Show: THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER Date: December 11, 2018 Guest: Jim Messina, Alicia Menendez, Michelle Goldberg, Julia Ainsley; Natasha Bertrand; Nick Akerman; John Harwood; Sheila Jackson Lee; Jim Messina
CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: That`s all for tonight.
"THE BEAT" starts right now. Yasmin Vossoughian -- I`m sorry. Vossoughian. I knew this, I`m better at this, and I should be.
YASMIN VOSSOUGHIAN, MSNBC HOST: I said to Dan, the EP --
TODD: Yasmin Vossoughian. And I had it.
VOSSOUGHIAN: -- did you talk to Chuck about the name?
TODD: I had it and then I blew it.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Then you did it.
TODD: And then I did.
VOSSOUGHIAN: That`s OK.
TODD: Here`s what I like to know --
VOSSOUGHIAN: You`re Chuck Todd, you can do that.
TODD: How are you handling the later hours?
VOSSOUGHIAN: You know, I`m sorry, did you say something?
TODD: Yes, exactly. All right. Fair enough.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Thanks, Chuck. Have a good rest of your night.
TODD: Thank you.
VOSSOUGHIAN: I`m Yasmin Vossoughian, everybody, in for Ari.
We have a lot of developing stories right now. The fallout. After an extraordinary clash on camera between Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Trump, and the silent Mike Pence, why Schumer called it a "temper tantrum".
Also, new reporting on Trump Republicans sounding the alarm as Mueller closes in. And a provocative legal take, prison or the presidency? How a Trump loss could mean jail time? That reporter is here.
But we start tonight with breaking news in the Russia probe. A legal storm surrounding Trump and his own allies now worried. Moments ago, Paul Manafort`s legal team saying they need until January to respond to Mueller`s lies and crimes, accusations, the judge asking Mueller`s team for more details on how Manafort lied about contacts tied to Russia in the Trump administration this year. Now Manafort needs more time.
And also breaking today from a different Justice Department investigation, accused Russian foreign agent Maria Butina is now cooperating with the feds. She`s accused of working at the direction of a Russian official "to establish unofficial lines of communication with Americans having power and influence over the U.S. politics for the benefit of the Russian Federation." NBC News obtained the plea agreement, Butina admitting to conspiracy charges and failing to register as a foreign agent.
Also today, so much going on, guilty former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn expecting to respond to Mueller, who called for reduced jail time because Flynn gave "substantial assistance to the Russia probe". Tomorrow, Trump`s former lawyer Michael Cohen gets his sentence with prosecutors asking for over four years. All of this happening as Trump braces for what`s next.
"Axios" reports a White House official saying Mueller detonated a reality tremor with his filings with key allies now worried about Trump`s rising legal and political vulnerability.
With me now is NBC`s Julia Ainsley who is inside Manafort`s hearing, former Watergate Prosecutor Nick Akerman, Natasha Bertrand staff writer of "The Atlantic", and John Harwood, "CNBC`s" editor-at-large.
Julia, I`m going to start with you since you were inside the courtroom. You have the most breaking news with regards to Manafort. Talk to me about why it is Manafort`s team here needs more time.
JULIA AINSLEY, NATIONAL SECURITY AND JUSTICE REPORTER, NBC NEWS: Well, it was a short hearing, Yasmin. I mean we went in expecting Manafort`s team to have some kind of rebuttal to what Mueller`s team laid out on Friday, which is that he`s in breach of the plea agreement because he lied to them about his contacts with the White House and with Russia as recently as this year.
We`re expecting them to say maybe something along the lines of, yes, he lied but not intentionally. Instead, they say that they couldn`t even agree or disagree with what Mueller`s team is laying out so far and they need until January 7. Keep in mind, they didn`t just find out about this on Friday. Mueller`s team actually said this was coming just a few days after Thanksgiving. So they`ve had some time here.
The things they say they need more time to do is talk to Mueller`s team and figure out what evidence they have that he lied. They want to be able to see what he said in his testimony and what they have to back up that that was a lie, but they also want to talk to their client. So what I walked away thinking, Yasmin, is, have these lawyers actually gotten the truth from Paul Manafort about his own contacts and his own testimony to the prosecution?
VOSSOUGHIAN: Nick, I want you to weigh in on this here. So does this mean, first of all, that Mueller is going to have to basically come up with more evidence here?
NICK AKERMAN, FORMER WATERGATE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: No, I think he`s got plenty of evidence. If you look at this memo that he filed with the court, it`s obvious he`s got taped conversations, he`s got e-mails, he`s got documents. I mean he`s even got Manafort`s lawyers` own notes where they recited to him what he said about Kilimnik at one occasion, and he changes his story completely on another occasion.
