KATY TUR, MSNBC HOST: Everything is more peaceful and relaxing when surrounded by a soft pinkish hue. For more that`s good of life, puppies and a big metal tub. Puppies. I don`t know about you but I feel better. Forget yellow journalism. Can`t we all get behind coral journalism?
That is all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow with more MTP DAILY.
"THE BEAT" with less probably puppies is right now. Yasmin is in for Ari. Yasmin, I don`t know how to say your last name. I`m going to be honest.
YASMIN VOSSOUGHIAN: I mean who does? But why would you want to say my last name when you just ended the show with puppies? I mean I can`t really top that.
TUR: I know. No, we`re adorable. That was the best part of my entire day.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Oh, yes. Let`s just all go home now. Thank you, "MTP DAILY".
TUR: Appreciate it.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Thanks, Katy. Have a good rest of your night.
I`m Yasmin Vossoughian everybody in tonight for Ari Melber.
We`re covering several developing stories. A top House Democrat says Trump may have committed impeachable offenses but they might not want to go through the trouble of actually impeaching him. The next chair of the Congressional Black Caucus is here on that.
Plus, Trump is scrambling to replace Chief of Staff John Kelly but no one else seems to want the job. And Michael Cohen`s guilty plea shedding new light on how the Russians looked to compromise Trump.
But we begin with the growing legal pressure on Donald Trump after the feds revealed new details of Michael Cohen`s crimes. "The New York Times" learning federal prosecutors in New York are now looking at whether other Trump Organization executives who were involved in the hush payments to women during the campaign. And investigators requested more documents from the Trump Organization in recent weeks, suggesting their work isn`t over, even though Cohen`s pleaded guilty.
Trump today denying Cohen committed campaign finance crimes, calling the hush payment a "simple, private transaction." But federal prosecutors say Cohen acted to influence the 2016 presidential election, and did it at the direction of Individual-1 who we know is President of the United States, Donald Trump. Here`s Former Fbi Director Jim Comey`s reaction to that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICOLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: Is the president of the United States right now an unindicted co-conspirator?
JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, FBI: I don`t know. Not in the formal sense that he`s been named in an indictment. But if he`s not there, he`s certainly close, given the language in the indictment -- in the filing that the crimes were committed at his direction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Cohen will be sentenced on Wednesday. Tomorrow, Paul Manafort`s lawyers are back in court and this week they`re expected to respond to Mueller`s filing accusing him of crimes and lies after he made his plea deal. Those lies include Manafort hiding his contacts with the Trump administration, which continued into May of 2018.
With me, Shelby Holliday, who covers the Russia probe for "The Wall Street Journal", and "New York Times" investigative reporter Megan Twohey who`s covered Michael Cohen extensively.
Megan, it seems as if, after we got a guilty plea from Michael Cohen, things were going to be wrapped up and we were all done with this, right? You know, that was sort of the conversation out there.
MEGAN TWOHEY, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I have to say, I was actually on this show that evening and I remember watching the prosecutors walk out that day. And they said -- if you listen closely into what they were saying, their language suggested this is not over, that we`re continuing to probe this. And so it`s not surprising that today my colleagues at "The Times" had this story about this further investigation, at least of the Trump Org as it potentially relates to the campaign finance violations that Cohen has been found guilty of at the direction of the president.
VOSSOUGHIAN: So now looking at the Trump Organization, far beyond Michael Cohen it seems at this point, they move beyond him, who are they looking at within the Trump Organization? Who is vulnerable right now?
TWOHEY: So I think that -- I think the name that is out there right now is the Allen Weisselberg who was the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, been with Trump forever. And it`s clear that he was involved in orchestrating the repayments if we want to sort of trace how these payments flowed. Michael Cohen made a payment to Stormy Daniels to silence her so she wouldn`t come forward with her claims of an affair with the president. He organized a payment. He basically helped organized -- orchestrate a payment that went through "American Media", the parent company of the "National Enquirer" that purchased the story of another woman who is going to go forward.
And so what we`ve realized is that repayments to Michael Cohen went through Allen Weisselberg at the Trump Organization and were done in a way in which they were filed as legal expenses.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Legal expenses.
TWOHEY: And so in the filings on Friday and in what we have learned since then, my colleagues and their sources have been able to piece together sort of questions about what the legal implications are for at least Weisselberg. We know that he`s talked to the prosecutors at least with regards to what he knew about Cohen`s involvement. I think the question is now with like Cohen being relegated to the sidelines, who else comes into focus as being involved in criminal activity in this --
VOSSOUGHIAN: I mean according to this "New York Times" article, Shelby, $420,000 or so was shelled out to Michael Cohen for legal practices, it seems. The chief financial officer, a Trump loyalist. This guy has known Trump for a really long time, to think that he didn`t know what these payments were for, is kind of unbelievable.
