against one in terms of I don`t even know whether or not that meeting took place or what was said at the meeting. So he is confusing a lot of people.
But another thing that Rudy could be doing is trying to take away some of the leverage that Michael Cohen has if he wants to cooperate with prosecutors. What he has to offer might be taken away by Rudy publicly. And if you look at all the other stories including leaks about tapes, those have seem to come from Giuliani and Trump. So it does seem like they are trying to kind of mess with Michael Cohen. At this point, they are upset with him. They are disappointed. And quite frankly, they are very scared of him.
MELBER: Neera?
NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT/CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Yes, I would have a similar interpretation. I guess I would say overall what Giuliani is trying to do, it seems to me, is just muddy up the water as much as possible, so when a bombshell does come out, it sounds like it is a little bit old news. He is like he contradicted himself a lot today.
But I think the fact that he conceded collusion when the President of the United States has been saying there is no collusion is an important fact. Look. This is an important criminal investigation that at the end of the day, the President`s lawyer has admitted, at least for a time today, that the President of the United States colluded with the Russians to help win his election. And I know he wants to say that the question before Mueller is the criminality, absolutely, the fact the President`s lawyer has conceded collusion with the Russians to get himself elected, I think most Americans would see that as a pretty big bombshell in and of itself.
MELBER: Yes.
TANDEN: And a fact we should be deeply anxious about the legitimacy of this President.
MELBER: That`s the headline on the screen. If you look at on your news screen and you see Giuliani claims colluding with Russia is not a crime, right. That`s a bad thing, whether it is colluding with Russia or Iran or whomever, that`s a bad thing that is now being sold as not a crime. And we have done reporting on this show and I think folks are aware depending what the collusion entails it absolutely can be a crime because an international conspiracy to get a thing of value or impact the U.S. election is criminal activity, it depends who knew what where or when.
With that in mind, Neera, as such experienced person that you at the Nexis of campaigns and the media where these things do play out, let`s take a listen to why Giuliani says he is the first mover on bringing up the pre- meeting Geraldo same thing. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: Why do I mention it? Because first of all, I thought it was going to come out. Second, my experience is when you have stuff like this floating around it comes out. And I don`t want it to come out and be unrebutted when it originally comes out.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Got it.
GIULIANI: Part of what we`re trying to do here, the jury for this case is the American public.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Neera, given you`re disclosed as an opponent to him, I think I would press you to admit, he seems to be telling the truth there about how he views this and his motivations.
TANDEN: Yes, absolutely. I mean, look, throughout this whole long national nightmare of this investigation where the President has seemingly lied regularly, what`s obvious is that the Trump legal team is their foremost goal is indict the prosecution, is to drive opposition to the prosecution, make it impossible for Republicans to act because it`s seen through a partisan lens, and it`s almost as if they concede on some level that they are guilty and their goal is just to make it impossible for a jury to convict.
And like in a normal trial, what this would be seen as trying to tamper with the jury pool. And I think in some way that is what Giuliani is confessing to. He is trying to throw up as much mud as possible so American people are confused with whatever Mueller comes out with. And let`s just be candid. Do you that when you are guilty, not when you are innocent.
MARA GAY, EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: You know, I`m struck by something Rudy said. He said nobody can be sure of anything. And I think, you know, it sounds almost Putinesque.
MELBER: Like are we even here right now, man? Is this happening?
GAY: Is there truth or is there truth?
MELBER: Maybe we`re still in class and this is a dream.
GAY: Exactly.
HOLLIDAY: You are right. That`s a Putin talking point. A very good point.
GAY: I mean, that`s very nefarious. These guys -- Rudy Giuliani and the President, too, they have a long history of, you know, using New York city tabloids to kind of do the same thing. You fight for -- you fight in the public arena. And so what you can`t do in the courtroom, you try and do, you know, in the court of public opinion. And I think this is the case where they seem very worried about what is going to happen in the courtroom.
MELBER: About the real stuff.