I mean I don`t know why they`re asking for more time here. Maybe they think they can finally get their client to cooperate. I don`t know. But it doesn`t make a lot of sense because it`s a very, very strong case based on what I`ve seen here that he`s violated that cooperation agreement.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Natasha, talk about the prospect that Paul Manafort has been lying to his legal team, that they don`t actually know what`s been going, and they have to circle back with their own client to find out what`s going on before they can actually give an answer to Mueller`s filings.
NATASHA BERTRAND, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Yes. So Manafort is certainly known to be a fairly duplicitous figure. He`s built a career around being kind of a double agent if you will. So I would not be completely surprised if he was trying to hide certain things from his own legal team. But then again, it wouldn`t necessarily or at all be in his interests to do so, especially because his legal team has apparently been in direct contact with the White House. He apparently never exited this deal he had with this joint agreement that he had with the White House to keep them apprised essentially of everything that the Mueller investigation was doing.
So I don`t necessarily think that he would be hiding out that from his legal team. His communications with Konstantin Kilimnik, the suspected Russian intelligence officer, are another thing entirely though because that kind of places him squarely at the center of this investigation into a potential conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. But he has been known to have a large amount of hubris in the past. Of course, he engaged in witness tampering after he was already in the crosshairs of the Mueller investigation, which ultimately landed him in jail. So it`s really hard to predict what Manafort is ever thinking.
VOSSOUGHIAN: But Nick, you seem to think that his legal team, Manafort`s legal team didn`t necessarily trust Manafort from the get-go?
AKERMAN: I don`t think either side trusts him.
VOSSOUGHIAN: And what suggests that?
AKERMAN: Because he had 12 meetings with the government. And all 12 meetings, the lawyers were present. That is extremely unusual.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Why?
AKERMAN: Because normally when you have -- entering into a cooperation agreement, the lawyers for the defendant back off because they don`t want to be part of the conversation. They don`t need to be part of the conversation. There`s no reason for them to waste more legal fees being there for the client.
VOSSOUGHIAN: So what advantage does Manafort have by having his lawyers present?
AKERMAN: I don`t think it was so much the advantages. I think that the lawyers must have been nervous that he wasn`t going to tell the truth or the government --
JOHN HARWOOD, EDITOR AT LARGE, CNBC: Yasmin --
VOSSOUGHIAN: Hold on a second, John. Go ahead. Go ahead.
AKERMAN: But the government asked the lawyers to be there because they were afraid Manafort wasn`t going to tell the truth. That is really unusual. I never, ever in all my years as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer, ever had a situation where the lawyers would stay with the cooperating witness straight through 12 conversations with the government.
VOSSOUGHIAN: John Harwood, go ahead.
HARWOOD: Well, it is apparent from that Manafort memo that was filed on Friday that he is such a habitual liar, that Paul Manafort was lying about things that he had already admitted. So he had admitted in his initial plea agreement to certain facts that he then in subsequent conversations lied about. Then when he was confronted with the lies, he admitted it again. So I think part of this may be simply trying to keep up with all the lies that Paul Manafort tells.
VOSSOUGHIAN: From the "New York Post," John, Trump was asked about pardoning Paul Manafort. And here`s what he said. "It was never discussed but I wouldn`t take it off the table. Why would I take it off the table?" That seems like an open door to me. Do you think Paul Manafort has been angling for a pardon throughout this entire process?
HARWOOD: Without question. And that`s why he`s doing this sort of double agent routine with the Mueller investigation and the White House lawyers. The president is dangling the pardon which is -- I`ll let Neal -- Nick Akerman speak from the perspective of a prosecutor but that sure looks to me like obstruction of justice in plain sight. We`ll see what Robert Mueller does with that information. But yes, when you start talking openly about potentially pardoning someone who is cooperating on an investigation of you, that`s pretty problematic.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Obstruction of justice, Nick?
AKERMAN: Totally obstruction of justice.
VOSSOUGHIAN: So what do they do with it?
AKERMAN: Well, they may put it in as all part of the consciousness of guilt at the end of the day.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Will they?
AKERMAN: Yes, I think they will. I mean at some point, the big item here is going to be the conspiracy between the Russians and the campaign that you saw in that indictment that came down on July 13 against the 13 Russian intelligence operatives. What we`re looking at now is Mueller is putting together the American side of that conspiracy, which was to break into the Democratic National Committee, steal documents and e-mails, and then stage and release those e-mails. That is what`s going on right now. He`s filling in the blanks.
VOSSOUGHIAN: You know I`m interested as to how all these filings are actually impacting Trump loyalists. There`s a report from "Axios" about the Mueller filings and how they`re impacting his MAGA supporters. It says one Trump loyalist said after a day of conversation with "hardcore MAGA online influencers", these are the people most predisposed to believing the witch hunt rhetoric, but they are now expressing, Natasha, real concerns. So is it -- are MAGA supporters, are Trump base supporters now actually expressing real concerns about what`s going on in Washington with regards to the Russia and Mueller investigations?