SHELBY HOLLIDAY, REPORTER, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, it`s also unbelievable, because my colleagues at the "Journal" who broke the Stormy story and have continued to report on it have explained in their reporting that President Trump not only played essential role in making these payments, but he also helped set them up.
At the beginning of the campaign, he had a meeting with David Pecker, dad of the "National Enquirer. And he said, "David, how can you help my campaign?" And this was something they discussed, when women -- if and when women come forward, Pecker would help him cover up these stories, put these stories to bed.
And it was discussing the context of the campaign. So I think his role in sort of setting up the payments, as well as orchestrating the payments, and then after the fact, we`re talking about Trump board executives, he called on his son to help keep Stormy Daniels silent after the news broke that there was a hush money payment. So it could be more executive than Allen Weisselberg, it could extend to Trump`s family --
TWOHEY: Well, that`s --
VOSSOUGHIAN: Go ahead.
TWOHEY: Well, I was going to say, it`s also worth noting that one of the things that Cohen leaked when he was starting to cooperate with prosecutors was a recording of himself with Trump, in which they were talking about potentially buying up all the negative stories that the "National Enquirer" had on Trump, and they talked about Allen Weisselberg in that phone call. They`re recorded saying -- Michael Cohen is recorded is saying I`ve talked to Allen about this. And so he`s even in the sort of records in the documents if you will.
VOSSOUGHIAN: It`s interesting that you bring up that phone call because the big question is, did the president know what he was doing was wrong, right? The defense out there for the president is going to be I didn`t necessarily know what I was doing, that was wrong, that it was a violation of campaign finance laws. But when you listen to that recording that you`re talking about, it`s not like the president necessarily is forthcoming, right, in the recording?
HOLLIDAY: Well, his suggestion that the payment -- and it`s unclear. And the president`s legal team will debate that the president was not suggesting that the "National Enquirer" boss paid in cash, but it sounds like the president is involved in even the details of how the payment, how the reimbursement to the "National Enquirer" should go. So I think that`s very damning.
And you also have a president who is extremely involved in his business dealings, extremely involved in his campaign, and actually in the course of paying out Stormy Daniels. Michael Cohen had told Stormy`s rep he couldn`t get ahead of Donald Trump to make the payment. He eventually did because the payment was made.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Go ahead.
TWOHEY: And what we also have is a pattern of lying here on both the part of Cohen and on the part of the president, that at first, the claim was that he was not involved with this at all. He didn`t know about it. and now we`re debating whether or not he basically had the intent of being involved on the front end, if he really was, in fact, knowledgeable that sort of what he was doing and what they were doing was a campaign finance violation, that they knowingly broke the law. So we`ve really -- the goal post has really shifted here in the last several months.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Before we bring in the lawyers to the conversation, I want to bring up one full screen that we have on the filing from Mueller, in which they talk about sort of the information that was given by Cohen. They say Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact with company executives. What does that mean?
TWOHEY: A lot of people think that that could be a reference to the Trump Tower meeting. Because at the Trump Tower meeting, you had Jared Kushner, you had Paul Manafort, and you also had the president`s Donald Trump, Jr. Michael Cohen has hinted that he had some knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting then his legal team walked it back but that could be a reference to the Trump Tower meeting. It could be a reference to other business deals. There could be very many things we don`t know about still because the prosecutors are only telling us about things that have been made public in reporting.
VOSSOUGHIAN: And that`s why we keep having this conversation is the fact that the Mueller investigation is about to get wrapped up, I keep shaking my head and thinking it`s not going to get wrapped up. One year is not a long investigation for something like this.
TWOHEY: It`s not a long investigation and I think back to the first conversations when people were first starting to probe the Stormy Daniels payments, the payoffs to silence these women, and how far we`ve come, how much we`ve learned, how many lies we have pushed through. Even in the case of Michael Cohen, I mean in February of 2017, I first learned about this Trump Tower Moscow project.
And I asked him, I said what was going on, you guys were trying to do business in Moscow there during the campaign? And he said "Oh, no. That stopped in the fall of 2015" and go further --
VOSSOUGHIAN: Interesting.
TWOHEY: -- his friend Felix Sater gave me the same assurance, it never went beyond a letter.
VOSSOUGHIAN: You should have done a lie detector test with you at that point.
TWOHEY: But this just goes to show I think just even personally in the conversations I`ve had where these guys were telling lies.
HOLLIDAY: Exactly.
TWOHEY: And to see how the feds have caught up with those lies every step of the way. And even once they have gotten guilty pleas, are continuing to push forward. And it is interesting when you go back to -- we still don`t know -- Cohen clearly didn`t want to go -- didn`t want the feds to continue probing his own business activities. He was very eager to go to Mueller. The Southern District was coming after him and his campaign finance violations and other things and his business past and he really wanted to go to Mueller`s office with as much information as he could provide with regards to the Russian contacts.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Well, you got to wonder why he didn`t fully cooperate with the Southern District because maybe there`s something that he `s covering up with regards to his own business interest in the past.