GAY: That`s right. I mean, they can`t control that, right? And so, they are doing what they do best, which is they do a PR blitz and they sew enough doubt in the minds of if not the American people, at least to their base, you know, to prevent the political fall-out. Because please remember, there`s a legal process here. But when you talk about something like impeachment for example, that`s a political process. It is not a legal one. And I think they have -- they are laser focused on that.
MELBER: So, take a look --.
HOLLIDAY: Ari --.
MELBER: One more thing, just while I have Mara, I want you to take a listen to Anthony Scaramucci, who is a pretty loyal Trump aide but goes quite far in trying to avoid apparently lying because if you watch this clip closely, it seems like he is of the view that, of course Trump would have been briefed about the Trump tower meeting given everything we know. And so, he keep relying on the word possible. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, STATE OF THE UNION: You really find it credible THAT Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort would have had this meeting where they were going to get all this dirt allegedly on Hillary Clinton for him to use against her and they wouldn`t have told him about it? That sounds credible to you?
ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, I think, could he have known after the fact, I think that`s possible. I do think it`s possible. And I think that if you check sources inside the White House and you check sources inside that campaign, the level of prosaicism (ph), it is very possible. So yes, I do think that it is possible. I understand the pushback why people think it isn`t impossible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Whatever one thinks of Anthony Scaramucci, he is a Harvard trained lawyer because he is using the word possible as covered for the fact that he doesn`t want directly lying. He knows he is not very likely that Donald Trump didn`t know. And if he knew, that puts him closer. This is how we got here and why there is a freak-out tonight that puts him through his won lawyer Cohen closer to advance knowledge of a potential conspiracy.
GAY: It is remarkable. I mean, look. We are at a point now where every person in America needs to decide for herself or himself, are you going to believe what`s in front of your eyes or are you going to see things through partisanship or tribalism in some never-Neverland? And I think unfortunately that`s where we have come to. I mean, we don`t know what the outcome of the Mueller investigation is yet. And that`s fine. Let that process play out.
MELBER: Sure. No, we don`t.
GAY: But, we do have other reporting and evidence and indictments that has taken place so far to where we don`t need to, you know, believe the President when he calls this a witch hunt. We know that`s not the case. So let`s just stick to the facts.
HOLLIDAY: There is one other thing about Anthony Scaramucci that is interesting. He came on board right after the Trump tower meeting was exposed in the media. And there are emails in senate testimony - there is an email that is allegedly from Scaramucci and his email address to the Russian side to (INAUDIBLE) to the Russian side telling them to hang in there. So there is reason to believe he knows a lot about the Trump tower meeting and also what happened after that became public. So I think that is possible word, as you pointed out, is very important here.
MELBER: Neera, you want to get in?
TANDEN: Yes. I would just say, I think a really important thing for the issue of tribalism is that I think the ground has really shifted in this investigation post the Putin meeting. Before that, I don`t think a lot of people really understood how much Donald Trump seemed to be at the beck and call of Putin. He understood -- we could have facts about this alleged criminality or alleged conspiracy, but people didn`t really understand what the stakes were.
And then, Donald Trump decided to have a meeting with Putin in which he really did seem to believe Vladimir Putin over our own intelligence forces or intelligence agencies, decided to really defer and seemed very weak to Putin. And I think he really demonstrated to people what the quid pro quo situation is here.
MELBER: Right.
TANDEN: He is acted guilty in everyone`s eyes. And I think, if you have seen the polling since that meeting, there`s much more support for Mueller. I think even Republicans, not a majority, but a pretty good minority of Republicans think there is something really weird going on. And I think this has dramatically shifted, ironically enough by Donald Trump`s own performance.
MELBER: You are making an important point I would like you to build on, Neera, which is the problem with conspiracy theories is they require commitment contra the evidence.
TANDEN: Right.
MELBER: So over time, even when discredited, they look more and more ridiculous. But even for people inclined to give the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt, for whatever reason, procedural due process fairness, which of course, is a fun and sexy word to use in the news or because they love Donald Trump, even if you are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, say that was 2016. It was a crazy campaign. They were inexperienced.