BERTRAND: You know I wish that were true but I have my doubts about these reports. We saw another report by another network done just yesterday that said that Republicans in the House and Senate are essentially saying that they don`t care about the filings that have come out about Michael Cohen and about Trump`s involvement in paying off women to silence them during the 2016 election, which would have amounted, of course, to campaign finance violations.
Orrin Hatch just said late in May, "Well, I don`t care. It`s the Democrats out to get the president." And when confronted with the fact that, no, it was actually prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, he kind of shook his head and said, "Well, he`s doing a good job as president." And I worry that that is kind of the attitude that`s drifting down to Trump`s base as well, who already think that this entire thing is a witch hunt.
Now I do wonder and think that perhaps they might have some fears about this having an impact on the president just in terms of giving fuel to his detractors and maybe putting him in a place where he could be vulnerable to impeachment which, of course, the president is also -- has also expressed concern about that. But as far as the actual credibility of the allegations that have been lodged against the president and whether or not they are damning enough that his own base would withdraw support from him, I just don`t think that`s the case. I think that they`re going to stand by him. And if anything were to happen to him, impeachment or removal, then they would just blame it on the deep state.
HARWOOD: Yasmine, remember --
VOSSOUGHIAN: Go ahead, John. Yes.
HARWOOD: Remember that the Trump base is not a decisive segment of the American population. He right now is at 40 percent approval --
VOSSOUGHIAN: But it`s his audience, John. It`s his audience. It`s who he`s always speaking to. We`re going to talk about the Chuck and Nancy meeting later on in the show. I mean --
HARWOOD: Well, sure.
VOSSOUGHIAN: -- everything that President Trump says is focused on his base. That`s who he cares about.
HARWOOD: That`s fine. But if you just look at what happened in midterm elections, Democrats won 40 seats, they won the largest popular vote margin in the history of midterm elections. And so that is a sign that President Trump does not have the political strength that he had two years ago. Republicans, of course, won a majority of the House two years ago. Now, they`re down.
And so these are deteriorating political considerations that overlap with trouble signs in financial markets, trouble signs in the economy. This president is in for a rough ride over the next couple of months and I think he knows it.
VOSSOUGHIAN: They`re telling me to wrap but I got to get this in. Nick, we got the Cohen sentencing tomorrow.
AKERMAN: Yes.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Obviously, the SDNY suggesting that he get four years. If he gets the maximum four years sentencing, do you see other people cooperating, possibly Roger Stone, if in fact he gets indicted?
AKERMAN: Well, I think there`s going to be other people cooperating. There probably already are other people cooperating but I think what you`re also going to see --
VOSSOUGHIAN: But is the Cohen sentencing setting a precedent?
AKERMAN: Well, he`s going set this precedent. I mean he`s going to come somewhere between probation`s recommendation and the maximum, and he`s going to then wind up entering into a cooperation agreement with the Mueller team so that he`s going to look to try and reduce his sentence by virtue of the cooperation that he`s giving.
VOSSOUGHIAN: And that`s why we have guys like Nick Akerman on and everybody else, by the way. He just happens to be sitting next to me so he gets the praise. Julia Ainsley, Natasha Bertrand, John Harwood, thank you. Nick, you`re staying with me.
Coming up, everybody, a reality TV moment at the White House. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer squaring off against Trump over a government shutdown.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NANCY PELOSI, HOUSE SPEAKER DESIGNATE: But a shutdown is not worth anything and that you should not have a Trump shutdown. You`ll have --
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Did you say "Trump"?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: You`ve got to admit that was some good television. Plus, how some Trump allies are responding to the growing investigations. I`ll talk to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
Also, how Trump`s legal issues could drive the 2020 election. And we have a big ruling in the Stormy Daniels fight. I`m Yasmin Vossoughian, in for Ari Melber, and you`re watching THE BEAT on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Welcome back. We`re back on the growing legal heat facing Donald Trump and why it`s finally rattling some of its closest allies. New reporting, the pressure is unnerving Republicans who worry Trump`s increasingly vulnerable. The idea that he directed Michael Cohen to commit a felony could mark a turning point for the GOP, particularly if Mueller fleshes out the allegations.
"Axios" reporting even hardcore Trump allies were rattled by the level of detail in the Cohen guilty plea. And today, 44 former senators, including 10 Republicans, warning our democracy is entering a "dangerous period with serious challenges to the rule of law". But publicly, Republicans are still backing Trump. When a reporter asked Utah Senator Orrin Hatch about Trump`s links to Cohen`s crimes, he said this, "I don`t care". And House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy downplayed the crimes. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN MCCARTHY: To go forward and say there`s an impeachable offense because of a campaign finance problem? There`s a lot of members in Congress who would have to leave for that same place.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Today, another Republican Congressman disagreed with the facts of the case as well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIANNA KEILAR, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, CNN: The president`s been implicated now in two crimes, campaign finance violations. This was in that recent filing by the Southern District of New York. Does this concern you?