TWOHEY: That`s what they seem to suggest.
HOLLIDAY: Absolutely.
VOSSOUGHIAN: All right. I want to bring in two former federal prosecutors, Joyce Vance who is U.S. Attorney Alabama and Kim Wehle who worked on the White Water investigation. I`ve got to say, all female cast. I kind of love it this evening. Welcome, you guys.
Let`s talk about the legal exposure here. Joyce, I`m going to start with you on this one. Let`s talk first about Chief Financial Officer for Trump Org, Allen Weisselberg. What is the legal exposure that he has here considering the fact that he was the guy that issued that $420,000 to Michael Cohen for legal practices?
JOYCE VANCE, U.S. ATTORNEY, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA: He could have a lot of legal exposure here or he could have very little. This is one of those areas where federal prosecutors have played their cards very close. But if he was fully involved in a scheme to deliberately violate campaign finance law, then he would be looking at the full range of exposure for that crime.
There`s also a big range of what prosecutors call inchoate crimes, crimes that are started but not completed. So conspiracy, when you make the agreement to violate the law, you have committed a crime. You could also, for instance, have someone who solicited someone else to commit a crime and that would in and of itself substantiate a conviction.
So we don`t know the full range of his conduct. It seems likely though that Mueller does. There`s reporting that says he has spoken with prosecutors, possibly under some kind of immunity order. And that`s the last piece of this. If he had immunity in exchange for his testimony, then he probably has little to no criminal liability. He will have traded that away in exchange for his testimony.
It`s a little bit of a squirrely situation because he`s still working in Trump Tower. It seems unlikely that he`s a traditional cooperator. He may have been compelled to provide some knowledge and we just don`t know exactly what that was at this point.
VOSSOUGHIAN: So Kim, you have the Allen Weisselbergs of the Trump Organization. You also have the family which makes up the Trump Organization, Eric Trumps, the Don Jr. Trumps, and we know obviously as we`ve been talking about for so long about that Trump Tower meeting in July of 2016. What does Don Jr. face down the barrel?
KIM WEHLE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, just I wanted to make one point of clarification just on the legal point with respect to the president`s liability for campaign finance violations. The crime is knowing that accepting an illegal payment or a payment over the contribution limit could help him in the campaign. It`s not knowledge that it would violate the law. If that were the case, then we could always say, "Listen, I didn`t know that I couldn`t jaywalk at that corner."
So the question is, did he do this really because he was embarrassed, because of his wife, because of his kids, he wanted to keep these things quiet? That happened years ago these affairs. Unlike for example with John Edwards where his wife was dying of cancer, at the same time that his mistress -- where he was having an affair. So I just want to as a point of clarification.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Well, Kim, just stick with that line of questioning, do you think that the Mueller probe already knows the answer to that?
WEHLE: To the question of whether Mr. Trump -- I mean I think we`ve got a lot of information that --
VOSSOUGHIAN: And he knew what he was doing. He knew that it would influence the campaign.
WEHLE: Yes. I mean I think -- there are lots of pieces that we -- not only do we have the tape that was just mentioned with -- where Mr. Weisselberg was mentioned. We`ve got the timing of the release of the WikiLeaks, the information, the e-mails from Hillary Clinton. That happened right when the "Access Hollywood" tape came out within -- literally within hours, within a day of when President Obama announced the Russians are hacking the elections.
So the idea of being -- listen, he was greatly concerned about his sexual misconduct affecting, negatively affecting the election. And if he then accepted contributions or the other pieces didn`t disclose expenditures. He`s allowed to spend all he wants. That`s a First Amendment right but the FEC wants to know where the money is coming from and where the money is going. Especially when it comes to corporations, no secret stuff from corporations, no secret stuff from foreign governments.
VOSSOUGHIAN: So let`s circle --
WEHLE: Yes?
VOSSOUGHIAN: No. I was going to say let`s circle back now and talk about the legal exposure for Trump`s family.
WEHLE: Yes. So, I mean the other piece I think that`s interesting that came out on Friday with respect to the Trump Organization has to do with the Moscow tower, Trump Tower deal. And the papers say that that was worth literally hundreds of millions to the Trump Organization. And so that brings into question of motive. Why are people lying? Why have we heard over and over again, one thing said publicly, one thing said to federal investigators and prosecutors, and then the truth being something else.
The question being was there a deal here for the Trump Organization and who was involved? There`s also indications that there were a lot of conversations going on with multiple people within the Trump campaign and the organization and the Russians, and there were conversations even after the election. And there were conversations after Mr. Cohen and Mr. Manafort were in some serious legal jeopardy.