When we are 2018, and he is not so inexperienced, and he has the full benefit of the national security apparatus and he continues to go in, in an in-person public forum with the President of Russia who was known to be a killer, who was know to have human rights abuses who has been indicted literally now by the justice department and continue to go take that side over the U.S., how does one look at this and say, it`s a conspiracy theory, there`s no support for it, it seems to be going on actively before our eyes.
TANDEN: Absolutely. And let`s just point out, if Donald Trump did act improperly with the Russians, obviously, Vladimir Putin would know that. The weird thing about this whole situation is Trump behaves that way. He behaves as if the Russians have information on him.
I mean, every political advisor in the world would say, go have a meeting with Putin and act tough with Putin. Defend America`s interests. He attacks all our allies and yet cowers almost, almost cowers in front of Putin.
And I think just to into, you know, Americans living their lives, that behavior was inexplicable except for the notion Putin has something on him, or there is something to the story. I mean, he really did prove, in a sense, give evidence in people`s minds to believing the whole array of illegal acts in front of us.
MELBER: Right. Listening to you, I feel more informed but I don`t feel better.
(LAUGHTER)
TANDEN: Nothing -- nothing is -- part of this is gong to make you feel better ever?
MELBER: It`s informational but not cathartic.
Neera Tanden, Shelby Holliday, Mara Gay, three excellent experts for tonight. Thank you very much.
Coming up, Trump may actually ease sanctions of a Putin-link oligarch at the heart of the Mueller probe. The former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul is here. Someone we want to hear from.
And Giuliani accusing Cohen of tampering with that now infamous Trump audiotape, what`s up with that?
And later on the politics, we are now tonight 99 days from these pivotal Midterms and a look how key women candidates and voters are. I`m going to speak to two top candidates whose victories could actually give subpoena power back to the Democrats.
And later, the notorious RBG (ph) as people talking about her workout. Now, she is making news about how long she may be on the bench. I`m going to bring you her words tonight.
I`m Ari Melber. You are watching THE BEAT on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: Paul Manafort goes on trial tomorrow. Now, the Trump administration may give a break to Manafort`s key investor, sanctioned Putin-linked oligarch Oleg Deripaska who Manafort famously offered secret briefings during the campaign as a way to buddy up to him and that was giving Manafort`s millions of dollars of debt to him. Now Manafort was far more than a lobbyist of the oligarch, the two built an offshore investment company together.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Deripaska and Paul Manafort formed an investment firm together. It is based in the Cayman islands. It is called Pericles. Deripaska puts in millions of dollars in hopes of a good return. This was one of the first examples of Paul Manafort using offshore accounts that we have had. It is practice that will later get him in trouble.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Trouble indeed. So now it is quite the moment for the Trump administration to float sanctions relief for, yes, Deripaska. Russia expert Michael McFaul had said those original April sanctions which were mandated by Congress made Deripaska the quote "biggest loser of all the targets from those sanctions."
And I`m joined by former U.S. ambassador Michael McFaul. He was also recently a target of a push by Putin to interrogate former U.S. officials. And he held a meeting at the White House about that issue.
Thanks for joining me tonight. If they lift these sanctions, what message does that send?
MICHAEL MCFAUL, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO RUSSIA: That they are not serious about changing Putin`s behavior.
Let`s remember what is a theory of sanctions, right. The theory of sanctions is you go after companies and individuals to put economic pressure on them to pressure their government to change its foreign policy behavior. It`s a rickshaw thing. It is a bank shot.
Putin hasn`t changed his behavior. If anything, he has gotten more aggressive as we saw in Helsinki, and coding against me, by the way. So I think it sends a horrible message that the administration doesn`t have a strategy for the sanctions that they have implemented from the past.
MELBER: You mentioned that and you have obviously, as I said, spoken out about it. Let`s take a look at some of what you wrote.
Why did my President, my commander in-chief, my fellow American call Putin`s scheme to defame scare and threaten me and other critics of Putin "an incredible offer.""
What was the answer you got back in your White House meeting?