REP. TOM REED (R), NEW YORK: You know I don`t agree with the assumption that he`s been accused of a crime. I don`t see that here. I see that the Mueller investigation --
KEILAR: He`s been implicated. He`s been implicated. Michael Cohen --
REED: I disagree with that. I disagree with that.
KEILAR: Well, I mean -- but no, that`s -- you can`t, that`s just the truth. I don`t know how you disagree. It`s a fact. He`s been implicated as directing the hush money payments --
REED: No, no, no.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Here with me now Texas Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee who serves on the Judiciary Committee. Congresswoman, good to have you. Thanks so much for joining us this evening.
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Good to be with you.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Is this the Republican party strategy, deny the facts of the case and really just stand by Trump no matter what happens here?
LEE: If it is, the nation is really in trouble. Where is the breath of fresh air that occurred during the Watergate hearings, where one by one Republicans realized that the Nixon presidency was not going to stand? Or where`s the answer to the letter from 44 of their former colleagues, Republicans, and Democrats, that have pleaded with them to stand for the rule of law and democracy over party? That is not happening now and I think the American people deserve better.
Frankly, there is no call for them to make a statement about any actions of high crimes and misdemeanors, but certainly, it begs the question as to whether or not they can acknowledge that these are serious accusations against Mr. Cohen, serious accusations against Mr. Manafort. They were intimately involved with the campaign. One was the lawyer for the president himself, a personal lawyer. And Mr. Manafort, you cannot deny, was intimately engaged in orchestrating Mr. Trump`s journey to the convention, the Republican convention, and was a very important part of the campaign.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Congresswoman, we`re hearing obviously that Republicans are privately worried as to what`s going on with the Mueller probe and the filings that keep coming out day after day after day. The big question here is what would make them publicly come out against the president? If they`re privately worried about what`s going on but publicly they`re standing by the president, what would be the straw that breaks the camel`s back here for them?
LEE: Well, I think they already have that evidence. First of all, with the recommendation that Director Flynn gets no jail time, that means that in the course of his meetings with prosecutors in the Mueller investigation, he was very, very detailed. In addition, if you just look at the landscape of operatives in the campaign, how can they ignore that there were 12 individuals indicted, Russians, who were part of a company or three companies, indicted as well, that had a design to interfere with the 2016 election?
They all were engaged or around operatives of the Trump campaign. There were 12 or so intelligence operatives from Russia specifically focused on releasing democratic e-mails. The evidence or the story is already there. What administration over the last 40 years has had this kind of close connection to our adversaries, our definitive adversaries like Russia, definitely interested in undermining the rule of law and democracy?
So I guess my answer would be, it is all in the internal assessment that Republicans have to make whether they will put country first. I guess what they would argue is that they would have to see the fingerprints of President Trump on any of these actions.
But I think his fingerprints may be nearby. Because if you are listed in an indictment of Mr. Cohen as Individual-1, having directed the individual to do what he did, and to do it to ensure that these developments or discoveries would not come out before the 2016 election date in November 2016, that seems to me to be worthy of assessment. Maybe not coming to a final conclusion, but we don`t even have comments from Republicans saying that this is troubling to them, let`s get more facts, let`s support the Mueller investigation being completed.
And the last point is, why can`t we get the Senate to put the Bipartisan Bill on the floor that protects Mr. Mueller as he continues his investigation? That would truly give a sign of putting country over party.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Congresswoman, are Democrats putting country first by not pursuing impeachment?
LEE: Well, here`s the issue on impeachment. I think the American people understand. They`ve heard the word so much. They know that it is a constitutional function of high crimes and misdemeanors. They know that anyone who, or any party, or any majority that engages in that if we are in the majority, and in this instance it would be Democrats, is that it would have to be bipartisan. It was bipartisan in Watergate when Republicans recognized that the nation could not continue to function.
Democrats are going to wait for the Mueller report and we`re going to investigate as our duty requires us to do. That`s what the Judiciary Committee is going to do. By those hearings that we may have, then facts of more evidence will be presented. For example, to be able to find out who lied and have them under oath and have them before our committee, including some of the very principals that the Mueller investigation is looking at, to get transcripts being released, for us to be able to have access to those.
All of that will play into doing our task, our job, on behalf of the American people, which is to ensure the integrity of the presidency, the White House, and this government. Just as we are trying to ensure the integrity of being against any government shutdown.
VOSSOUGHIAN: I`m sure there`s a lot of people out there thinking right now, bipartisanship is not going to be an easy task, considering what went down in the oval office earlier today. And we`re going to be talking about that coming up. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, thank you.
LEE: Thank you for having me.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Speaking of bipartisanship or lack thereof, it`s going to be very different for Trump now. The epic clash inside the White House over the wall, of course. The gloves, they came off. We`ll be back in 30 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VOSSOUGHIAN: A new reality show premiered today, "The Donald, Chuck, and Nancy Show." It has a good ring to it. Extraordinary scene today inside the oval office. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Trump, and a speechless Mike Pence clashing and openly arguing in a fight over keeping the government from shutting down over the border wall. It was supposed to be a closed- door negotiation but Trump in typical reality TV style bringing the cameras in and it sure got ugly. Let`s watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PELOSI: You have the votes. You should pass it right now.