That could just be part of joint defense agreements with respect to Mr. Manafort but all of this opens to potential liability, not just for Don Jr. who, of course, was mentioned at the Trump Tower meeting, which is a really serious thing that I`m sure that Mr. Mueller has probably bailed down by now or looked at quite seriously but also for Mr. Trump himself.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Yes. And we`re going to learn so much more about how the Russians actually infiltrated the Trump campaign. I mean the extent to which they infiltrated this campaign is just astounding. Joyce, I quickly want you to weigh in on the last question that I asked Kim which was what is the legal exposure for the Trump family from your perspective?
WEHLE: The way prosecutors assessed that kind of a question is by looking at the statutes. We can look at a situation like building Trump Tower in Moscow and think it doesn`t look kosher. But it actually has to violate a statute and by that, prosecutors have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime.
So it`s possible that there could be a violation of a statute called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Essentially, that makes it illegal to pay a bribe in a foreign country to that government to permit you to do business. And so if this story about a $50 million penthouse being offered to Putin in exchange for letting that project go ahead would turn out to be true, then that might be a possibility. But as in all things, the devil here is in the details. We would have a lot more work to do to assess who`s liable and what they could be charged with.
VOSSOUGHIAN: By the way, it seems like Rand Paul doesn`t think building a Trump Tower in Moscow is really a big deal. We`re going to play that for everybody just a little bit. I`m going to want everybody`s reaction to that of course.
Shelby Holliday, Megan Twohey, and Kim Wehle, thank you. Joyce Vance, you`re sticking with me.
Coming up everybody, Trump`s search for a new chief of staff. Some of the top names already saying thanks, but no thanks. Plus, an alleged Russian spy about to plead guilty after trying to influence conservative groups like the NRA. And new reporting how the Moscow project fits into Trump`s lifelong search for success in Russia.
But first, House Democrats debate how far and how fast to push for impeachment.
I`m Yasmin Vossoughian in for Ari Melber. And you`re watching THE BEAT on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Welcome back, everybody. The feds now focusing on Trump`s family business, looking to see if other Trump Organization executives were involved in secret payments to women during the 2016 campaign. After Mueller and New York feds dropped those bombshell reports, Trump scrambling after Cohen claims he acted "at the direction of Trump." Now, House Democrats ready to take over power, talking about impeachment. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY), INCOMING HOUSE JUDICIARY CHAIR: Certainly, they would be impeachable offenses because even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently attaining the office. You don`t necessarily launch an impeachment against the president because he committed an impeachable offense.
REP. TED DEUTCH (D-FL), HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Well, impeachment obviously is the ultimate check on the executive branch. I think we have to wait until we get the Mueller report to provide some guidance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Meanwhile, the incoming House Intelligence Committee Chair Congressman Adam Schiff is actually going there. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: There`s a very real prospect to that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the justice department may indict him, that he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: All right. Let`s talk all about this because that is huge. Joining me now Congresswoman Karen Bass, Chair-elect to the Congressional Black Caucus and back with us, Joyce Vance.
Congresswoman, I`m going to start with you on this one. I just want to get it out there. Are you for impeachment talks?
REP. KAREN BASS (D-CA) CHAIR-ELECT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS: Well, you know what? Not right now, I`m not. I think when we take over in January, there is so much on our plate. Basically, this president over the last two years has had no oversight. Congress has not done its job. And so the first thing that we need to do is to do our job and to do oversight in several committees.
And in addition to that, as one of my colleagues said, I think it`s going to be very important to protect Mueller so that he actually is able to issue a report and a report that the world can see, not a report that`s redacted so heavily, we don`t even know what is said or a report that the administration tries to squash.
VOSSOUGHIAN: You know, you heard Congressman Nadler there saying we really have to think about if these are impeachable offenses and if we should actually go through with the impeachment. It seems like Democrats, Congresswoman, have a real strategy here going forward. Is this coming down to being about 2020 or 2024 for that matter?
BASS: No, I really don`t think it is. I think it`s about doing our job. And so it is possible that we might have to move forward with impeachment, especially if information keeps coming out where the president has been involved in illegal activity. I also find it ironic that my Republican colleagues who often wave the flag of law and order are now all of a sudden getting squishy over, well, these really aren`t serious offenses.
So we are talking about the president of the United States. And so I think it`s very important that we do not jump the gun, that we be methodical about our approach. And as I said, I believe the first step of that approach is to provide the oversight that Congress has not provided over the last two years.
VOSSOUGHIAN: So why do you think that Adam Schiff went out there on a limb really and said we could be talking about the next president having to pardon this current president.