MCFAUL: That`s pretty over the top language. I didn`t know I wrote that, Air. No, just kidding.
MELBER: We are all getting hyperbolic these days.
MCFAUL: Well, you know, to be accused of a criminal by Vladimir Putin is a pretty intense moment. And -- so I met with many government officials last week in the Trump administration. And my message was a clear one.
I was happy that they finally got to a position where they were rejecting this offer, this generous offer from Putin to interrogate me and the other 11 Americans. I think that`s clear. And now, I want them to reject preemptively the idea that they might seek to detain us through the Interpol system.
MELBER: And what did you think of their response to you?
MCFAUL: You can ask them that. I`m not going to read that out. They asked me not to. I will respect that but I want to keep the focus on that.
MELBER: You want to respect the confidential aspect of that which involves national security issues, I get that. When you look, though, at how Deripaska operates, the main allegation and the reason for the sanctions originally is not that he is just some free wheeling businessman, but that he is very much link as an agent or cutout or helper to the Putin regime.
Now let me read in fairness what the treasury department is saying for your analysis.
Quote "the sanctions have caused havoc in the global aluminum market. Secretary Mnuchin telling the Reuters publication our objective is now to put Deripaska`s company out of business."
Your analysis.
MCFAUL: Well, first of all, they should have thought when they put Deripaska on the list in the first place and we saw (ph). That`s part of the inner agency process measuring the unintended consequences of sanctions. I participated at many, many meetings at the White House with respect to Iranian sanctions in that regard.
But second, why do we care about the future who saw? Why is that in America`s national security interest to care about that company?
MELBER: You are referring to his company?
MCFAUL: Right.
MELBER: I don`t know. Are these rhetorical questions? My answer is we probably don`t. And if it opens up space in the market, I mean, Mnuchin is a free market guy. If it opens up space, so be it.
MCFAUL: Well, just to come back to the main point, the purpose of sanctions is to change Putin`s behavior. Putin`s behavior has not changed. And so, when you lift sanctions before he changes his behavior, that sends a pretty powerful signal that you are not serious about wanting him to change his behavior.
MELBER: Ambassador Michael McFaul, who has been in the eye of some of the storm often not by choice, thank you for your expertise tonight.
MCFAUL: Sure. Thanks for having me.
MELBER: Absolutely.
Up ahead, Giuliani hammering Michael Cohen saying the secret tape may be tampered with, and leads to a question what`s Rudy trying to do? We have a very special breakdown when we are back in just 30 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: The other top story tonight apart from the Trump tower drama, Donald Trump`s lawyer is also attacking his former lawyer. Rudy Giuliani unleashing on Michael Cohen in those interviews accusing him of being a pathological manipulator, a scoundrel and liar.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: The man is a pathological manipulator, liar. There are innumerable other recordings of other people having nothing to do with the Trump organization which will give you an idea what a scoundrel he was. If you tape record your client and you lie to your client about it you have no character.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: And a new claim, evidence tampering.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: More likely is, he came back home, he erased the portion that he wanted erased and he tried to tape record a conversation, it appears, with Don Junior and might have gotten that, too, and erased that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, you have spoken to Donald Trump. What is the part that was erased?
GIULIANI: I have no idea.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does Donald Trump remember?
GIULIANI: No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Giuliani says the secret recording though could be good for Donald Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: We have determined the fact he tampered with the tape in the sense that he abruptly, mid-conversation turned it off. I think they put it out because they wanted the doctored version to obscure whatever else might be on that type, I`m sure it will be good for us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: I`m sure it will be good for us.
I`m joined by Liz Plank, a senior producer for Vox News and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance. Thank you both.
Joyce, I don`t know if you remember the rapper J.O. Felony, but he was very proud of his felonies. And I feel like Giuliani here is basically turning this into Michael felony. If true, he is accusing Cohen of evidence tampering or true crime, right. I mean, this is actually, even though, Rudy makes a lot of noise, this if true, would be a big deal and if false, the false accusation of a crime is also a big deal.