TRUMP: No, we don`t have the votes because, in the Senate, we need 60 votes. We don`t have --
PELOSI: No but in the House. You could bring it up right now today --
TRUMP: Yes but I can`t -- excuse me.
PELOSI: The fact is you do not have the votes in the House.
TRUMP: Nancy, I do. And we need border security.
PELOSI: Well, let`s take the vote and we`ll find out.
TRUMP: Nancy. Nancy.
CHUCK SCHUMER (R-NY), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: "The Washington Post" today gave you a whole lot of Pinocchios because they say you constantly misstate how much the wall is built -- how much of the wall is built and how much is there but that`s not the point here. We have a disagreement about the wall --
TRUMP: Well, "The Washington Post" --
SCHUMER: --whether it`s effective or it isn`t. Not on border. That`s what we`re urging you to do, not threaten to shut down the government --
TRUMP: Chuck --
SCHUMER: -- because you --
TRUMP: You don`t want to shut down the government, Chuck.
SCHUMER: Let me just finish. Because you can`t get your way.
TRUMP: The last time you shut it down, you got killed.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When the president brags that he won North Dakota and Indiana, he`s in real trouble.
TRUMP: Well, I did.
PELOSI: When I -- let me say this.
TRUMP: We did win North Dakota and Indiana.
PELOSI: Let me say this. This is the most --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Some shade from Schumer there as you saw. And you ask, is there more? Yes, there is much, much more. Trump saying he`d be proud to take the blame this time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck. Because the people of this country don`t want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I`m not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didn`t work. I will take the mantle of shutting it down and I`m going to shut it down for border security.
SCHUMER: But we believe you shouldn`t shut it down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: And more. Trump also clashing with Pelosi. She stood up to him after implicating she might not be the speaker.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You know, Nancy`s in a situation where it`s not easy for her to talk right now. And I understand that and I fully understand that. We`re going to have a good discussion and we`re going to see what happens.
PELOSI: Mr. President --
TRUMP: But we have to have border security.
PELOSI: Mr. President, please don`t characterize the strength that I bring to this meeting as a leader of the House Democrats, who just won a big victory --
SCHUMER: Elections got consequences, Mr. President.
PELOSI: Let me just say --
TRUMP: That`s right. And that`s why the country`s doing so well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: I feel like we need some popcorn. In the end, Democrats hammered the point home using Trumpian-style branding for the shutdown.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PELOSI: But a shutdown is not worth anything and that you should not have a Trump shutdown.
TRUMP: Did you say "Trump"?
SCHUMER: This Trump shutdown, this temper tantrum that he seems to throw will not get him his wall.
PELOSI: That the president chooses to shut down the government that we have a Trump shutdown as a Christmas present --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Joining me now, Alicia Menendez, contributing editor at "Bussle" and Jim Messina who served as deputy chief of staff under President Obama. Jim, I`m going to start with you. Simple question here. Who do you think won that?
JIM MESSINA, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: Nancy Pelosi. I mean I think she reminded the Democratic party why they desperately need her as their leader. I think she pushed back really effectively. I love the Trump shutdown line.
And I think she did what a whole bunch of Americans have wanted to do for a while, which verbally slaps the president across the face and say, stop talking about these facts that aren`t true and let`s get down to business. And I think she came out of this as the strongest leader in that room.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Alicia, NBC now reporting that Pelosi said the wall is Trump`s manhood. What do you think of that?
ALICIA MENENDEZ, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, BUSTLE: Well, it follows Trump mansplaining to her in that meeting saying Nancy is in a very hard place speaking for her in many ways.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Kind of hitting below the belt on her.
MENENDEZ: Yes, I mean, no pun. I mean this is -- this is reality-T.V. president on full display and I think what we can`t get distracted by is the entertainment value of this because this was done for entertainment not for governing. And this is not say, yes to the dress, this is not a real housewives reunion, this is real stakes for real people. And I think it behooves the President if there is more chaos and noise inserted into the system because every minute we spend talking about this wild media -- and we do need to talk about them.
VOSSOUGHIAN: We`re not talking about Mueller and we`re not talking about Russia.
MENENDEZ: We`re not talking about Mueller. Yes, and that benefits him.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Yes. Jim, I can`t help but think the entire time that this was going on between Chuck and Nancy and the president, the President was talking to one person. He had one audience in mind which we sort of thematically has been the entire show which was his base. He wanted his base to hear that he was fulfilling a campaign promise by erecting a wall on the border between the United States and Mexico. And if the Democrats don`t provide the money that he needs to build that wall it will be the Democrats fault although he will take the blame for it.