BASS: Because I think if you listen carefully to what he was saying, he was talking about, number one, after this term is over. But he was also making reference to the same thing I just did. If more and more information comes out, that it clearly shows that the president has been involved in crimes, then, of Course, it might come up on our agenda even before we want it to
But people do have to remember, and I know you know this, we can impeach every day of the week here in the House. He won`t be tried and convicted in the Senate. And so if we move forward with impeachment, it really is going to have to be dire and I think it would be after the Mueller report and it would be after more and more information comes out.
Our first order of business when we get back is the Voting Rights Act, is helping the Affordable Care Act which has been dying death of a thousand cuts, a lowering prescription drugs, addressing income inequality, really demonstrate that the Republicans want -- that the Democrats want to govern, and that we want to govern from the perspective that is for the average person.
VOSSOUGHIAN: All right. So we talked earlier about the Moscow project. Senator Rand Paul basically putting it out there on Sunday that he doesn`t see anything wrong with the Moscow project. He doesn`t see anything wrong with a Trump Tower in Moscow. I want to take a listen to that and then have you both react.
BASS: Sure, sure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I don`t know what`s illegal about trying to build a hotel in Russia. So this is pretty common and I see no problem with someone running for president trying to build a hotel somewhere. Now, if you were asking and saying I will give you something in exchange for letting us build a hotel, that would be wrong but I haven`t heard any evidence of that. Just trying to build a hotel somewhere, I can`t imagine how that would be criminal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: So Joyce -- I`m going to have Joyce weigh in on this first, Congresswoman if you don`t mind standing by.
BASS: Sure.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Joyce, so react to what Rand Paul said that he doesn`t see anything wrong with building a Trump Tower Moscow while he`s running for president. And then to add to that, the information that they were offering the penthouse to President Putin.
VANCE: Right. Sure. And I think Rand Paul starts in exactly the place that Congresswoman Bass envisions. That place is ensuring that Bob Mueller can deliver a report not just to the Congress, but to the American people because we need to know the facts. Maybe it`s just unsavory that a presidential candidate is conducting business in a foreign country that`s hostile to us, or maybe there`s something criminal there. We need that investigation to be completed and we need to ensure that the president can`t interfere.
Because if it turns out there was a quid pro quo, if a bribe was being offered to move that deal forward, or if there was even an attempt to offer that kind of a bribe, then that`s the sort of information that the American people and certainly Congress needs to have so it can weigh whether there need to be impeachment proceedings.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Congresswoman?
BASS: Yes. Well, I mean I think Senator Paul knows better than what he was saying. You know, clearly if there`s going to be a tower that is built in Moscow, it`s not going to come without Putin`s involvement and Putin is going to want something for it. And then giving away the penthouse, that`s just going to be a gift.
I mean you know, in our country, a president can`t receive gifts from overseas governments. And so Putin receiving a penthouse suite, I think that Rand Paul knows better than that. That`s plain moosey-goosey with the law. And when you are talking about the presidency of the United States, the tone that is set that the law does not apply to me, what does that say to the rest of the country and what does that say to our standing in the world? I`m sure European countries would be looking at this engagement with Putin and the hotel as being either incredibly naive on Trump`s part or just outright corrupt.
VOSSOUGHIAN: So are you giving him the benefit of the doubt or is he just really part of the PR campaign to combat this whole thing?
BASS: I`m not giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think it`s ultimately corrupt. But you could also look at a lot of other examples. You know that he has made money almost every day of his presidency. Every time he goes to one of his resorts on the weekends, taxpayers pay for all of his secret service that stay there, all of the security that he needs.
He has been raking in a lot of money.
His hotel that`s right down the street from the White House, it`s been documented over and over again how foreign governments take major rooms and hold events there in anticipation of incurring favor with the White House. And so it`s that level of corruption that when we do oversight, we need to examine. Is it corruption? Am I exaggerating? That`s what we need to get to the bottom of.
And I think when Democrats get the gavels and provide the oversight that has not been provided over the last two years, I think that the American public will learn an awful a lot more about this administration.
VOSSOUGHIAN: All right. Congresswoman Karen Bass, Joyce Vance, thank you both for joining me. Appreciate it.
BASS: Thank you.
VOSSOUGHIAN: All right everybody. The job that nobody wants, White House chief of staff, that when we`re back in 30 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
YASMIN VOSSOUGHIAN, MSNBC ANCHOR: Tonight, the Trump White House is under siege facing a storm of investigations and a potential economic slowdown. Now, Trump struggling to find a chief of staff to replace John Kelly, his first pick Nick Ayers declining the offer. Other names being floated likely a reality T.V. contest from Chris Christie to Yankee`s president Randy Levine. As for John Kelly he`s already turned into Saturday Night Live punchline. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Trump announce today that John Kelly his chief of staff is leaving the position at the end of the year because Kelly requires extensive surgery to remove his palm from his face. That`s how awful it is to work in the Trump White House. By the way, John Kelly spent 40 years in the Marines, he did three tours in Iraq and he couldn`t finish one tour with Donald Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: With me now Mara Gaye Editorial Board Member for the New York Times and Jason Johnson Politics Editor at the Root.com. Mara, I saw you laughing there watching that SNL skit. Does it -- does it resonate with you?