JOYCE VANCE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Rudy is gambling on the facts that he`s now appealing to the Court of Public Opinion, not any sort of a court where the rules of criminal procedure are followed. You`re right, Ari. If it`s true that there are tapes that have been tampered with and offered into evidence that would be a big deal.
MELBER: Huge.
VANCE: But if you`ve got so just a tape recording on your phone, which is all that these tapes that Cohen has appear to be and you cut it off inadvertently, or even on purpose while you`re taping on your telephone, that`s a very different thing than something that you testify to in court and authenticate and offer as evidence.
MELBER: I take your nuance, Joyce, very important. You`re helping us understand that this is probably hyperbolic and not real tampering. But it would be a big deal for them to just go out and accuse him of tampering.
VANCE: It absolutely would be. And Rudy Giuliani is really operating on the narrow edge of the ethical rules that courts expect lawyers to follow. It`s, in many ways, surprising to a lot of people that the bar has not yet sanctioned him for some of this conduct.
MELBER: Right. And as you say, that is where there are still real rules that apply to anyone who says there`s the practicing attorney here for the president or anyone else. Then, there`s the privileged part, which again, is important even though Rudy talks about it in a sort of loose manner. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: We have complained to them that he`s violating the attorney-client privilege publicly and privately.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why did you waive the attorney-client privilege for the Cohen tapes?
GIULIANI: Because I know the whole tapes. And I could bring out parts, let`s say, for example, if I didn`t waive it, I wouldn`t be able to tell you that he cuts it off abruptly, which he does. Right after the word check, it ends.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Explain.
VANCE: It`s very confusing. Attorney-client privilege is one of those legal doctrines that follows the rule of once you let the cat out of the bag, you can`t get it back in. So, once Rudy waives attorney-client privilege and talks about the tapes and the conversations, there`s really no surviving privilege and nothing left for Cohen to violate by talking about it. Rudy is tossing a lot of word salad today and trying to see what will stick on the walls. This one will not stick; there`s no there, there.
MELBER: Liz, this is the part where you don`t need to be a lawyer to know that if your argument boils down to, how dare you take advantage of the thing I did; privilege is out and it seems sort of like we`re done there.
LIZ PLANK, SENIOR PRODUCER, VOX MEDIA: Right. And I mean, word salad is one word. And I think weaponized gas lighting is another word that I would use to describe what the Trump administration has been doing for a long time and what has been happening especially in the last few days with Rudy Giuliani. And I think, you know, Rudy Giuliani saying that Michael Cohen doctored the tapes, that Michael Cohen wasn`t smart enough to not use the Trump administration e-mail to coordinate the hush payment to Stormy Daniel. I don`t think he`s smart enough to doctor an audio tape.
MELBER: You don`t imagine him in a basement?
PLANK: I don`t know. I have trouble with that image.
MELBER: Just like making a second Soundcloud back.
PLANK: I mean, maybe. Maybe. And yes, what we`re seeing also is that Rudy Giuliani is basically Michael Cohen-ing Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen was Donald Trump`s lawyer but he didn`t do a lot of lawyering. What he did was a lot of trying to kill stories, trying to threaten people who had stories on Donald Trump. I mean, the classic example during the campaign when Ivanka Trump`s own words had been leaked that she felt violated by Donald Trump and he threatened the Daily Beast Reporter who had the story, he then tried to kill the story. And when he couldn`t kill the story, he said that raping your wife is not a crime. What we saw Rudy Giuliani do this weekend follows sort of that same playbook for sort of a different situation but -- or different yes-man with the same, sort of, strategy.
MELBER: Right. And one other contrast is that we know that Trump and Cohen were having a lot of conversations. One difference with Rudy is they literally seem to speak through the television. I mean, because this is something that I think sometimes leads people to underestimate them, there`s this idea of, Rudy is just making it up and is so sloppy.
Well, no, I think there`s a method to it. The method is, if there`s no professional or personal pride in the words that you say and the work you do, then you can do your rough draft on live T.V., and then redo it as he did a few hours later when called into a new interview, because it`s all just content. Joyce mentioned, that if it gets up over the line of the ethical standard, there is a bar that does operate, that can do things to Rudy.