MESSINA: Yes, it`s crazy politics, right? He just lost 40 seats in the House and seven governorships, and instead, he`s like back to the same play. He`s a football team with one play and that`s run to the base. And over and over and over, he did this in this meeting, he`s done it for his entire two years as president. And you know, the problem is he`s sitting at 40 percent in the polls, right, and he just watch his party get thrashed. And if you`re one of these Republicans who have to cast these votes coming up, you look at him and say wait a minute, is he in this for me or him? And I think it`s a it`s a problem.
And I also think, you know, Schumer and Pelosi are starting to do for the first time to teach the president this is what we call checks and balances. And now he`s got a deal with a resurgent Democratic Party and a chamber he doesn`t control. And when Nancy Pelosi had to tell him that he didn`t have the votes in his own House, I thought that was kind of an amazing moment for a guy who`s supposed to be the ultimate deal maker.
VOSSOUGHIAN: You know, Alicia, as we brought up -- and a really good point, people could be out of money, they could not be getting paychecks near Christmas time, they can be not working, they`ll have to stay home. Obviously, parks would be closed if we had a government shutdown. All this happening for days possibly before Christmas, a really serious subject matter. That`s really going to affect people`s lives.
Nancy Pelosi wanted this thing to go on behind closed doors. The President obviously did not. Do you -- there`s some people argue -- some people argue that it was better that it was in front of everybody to see this argument. What`s your take on that?
MENENDEZ: I think both sides see it the way they want to see it. I think if you are a Trump fan, a member of the Trump base then you saw that as a Trump win. I think if you`re a Democrat, you watch that, you saw that as a Democratic win. But when you step back from it, really very little has changed, right? They walk -- Democrats walked into that meeting offering $1.3 billion and they walked out offering $1.3 billion. Well, we saw where that they`re speaking in very different context.
The President has turned this into a false choice between border security and the government shutdown and Democrats are trying to position this as a choice between $5 billion dollars for something that experts agree is not going to serve its stated purpose. That wall is not actually going to work as a deterrent versus a government shutdown. So -- and then on top of that, you have them disagreeing over whether this is a battle that`s going to play out in the House or in the Senate so they`re not speaking the same language.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Yes. There was another person in the room. I`m not quite sure if you guys do this there was someone else in the room besides the President and Chucky and Nancy. There he was Vice President Mike Pence. Can we take a moment of silence for Mike Pence because I`m not quite sure what was going on in Mike Pence`s mind, Jim, this entire time. I mean, did he even say anything the entire time? Did I get this wrong or I really don`t feel like he said a thing?
MESSINA: No, he didn`t speak. He was like a potted plant or he seemed like the hostage guy in the hostage video right who just didn`t want to be there. I do want to disagree with one thing that was just said though. That it was one very significant political thing that happened which we know from all the other shutdowns is the person who`s responsible for the shutdown always loses politically.
And now, the president United States say this is my shutdown. I`m not going to blame you. I`m doing this is politically a very significant thing going forward because that`s hard to walk back. It`s also hard to walk back the fact that the Vice President United States sat in the meeting for 25 minutes and look like a plant. It was bizarre.
VOSSOUGHIAN: The whole thing was bizarre.
MENENDEZ: I think though if you are someone who has presidential aspirations then you are wise enough to know that there is no benefit into getting into that fray.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Why not just say you had a lunch?
MESSINA: right.
VOSSOUGHIAN: I mean, that`s more -- I got a lunch. Sorry I`m not going to be able to be there. Alicia Menendez, Jim Messina, thank you both. Ahead, everybody, news-breaking on a payment between Stormy Daniels and Trump that you might not expect. But first presidency or prison? A new take on Trump`s legal cover why his next election could save him from jail? That reporter is here next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Welcome back. Now to the indictment threat looming over Donald Trump and the epic political clash it could produce. Remember federal prosecutors alleged that Michael Cohen made illegal campaign payments "in coordination with and at the direction of Individual One." Individual One, of course, being President Trump. In other words, Trump may also have committed a felony. But Justice Department guidance maintain sitting presidents cannot be indicted leading some to speculate the indictment will come after Trump leaves office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: 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: But today the New York Times Michelle Goldberg considers another option if Trump is reelected in 2020. He could run out the clock on the five-year statute of limitations on Campaign Finance Crimes. Goldberg predicting it would turn the 2020 campaign into a "banana republic style deathmatch." And Michelle Goldberg from New York Times joining me now. Back with me is Nick Akerman former Watergate Special Prosecutor. Banana republic style deathmatch in 2020. There`s a reason why you are a w4riter my friend.
MICHELLE GOLDBERG, COLUMNIST, NEW YORK TIMES: Right. I mean, that`s not granted. That is not I mean, granted. I think it`s probably going to be something close to that regardless.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Right.
GOLDBERG: But it part -- you know, so Donald Trump in 2020 could be facing a situation where he either wins re-election or goes to jail, right? And so the stakes you know --
VOSSOUGHIAN: Just say -- I mean, take a pause for a second. You`ve just said.