MARA GAY, EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, you laugh or you cry right, but the state of democracy. I mean, who would want to work for Donald Trump`s White House at this moment. Either you`re a true believer and you can see that this is a tough time to be there. He`s you know going down in flames, essentially the walls are closing in on these investigations. He lost the Midterm elections, his party did, and he doesn`t listen to any of his advisers from everything that we can tell there`s high turnover. Or you are a principled Republican who`s horrified at what`s been going on and from policy to personnel at the White House you want nothing to do with it.
And so I think you`re already -- you have a President who`s working with a very small pool of talent who`s willing to work with him and for him. I mean, some will say that they are people of conscience who think they can make things better in an otherwise chaotic and immoral White House so there`s that group of people. And then there are these people who really truly want nothing to do with it.
And you know, during the campaign it was very similar. There were a lot of Republican, top-notch Republican consultants who steered clear of this campaign and it`s -- Steve Schmidt would be one. And you know, he doesn`t want to agree with it.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Right. Jason, it seems as if there`s a tweet that is haunting Trump over this change of hands with the chief of staff. I feel like that`s been said a lot in these last two years or so and it`s a -- it`s a tweet about former President Barack Obama, three chiefs of staff`s in less than three years of being president. Part of the reason why Barack Obama can`t manage to pass his agenda. And here we are, and we`re on our third chief of staff here with President Trump and so hence the reason why we`re bringing up that tweet. Why leave now? Why show Kelly the door now, Jason?
JASON JOHNSON, POLITICS EDITOR, THE ROOT.COM: Well, because the orange jumpsuits are coming. And who wants to be in office when that`s happening? Look, like nobody wants to be the tour captain on the Titanic. You know, nobody wants to be Harvey Weinstein`s lawyer. Like there are certain jobs you don`t really want because you know what`s going to happen.
VOSSOUGHIAN: So you think it was Kelly`s decision -- so you think it was Kelly`s decision to leave? Because we don`t necessarily know if it was Kelly`s decision to leave or if it was Trump firing John Kelly.
JOHNSON: Well, if there`s one thing we saw with Omarosa and a lot of other people in this administration, that despite his reputation for saying you`re fired on the apprentice, Donald Trump doesn`t like directly firing anybody. He`s a bit of a coward. What he tends to like to do is what he did with his previous you know, the head of the Department of Justice, Attorney General, he likes to bully people and make you miserable and make you quit on your own, so I don`t think he actually fired John Kelly.
But you know, the issue that that`s being faced here is the new chief of staff isn`t just responsible for trying to rein in the White House And control Donald Trump`s behavior which no one can do. It is also actually a campaign position at this point because we`re heading into the 2020 election. So this new chief of staff really has a responsibility of honing Donald Trump`s message. We joke all the time about Trump tweeting and how that messes up what Sarah Huckabee Sanders and other people have to do, but quite literally right now that is going to be a part of the job that I don`t think anybody is really prepared for.
VOSSOUGHIAN: You know, Mara, he had Reince Priebus, you know, the political guy, he had he had a General John Kelly, and now it seems as if he wants someone that could feasibly, literally him but in the position of chief of staff. I actually saw a piece, I can`t remember it was, talking about the fact that Nick Ayers actually looked like a young Donald Trump and it was one of the reasons why he would want him as chief of staff. It seemed as if it was pretty disappointing to the President that Nick Ayers decided not to take the job or they couldn`t necessarily agree on a timeline on this for him to take the job.
GAY: Not just disappointing, I would say extremely embarrassing. When the President of the United States asks you to serve, you almost always serve. This is a huge honor. It`s should not be a difficult job to fill and I think it`s a sign of just how unpopular Trump`s White House is and how extraordinary it is. He`s not a normal president.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Yes, I`m wondering who the interim chief of staff is going to be if John Kelly actually leaves before they appoint a new chief of staff. It actually might be the President himself it seems because his --
GAY: Well, why bother, right? Why bother fill the position if you`re not going to listen to that person.
VOSSOUGHIAN: All right, Mar Gay, Jason Johnson, thank you both. Coming up everybody, Trump`s Russian contacts, the collusion question, and a new guilty. Plus the exit interview with GOP Congresswoman Mia Love calling out Trump for dividing the Republican Party. That`s coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Welcome back. Now to the Mueller probe and the Russian operatives swirling around Donald Trump`s orbit. Today an alleged Russian agent Maria Butina now reportedly planning to plead guilty. She`s accused of working on behalf of the Kremlin to influence the NRA during the 2016 election. Here she is asking Trump about Russian sanctions back in 2015.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIA BUTINA, RUSSIAN AGENT: I am visiting from Russia so my question --
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good friend of Obama.