So, with all that in mind, I want to play Michael Avenatti who made some news on Friday to consider that a lot of this did start with Cohen and him wrangling over Stormy Daniels in the NDA. Avenatti, making news that there are other case, other women, at least one that he alleged involve the tabloid company doing favors for Trump which could be a new and separate legal in fraction. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL AVENATTI, ATTORNEY TO STORMY DANIELS: I have three clients that have hired me as their counsel. Each of them had a relationship with Mr. Trump, each of them was paid Hush money prior to the 2016 election.
MELBER: At least one of them involved AMI?
AVENATTI: Yes.
MELBER: And that would be a previously undisclosed; it`s and not Karen McDougal, correct?
AVENATTI: Correct.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: What is the significance that there could be whole another case as big as the Stormy Daniels, about a woman we don`t know about yet?
PLANK: Yes, I think you`ll need a whole new hour or just a second hour for your show because there`s already, you know, so much to cover in terms of these stories. And I want to, you know, come back to what you were saying before, which is, you know, the sort of strategy that Rudy Giuliani uses that is the same strategy that Donald Trump used. He would call in to shows. He would say one thing, and then say another thing.
This is, again, a sort of a weaponized, you know, form of gas lighting. But it`s also kind of weaponized incompetence, like pretending like they don`t really know, they`re kind of dumb. They`re not dumb. They know exactly what they`re doing, and they`re doing this on purpose, and it`s a cover-up. You know, trying to cover up something, and it`s not just Rudy Giuliani who`s doing it. We saw Lindsey Graham, you know, this weekend say that Michael Cohen can`t really be taken seriously; he`s not a credible person -- sort of attacking his character. So, the Republican Party is complicit in a cover up, but they don`t really know what crimes they`re covering up. And that`s I think what we should also be really --
MELBER: I think you`re making a point that overlaps some of which Joyce was putting out, which if a detailed of the facts doesn`t favor you, then you turn to the mush. And then people say, well, what is this? It isn`t a legal brief, this is applesauce. I don`t know, is it applesauce? What`s applesauce? I got to go. And so, there is that mood, which a cynical play but that doesn`t mean it won`t work and that`s why we`re going to keep reporting on the vigilance of it. My thanks to both of you, Joyce Vance and Liz Plank.
Coming up, we have an update on some very interesting news. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I got to get her name right, one her exercise routine and news about her time on the court. But first, 99 days in the midterms, Democrats say they can take back the House and gain subpoena power. We will speak with two candidates on the frontlines live next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: Tonight, right now, we are 99 days from the midterms. Democrats say flipping the House could change the whole arc of the Trump era, grant them subpoena power to hold the administration accountable on everything from Russia to the president`s finances, to the environment. And Democrats say there`s blood in the water with 23 House Republicans members leaving office, and they just need 25 Republican seats to flip holding a line on the 193 they already have.
Now, leading that fight, there are as we`ve reported a record number of women running for office. Some emerging as winners out of tough and contested primaries; 307, a majority of them on the Democratic side. Many, looking to reshape the whole face of the Democratic Party.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
M.J. HEGAR, DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, TEXAS: That`s me. M.J. Hegar, an Air Force Combat Veteran, and a mom.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Lucy went from an ordinary mom to powerful voice.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: National teacher of the year.
JAHANA HAYES, DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, CONNECTICUT: I`m Jahana Hayes. And my story is my truth. I know the system does not reflect us.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When Republicans cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, life gets harder for women like me.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: After I served our country in the Air Force, I came home to take care of mom.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Through my work as a nurse, I know how critical it is to be able to get healthcare coverage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Two of that women you just saw in that medley are joining me now. Gina Ortiz-Jones, a Veteran who is running to be the first Latina to represent Texas in that capacity; and Lauren Underwood, a Registered Nurse, the first woman and first person of color to represent her district in Illinois. Thank you both. Gina, why are you running?