GOLDBERG: Right. Well because of the Department of Justice guidelines, I mean I think that the system as it was designed, people probably envisioned that if a president was seriously suspected by his own Justice Department of having committed a felony that there would be an impeachment process and that there would be you know, that you wouldn`t have a president running for re-election with something like that hanging over his head. But because you know our process -- because our politics are so polarized, that`s really broken down.
And so now we basically have no prospect of removing this president you know, short of some spectacular revelation of irrefutable you know, treason or collusion. And so we have this crazy situation where the President has again according to his own Justice Department committed a felony. He can`t be prosecuted as long as he`s president. If he stopped being president that immunity runs out. If he wins re-election he can run out the clock on the statute of limitation.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Do you believe that the President would be running in 2020 with that actually in mind? Do think that he believes that`s his reality?
GOLDBERG: You know, it`s hard for me to say in what aspects of reality Donald Trump is in touch with and not in touch with. But yes, I think that that would quickly -- I think it would become obvious to him at a certain point that -- that those are the stakes, right? That if he wants to stay out of jail, he has to win reelection. And I think 2020 was already going to be spectacularly ugly. But just imagine I mean, as lawless and unconstrained as this president has been, imagine what he would do when the stakes for him are that high.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Nick, do you buy her argument here?
NICK AKERMAN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: To some extent because the statute of limitations which Michelle referred to is five years for these violations.
GOLDBERG: Right.
AKERMAN: So that means it would run in 2021. But there`s one way the Department of Justice could get around that, and that is by filing a sealed indictment within the statute of limitations. So if you did that, you would at least have the indictment in place so even if Donald Trump were re-elected, he could still be prosecuted after he left office. Now, that doesn`t mean that this would necessarily be announced to the public. Sealed indictments normally are not announced.
VOSSOUGHIAN: So we wouldn`t even know if it was going on.
AKERMAN: That`s right. If you take the Justice Department guideline, the real purpose at least the policy reason why you don`t indict a president necessarily is because you don`t want your president dealing with legal matters and having to appear in court and having to have the -- all of the things attending with defending an indictment when you`re supposed to be running the country.
Now, that particular argument wasn`t -- was basically knocked down in the Paula Jones case by the United States Supreme Court where they permitted a civil action to go against Bill Clinton. Now, the big difference here with President Trump is that it`s hard for him to say that this is going to interfere the fact that he`s involved in a legal action, is going to interfere when he`s already --
VOSSOUGHIAN: But he can`t make that argument.
AKERMAN: Well, he can`t make that argument because he`s been -- he filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Los Angeles against the woman who claims he never met. So when you`re doing that, how can you claim that you can`t be tied up in court. And besides, he spends so much time on the golf course. All they need to do is just the schedule is tryst trial in his golf course time, and then let him act as president.
VOSSOUGHIAN: What about -- what about introducing this legislation that could actually extend the statute of limitations, Michelle?
GOLDBERG: Right. So Jerry Nadler who`s going to be the head of the Judiciary Committee which is you know, the committee that would end up overseeing impeachment if it ever came to that, you know, he`s kind of said we`re pretty -- we`re really far from that but one step that he wants to take is to basically pass legislation, introduced legislation that would for any president stop the clock on crimes --
VOSSOUGHIAN: Who would pass that though?
GOLDBERG: Well --
VOSSOUGHIAN: They can`t even get legislation passed to protect Mueller right now.
GOLDBERG: Right.
VOSSOUGHIAN: The likelihood of that getting passed especially in the Senate is not high.
GOLDBERG: I think -- I think it`s not great. I mean, I imagine that they would have to attach it to some other sort of must-pass legislation and then you know, let Trump explain why this was unacceptable to him since in theory, the idea that the president shouldn`t be above the law is something of a consensus value in American politics.
VOSSOUGHIAN: It sounds good to them but I don`t buy that it would ever go --
GOLDBERG: No, I mean, I think it`ll be really, really difficult.
AKERMAN: But you don`t need to do that because you can file an indictment under seal within a statute.
VOSSOUGHIAN: You know everything, Nick Akerman. In a good way. Michelle Goldberg, Nick Akerman, thank you both for joining me.
AKERMAN: Thank you.
VOSSOUGHIAN: All right, also everybody, new information on Stormy Daniels tonight. A federal judge ordering the adult film actress to pay Donald Trump almost $300,000 in attorney fees as part of a defamation case against Trump which was tossed out in October. Today, Trump`s lawyers defending the decision as a total victory while Daniels`s lawyer Michael Avenatti says the ruling would never hold up on appeal.
All right, coming up, Republicans grilling the head of Google for its search results claiming political bias. Wait until you hear the response from a Democratic lawmaker. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Today the head of Google budding GOP claims of political bias. The hearing, one of House Republicans final acts before handing over power to Democrats. And at times it was a circus. A protestor dressed up as monopoly man complete with top hat and mustache. You see him right there, just outside Roger Stone protesting with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEX JONES, RADIO HOST: Google is evil. Google is evil. Google has sided with the communist Chinese against America.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Control yourself.