BUTINA: If you would be elected as the President, what will be your foreign policy especially in the relationships with my country and do you want to continue the politics of sanctions that are damaging of both economy, or you have any other ideas?
TRUMP: I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin, OK. And I mean, where we have the strength. I don`t think you`d need the sanctions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: I wish we could replay that part at the end where he said -- in the middle actually, where I said, a good friend of Obama. But Butina appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. Today the Washington Post reporting on interactions between Russians and at least 14 Trump associates, a much different story than Trump told last year.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?
TRUMP: No, nobody that I know of. I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: With me now investigative journalist Seth Hettena. He is the author of Trump/Russia: A Definitive History as well as former Federal Prosecutor John Flannery. Seth, I`m going to start with you on this one. 14 contacts, that is unbelievable to me. Talk to me about why it is you believe the Russians felt like the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign, Donald Trump, in general, was a prime target.
SETH HETTENA, AUTHOR, TRUM/RUSSIA: Yes. I mean, I think that -- I think there was just as -- they were -- they really felt like they could you know, have an inroad with Trump and when they kept knocking on the door, the door kept opening. Trump has been dealing with Russians since the 80s. He`s been to the Soviet Union. He`s been to Moscow multiple times. He`s wanted his name on a building there. And this is well known in Russia. He`s popular there. He`s well-liked. And I think that you know, they felt like they could have an inroad with him because he seemed to be inviting them in. It was kind of a natural you know, fit between two foreign leaders for two foreign groups -- for two foreign countries.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Well, you know, it seems incredible to me especially with the Butina information. How many tentacles the Russians actually had out there and how huge this operation, Seth, really was. Did they know that President Trump was going to run for president before he actually did?
HETTENA: That`s the million-dollar question. You know, there`s a lot of speculation. People are thinking that you know, Putin put him up to running, that he was running at somebody else`s instigation. I don`t go down that road. I think Trump was running for his own reasons. I think it`s actually a publicity stunt that went wrong. You know, I don`t think they had any advance knowledge but I think they saw an opportunity when Trump did run and they jumped on it.
And you know we just keep learning as you`re mentioning. Every week there`s a new contact. And you know, I think we`re still only at the beginning stages of understanding how deep this penetration went.
VOSSOUGHIAN: So, John, we`re talking about these fourteen contacts obviously revealed in the Mueller filings. What is the reasoning behind this? Why would Mueller want to reveal all of these contacts?
JOHN FLANNERY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think what he`s involved in is a kind of suspense game. He`s not giving us all the details but he`s giving us certainly enough that we can draw the rest of the circle. I`ve always been curious about how far back it goes in response to your last question. And I think that what Mueller is added to the public information is that this goes back a long way. And I didn`t appreciate until the recent disclosures how important the Trump Tower was or the Trump pride -- or the Moscow project was. Going back to 2008 they even had a proposal that it would be called the Ivanka.
And if you look at the deal that they were -- the -- there was a letter of intent that Trump signed and I believe it was in November of 2015. And in that, there`s a lot of front-loading paying him so it`s very interesting. It looks like money goes to him and there`s a proposal to give a you know, $50 million suite to Putin.
And people ask, what could those towers have to do with our concern here in America about the investigation. And I think the answer is the quid pro quo went in two directions for these people and it wasn`t just about helping in the campaign, it was to help in the campaign so they could make the monies they hope to make and they would also lift the sanctions which would compromise the deal that Trump wanted over there.
And family members were all involved in it and why would they deny it because this was bad goings-on. They don`t want anybody to know about this and luckily we do because there`s such terrible liars and because there`s so many pieces of paper and so many people who can`t keep their mouths shut and so many people talking about it.
But to have a presidential candidate in the back pocket of Putin when we had such bad relations with him for what happened in the Ukraine and what happened with the Magnitsky Act and then for interfering in our election, this is -- this is an all-hands-on-deck emergency that we have to do something about. And that`s kind of the way I see the recent disclosures. I wouldn`t be surprised if we see something early next year.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Well, John, quickly. You know, we played that sound earlier of Maria Butina asking then-Candidate Trump in a dinner a question as a reporter and yet we now understand exactly who she is as a Russian agent. What does that mean the impending guilty plea that we`re going to get from her?
FLANNERY: Well, I don`t know how much they`ll disclose but I think it would be interesting to see what she was told to do. She told to get Trump on the record publicly so that they would be reassured that if they interfered in the election on his side, he was on the record on their side. And so we have these steps we have that question by Butina and then we also have how they change the platform to favor being relaxed as to the Ukraine favoring the Russian position about us not interfering so I think that`s very important.