GINA ORTIZ-JONES, DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, TEXAS: Yes. Hi, Ari, thank you so much for having me. And just a quick correction, I`m running actually -- I`d be a couple of first, I`d be the first out member of Congress from Texas, and I`d actually be the first Asian-American member of Congress from Texas. We`ve two great Latinas -- Veronica out of El Paso, and Sylvia out of Houston that are going to well represent us in Washington.
MELBER: Well, as we say in the business, my bad and my apologies.
JONES: No, it`s all good. It`s all good. No, I`m very excited to be running. You know, I just spent the last couple of days in West Texas. So, this district spans from San Antonio to El Paso. This is the largest congressional district that is not its own state.
And as I talk to folks, folks are so excited, not only about -- it`s not about winning. For many of the folks, they know what`s on the ballot. Healthcare is on the ballot. You know, healthcare is the issue that comes up the most, whether folks are -- can`t afford it today or fearful they won`t be able to afford it tomorrow, or physically can`t get to it. 70 percent of this district is rural. And so, folks know that, you know, we need representatives that are going to fight for healthcare.
One in six Texans is uninsured. One in 10 kids in the country, Ari, goes to school in Texas, and 45 percent of our kids in Texas rely on CHIP or Medicaid for insurance. So, people know that we are 99 days away from the most consequential election of our lifetime. But they also know that we are celebrating the 53rd anniversary of the signing of Medicaid and Medicare by another great Texan leader, LBJ. And programs are so vital to so many Texas and so many Americans every day. We`ve got to protect these programs and I look forward to protecting the opportunities to allowed me to grow up healthy, get education, and serve my country.
MELBER: Lauren, I`m intrigued by the notion that everyone is talking healthcare out there. Has that been your experience or what are your most asked about by voters in your district?
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, ILLINOIS: Absolutely. I`m a registered nurse that decided to run for Congress based on a broken promise coming out of my representative. He promised that he was going to protect healthcare coverage for people like me with pre- existing conditions, and then he went and broke his word. And so, as I travel around my community, the seven counties in Northern Illinois, you know, folks are talking about how we can afford our prescription drugs? How are we going to pay our premium prices when we`re facing these astronomical increases on the rise for 2019? I mean, healthcare is the forefront issue of this campaign, and we`ve got to fix our system.
MELBER: A question for both of you as women running, as we mentioned, in a year where we`re literally seeing American historical records broken with a number of women candidates and there`s so many references to the aggregate view of politics, say in the view of Trump, and that seems to actually sometimes obscure something I know you both know about, which is a gender gap. So, take a look here at when you look at the support among women. A higher negative view of Trump, 65 percent negative than when you break it out otherwise. To both of you, what does that mean, starting with Lauren?
UNDERWOOD: So, I think that what we see among women is that we are energized and motivated to do the work. In my community, women have been leading in every area of civic life: They`ve been PTA leaders, leaders of our community associations, our neighborhood associations, church groups, but have not necessarily been running for office. And so, we`ve seen an unprecedented number of women stepping up and being candidates in this era. We`ve also seen an unprecedented number of women stepping up as activists and leading groups in our community. And so, what I see is that we have a huge number of women getting involved because we know what`s at stake this year.
MELBER: Gina -- actually, let me ask you, as you know whenever you run for office, people always say, what do you think of the political advice of Fat Joe, right? That`s just a thing every time you run. But the rapper and activist were on the beat, he`s one of our favorites, and he says he`s very adamant that Democrats have to be ready and act like Trump is winning, not assume there`s some blue wave. Take a listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH ANTONIO "FAT JOE" CARTAGENA, RAPPER AND ACTIVIST: You have to act as if he`s up 100 points. That`s it. Because everybody thought he was going to lose. All opposed that he was going to lose, and he won. So, like you have to run like we`re losing.
UNIDENTIFEID FEMALE: Yes, absolutely.
CARTAGENA: Even if you`re ahead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Gina, are you following that advice or going a different direction?