JONES: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get under control now.
JONES: I`m under control officer. Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: OK. To be clear, there is no conclusive evidence of political bias in Google searches as Trump and Republicans allege but the hearing went forward anyway with Republican -- with lawmakers from both sides getting pretty heated.
REP. LAMAR SMITH (R), TEXAS: The muting of conservative voices by Internet platforms has intensified especially during the presidency of Donald Trump.
SUNDAR PICHAI, CEO, GOOGLE: It`s not possible for an individual employee or groups of employee to manipulate our search. You know, we have a robust framework including many steps in the process.
REP. TED POE (R), TEXAS: Do you believe that Google is biased? It`s either yes or no.
PICHAI: No, not in our approach.
REP. TED LIEU (D), CALIFORNIA: And so my colleagues across the aisle, if you`re getting bad press articles and bad search results, don`t blame Google, or Facebook, or Twitter, consider blaming yourself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Pretty heated. I`m joined by Jacob Ward, NBC News Technology Correspondent. I`m -- first time I`m talking to you, Jacob, so welcome to the family. I know that you`re just joining NBC.
JACOB WARD, NBC NEWS TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: Thank you. Good to be here.
VOSSOUGHIAN: It`s good to have you here to break all this stuff down for us because it`s hard thing for a lot of people to understand exactly what`s going on here and why have this thing in the first place. I want to read a tweet from President Trump that`s sort of part of this whole controversy involving Google. Here`s what he wrote.
"Google search results for Trump news shows only the viewing reporting a fake news media. In other words, they have it rigged for me and others so that almost all stories and new is bad. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican conservative and fair media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of results on Trump news are from national left-wing media, very dangerous. Google and others are suppressing voices of conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can and cannot see. This is a very serious situation and will be addressed." What do you make of it?
WARD: Well, I mean, you know, he is repeating a thing that has been you know, widely debunked by technologists and academics, not people who look at this. I mean, you know the way that Google works and this seemed utterly lost on almost every elected representative we saw in there you know, is through a system of vast scale, right. And so what it`s doing is it`s a popularity machine essentially, you know. And when people have searched for a thing enough times, it comes back as sort of the stickiest thing that the algorithm grabs onto and that`s why it gets out there. All this stuff about the sort of the individual manipulation of the results is just a -- it`s a fundamental misunderstanding --
VOSSOUGHIAN: So why even have today? What do we glean from it?
WARD: Well, for me I think the hardest thing to sort of put together is that is these two conflicting intellectual threads. On the one hand, you have people you know, like McCarthy, saying you know, this is -- we have to make sure you`re on the side of freedom and you have this outsized influence on American life and that is absolutely correct, you know.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Right.
WARD: But then, pivoting into this idea that there`s political bias and that individuals because they share -- you know, they have left-leaning employees, that there`s not manipulating the results, that gets into a whole thing that just misunderstands the real problem we should be talking about which is that yes, this very small group of people in a huge powerful company are controlling information in this world.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Right. And that is exactly a huge problem that we need to address but we don`t have time.
WARD: Well, that`s right, that`s right. We can`t do that today, but boy you know, that is what I wish they had talked about.
VOSSOUGHIAN: All right, Jacob Ward, thank you.
WARD: Thank you.
VOSSOUGHIAN: We`ll be right back, everybody.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Finally, tonight we`re releasing the latest episode of the new series "MAVERICKS" with Ari Melber. This week Ari sits down with comedian and Saturday Night Live star Chris Redd. He reveals how giving up on his own dream of being a rapper paved the way to SNL.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS REDD, ACTOR AND WRITER, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE: For me, being a rapper was about chasing somebody that I wasn`t and trying to be somebody I wasn`t. Comedy was learning who I was for real. When you are going for your dream, the whole time, you`re like am I -- I`m I dumb for this because it is not working. But it is like man, I was right this whole time. Everybody thought I was stupid, wasting my time. I`m right!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: Ari and Chris also talk about their respective rap skills.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REDD: I have bars, Ari, I have bars, man.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Do you want -- we never asked me to rap but if you want to drop a bar here, that`s welcome.
REDD: Are you going to beatbox for me?
MELBER: I can`t do that for you.
REDD: I can`t do that.
MELBER: That`s one thing I can`t do. But I do have analogies. If I drop an analogy, can you drop a bar over that?
REDD: That would sound like a lot of noise. I feel like that would sound like a whole lot of noise, man.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VOSSOUGHIAN: You can watch the full interview now at msnbc.com/mavericks. That does it for me. Catch me tomorrow morning at 5:00 a.m. Eastern on "MORNING JOE, FIRST LOOK." "HARDBALL" with Chris Matthews starts right now.
END
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END