VOSSOUGHIAN: All right, Seth, John, thank you both for joining me. I very much appreciate it. Up next, everybody, what GOP Congresswoman Mia Love told Ari about losing her seat and getting mocked by Donald Trump.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Welcome back. Donald Trump changed Washington in 2017 and now Washington is changing again with a blue wave smashing forty-year records for Democrats. The incoming class will also make this the most diverse Congress ever primarily powered by new Democrats. The new GOP caucus still comprised of mostly white men.
Meanwhile, Republicans are about to lose the only African-American woman in the House Congresswoman Mia Love who lost by fewer than 700 votes. She recently sat down with Ari to discuss where Congress is headed and to respond to President Trump who named checked her in his midterm press conference.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They did very poorly. I`m not sure that I should be happy or sad but I feel just fine about it. Mia Love gave me no love and she lost. Too bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: You see the president. Did he have that right as an analysis of your race in Utah?
REP. MIA LOVE (R), UTAH: You know, the President has an analysis of everyone and you know there wasn`t anything that he does it really affects me. He`s doing what he believes is right and I`m going to continue to do what I can to make sure I treat people with kindness and respect and the way I would want to be treated.
MELBER: Something that`s been very personal is the way the immigration debates have played out.
LOVE: Right.
MELBER: You spoke up on that. I want to take a look and remind our viewers of what you said during the family separation crisis when a lot of Republicans initially we`re backing Trump take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LOVE: The practice of separating loving families from their children at the border is heartbreaking to watch. I am a daughter of immigrants. We are a proud American family of patriots.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Why did you choose that moment to stand up and how were you received by conservatives in Utah?
Well, remember that this was the -- I was a little -- I was a little upset because I felt like our votes weren`t being brought up on the floor and this to me is a constitutional issue. Article 1 Section 8 says that Congress is to create a uniform rule of naturalization. And if you can`t get bills to the floor then believe that the people that I was representing couldn`t have a voice in the House of Representatives. I think the bill should be able to be debated on the floor.
MELBER: So what you`re doing right now is you`re very diplomatically criticizing Paul Ryan.
LOVE: I was very diplomatically criticizing leadership, yes.
MELBER: Leadership.
LOVE: Yes.
MELBER: And Paul is the leader --
LOVE: And Paul knows this, by the way.
MELBER: He`s the leader in the leadership.
LOVE: I love -- I love -- everybody knows I love Paul. Paul is my -- Paul is my big brother in Congress.
MELBER: OK.
LOVE: But I -- but again, I wasn`t there to just promote Paul.
MELBER: Let me ask you about the way the President addresses race and whether he is a divider or not. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Look at my African-American over here. Look at him. Are you the greatest?
Wouldn`t you love to see these NFL owners when somebody disrespects our flag to say get that son of a bitch off the field right now? Out. He`s fired.
Look how much African-American communities have suffered under Democratic control. To those, I say the following. What do you have to lose?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Does he have the right approach?
LOVE: When you look at (INAUDIBLE) I may not agree with a lot of the tactics especially the language. I called him out on calling countries that my parents are from s-whole countries. I`ve gone after him with the language but African Americans, Black Americans are actually their unemployment is the lowest it`s been for them for a while. I`m looking at results. The reason why we have such a divide when it comes to elections, the reason -- is because there`s a sense that I don`t believe that minorities really trust Republicans, trust that they actually care. Those policies are coming from afar.
And I think that we as Republicans, all of us need to do a better job showing people that we actually care about them.
MELBER: Mia Love, I really appreciate you coming on THE BEAT.
LOVE: I appreciate it. Thank you.
MELBER: Thank you so much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VOSSOUGHIAN: All right, Ari Melber with GOP Congresswoman Mia Love. Still ahead everybody, Robert De Niro as Bob Mueller drops by Studio 8H and Individual One gets the SNL treatment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Welcome back. The walls might be closing in on Individual One, but SNL had some fun with it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Federal prosecutor said Friday that Michael Cohen committed two election-related crimes at the direction of the person identified as Individual One. Now, we don`t know for sure who Individual One is. Let`s just say things are getting tense at Individual One Tower.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Michael Cohen will be sentenced by a federal judge here in New York on Wednesday. His lawyers argue for no jail time, while the feds are asking for over four years. And tomorrow Paul Manafort`s lawyers are back in court for their rebuttal to the lies and crimes Mueller laid out in his memo. Manafort will not attend. We, of course, will have all the details for you right here on THE BEAT.
That does it for me. Catch me tomorrow morning @ 5:00 a.m. Eastern on "MORNING JOE" "FIRST LOOK." "HARDBALL" with Chris Mathews starts right now.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END