JONES: I am somebody that recognizes at my core that there are not a lot of kids that go from reduced lunch to executive office of the president, right? That doesn`t just happen. My country and my community invested in me. So, I am very much running to protect those opportunities. And I think he`s right. We`ve got to work -- we`ve got to work -- if we think we`re working hard, we`ve got to work harder. 29 counties and Texas, 23.
We are working throughout them. Because this -- in this race, 3,000 votes, 3,000-vote is all that separated them at the congressional level in 2016 in a district that Hillary won. So, I mean, that`s the high school in Texas, right? We`ve got to run like healthcare is on the ballot, because it is. We`ve got to run like, safer gun laws are on the ballot, because they are. And we`ve to run like this country is worth fighting for. Because we clearly see that we`re under attack and we the key role that Congress plays in oversight and no small part of national security, and we`re not seeing enough moral courage from our leaders in Congress, right now, to keep us safe and I look forward to bringing that.
MELBER: Well, you know, in the media, we talk about these races. It`s very interesting to hear directly from people running them. Gina Ortiz- Jones and Lauren Underwood, thank you both so much.
Up ahead, a report on why this controversial stand your ground law, now has even the NRA criticizing one sheriff`s application. It`s an important story we`ll bring you. Plus, RBG say how long she`ll be on the court.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: The new shooting of an unarmed man is reuniting debate over Florida`s Stand Your Ground Law. Michael Drejka shot and killed an unarmed man, Marquise McLaughlin, during a dispute in a parking lot last week. Surveillance video shows Drejka confronting McLaughlin`s girlfriend about a parking space. McLaughlin shoves Drejka to the ground who then shoots him to death.
Now, that kind of escalation in killing warrants an investigation, a possible arrest, but the local sheriff pre-emptively sided with the shooter, telling people, well, you shouldn`t slam anyone to the ground and claiming the state`s laws prohibit an arrest. In fact, it can be illegal to use deadly force in response to shoving. Here`s the sheriff.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don`t put your hands on people. Don`t slam them to the ground. And if you do you`re taking a chance that that person might be a concealed carry permit holder and they might decide that they`re in fear and they`re going to defend themselves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Legal experts say the sheriff is actually wrong. The victim`s family also speaking out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need to put an end to this. Anytime a law that allows one man to kill another man, and the man that pulled the trigger don`t even get fingerprinted? It needs to stop. Something needs to be done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Florida Senator Bill Nelson calling for a federal probe. He`s also defending his seat against Florida Governor Rick Scott, who signed an enlarged version of stand your ground just last year. Now, tomorrow, the sheriff, who says that law ties his hands is actually co-hosting a fund- raiser with candidate Rick Scott.
So, the question for them tomorrow is do they actually maintain that this state law prevents any investigation or prosecution in this situation? And if so, how do you defend a law that seems to protect one-sided deadly escalation in that kind of conflict?
Up next, we will bring you that much-promised message from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: One of the liberals` favorite members of the Supreme Court has an announcement. Ruth Bader Ginsburg says, "I`m now 85. Justice John Paul Stevens stepped down when he was 90. So, I think I have about at least five more years." As they say on the court, count them up. Now, she certainly will be busy. Justice Ginsburg also having a bit of her own busy time in the culture. There`s that documentary "RBG" which has made more than 13 million at the box office. She`s also the subjective of a film coming out this winter where she will be played by Felicity jones. And her workout routines have led to moments in the culture like this in late night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why are you on your knees?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What? I`m cramping. Working out with an 85-year-old woman
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can I ask you a question? And I want you to give me an honest answer. Are you juicing?
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Always honest. You don`t want to commit perjury. Now, I have a quick programming note before we go. I am in for Rachel Maddow tonight, and I am deciding whether to bring back an old tie from off the rack. So, if you tune in tonight at 9:00 p.m. Eastern, you can see what happens. Plus, we have a lot more news kicking off what`s been a very busy week thus far. So, I wanted to let you know about that tonight 9:00 p.m. Eastern. But don`t go anywhere because "HARDBALL" with Chris Matthews is up next.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: Fallback. Let`s play "HARDBALL"
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2018 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.