Show: THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER Date: December 14, 2018 Guest: Alexi McCammond: Maya Wiley; Daniel Goldman; Jackie Speier; Frank Montoya; Malcolm Nance; Asawin Suebsaeng, Tierney Sneed, Steve Kerrigan, Seth Waxman
CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: On his first interview on a Sunday show since he filed his papers. Meanwhile, "THE BEAT" starts right now. Ayman Mohyeldin is in for Ari. Good evening, Ayman.
AYMAN MOHYELDIN, MSNBC HOST: Hey. Good evening, Chuck. I bet you thought you`re going to make it through the hour without any breaking news, right?
TODD: You know it`s just an acting chief of staff (CROSSTALK) -
MOHYELDIN: The odds are against you.
TODD: -- level. Exactly.
MOHYELDIN: I was going to say the odds are against you. All right, Chuck. Thank you very much. Have a good weekend, my friend.
I`m Ayman Mohyeldin, in for Ari Melber.
Tonight, a storm of investigations slamming into Donald Trump on multiple fronts. And late today, Trump announcing a new point man to help deal with it all. Current Trump Budget Director Mick Mulvaney will be the new chief of staff and he will be facing a deluge of investigations immediately from day one. His appointment coming just hours after Michael Cohen spoke out for the first time since his sentencing, rebutting key claims made by the president.
And as newly surfaced audio of Donald Trump obliterates his own defense on hush money payments, you`ve heard there`s a tweet for everything. In this case, there`s an actual recording and we are going to play it for you.
Also today, Bob Mueller undercutting Trump`s arguments about Michael Flynn in a new court filing. But we begin with Mick Mulvaney coming in as the new chief of staff for the White House. This, as Michael Cohen gives his very first interview since being sentenced to three years in prison saying Trump told Cohen to make hush money payments to women even though Trump knew it was wrong. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER LAWYER OF DONALD TRUMP: Nothing of the Trump Organization was ever done unless it was run through Mr. Trump. He directed me as I said in my elocution and I said as well in the plea, he directed me to make the payments. He directed me to become involved in these matters.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ANCHOR, GOOD MORNING AMERICA: He was trying to hide what you were doing, correct?
COHEN: Correct.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And he knew it was wrong?
COHEN: Of course.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And he was doing that to help his election?
COHEN: Yes, he was very concerned about how this would affect the election.
STEPHANOPOULOS: To help his campaign?
COHEN: To help him and the campaign.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: All right. So you heard it there, Cohen making it absolutely clear. Two key claims. One, Trump directed the payments. It builds on NBC reporting that Trump was in fact in the room with Cohen and the "National Enquirer" Publisher David Pecker discussing those hush money payments during the campaign. And the second Cohen claim is that Trump knew it was illegal.
And here`s the potentially damaging news for Trump today. New audio emerging from 2012 showing that Trump was indeed familiar with the relevant campaign financial laws. Specifically, it features Trump discussing how the law applied to the John Edwards case. Edwards, of course, arguing that payments to his mistress back then were not campaign finance violations. In fact, they were personal payments. Now, here`s Trump in 2012 revealing that he was watching the case very closely.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONLAD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I always thought he was a sleazebag frankly. This is a very, very tough trial to start off with and a lot of people are saying it`s not a trial that the government`s going to win. And frankly, a lot of people are saying, a lot of very good lawyers are telling me that the government doesn`t have a good case. Well, I think despite what the lawyers are all saying, there`s not a very good case from the government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: All right. So Trump saying there on that recording he spoke to a lot of very good lawyers about the case. That isn`t Michael Cohen saying Trump knew about the campaign finance law. It`s Trump destroying his own defense.
With me now is Maya Wiley who worked as a civil prosecutor for the Southern District and was counsel to the mayor of New York City, former Federal Prosecutor Daniel Goldman who is assisting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Alexi McCammond, political reporter for "Axios".
Alexi, let me begin with you and the news that Mick Mulvaney has now been tapped as the new chief of staff at the White House. Give us a quick sense your reading of why Mick Mulvaney at a time this president is about to face an onslaught of investigations from multiple fronts.
ALEXI MCCAMMOND, POLITICAL REPORTER, AXIOS: You know Ayman, this chief of staff search has been anything but normal. And what is so wild to me in particular about this announcement today is that the first time that I heard from a source familiar with the transition that John Kelly was out as chief of staff and Mick Mulvaney was going to replace him was July 24. I`ve heard Mick Mulvaney was going to be this person to replace Kelly for so long.
And I think that`s because now that it`s finally happened, Trump sort of views him as someone who will be loyal to him and who will do what he says. Maybe not necessarily like a John Kelly type who tries to run a tight ship, but someone who he has seen sort of quietly behind the scenes fighting for this position for many many months and showing to the president that he would be loyal to him in this really crucial position that Trump otherwise views as adversarial to him.
MOHYELDIN: All right. So loyalty is obviously high on the president`s list. Let`s talk a little bit about Mick Mulvaney`s expertise. Does he have any kind of experience dealing with legal crises? Is he going to be able to handle and manage the legal problems that this president is going to facing? Not necessarily as a lawyer but just even as a counselor to the president, does he have that kind of legal expertise?
MCCAMMOND: It is not clear that he has that type of legal expertise at a time as you`re alluding to when Democrats are about to take back the House, they will have subpoena power across the board. They vowed to launch an onslaught of investigations into folks including Trump and everyone around him. Trump needs someone who can guide him on his legal and ethical manners in a way that Mick Mulvaney is not immediately cleared to be able to do.
But at the same time, going through this, I think what President Trump will really want and need on a personal level, he thinks, is someone who can again tell him what he wants to hear and make him feel better personally. But that`s not going to get him out of any legal trouble or help him with legal matters.
MOHYELDIN: Now, Maya, so let me bring you in here and let`s break down a little bit of what Michael Cohen was saying today. Obviously, it comes on a day the president has a new chief of staff. He`s going to have to deal with a lot of this crisis. But let`s start with what Michael Cohen had to say today and how that moves the needle forward against the president. What was your takeaway from the Michael Cohen interview where he really said the president directed him every step of the way?
MAYA WILEY, FORMER COUNSEL TO THE MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: He reiterated and said very directly and I would say in terms of demeanor, in terms of attitude very credibly, this is something he understood and directed me to do. I actually thought the most important thing that he said which was really a little new was making very explicit and very clear that Donald Trump knew everything that was happening in the Trump Organization.
And the reason that`s important is both because of the potential campaign financial crimes but also because there are other investigations that are going on out of the Southern District of New York and also out of the state attorney general`s office around the Trump Organization. And if that is a provable fact and now you have Michael Cohen who is cooperating and says he is going to continue to talk to prosecutors, that means presumably that he`s going to be able to give information that demonstrates that -- I mean we don`t know but presumably he might be able to demonstrate that knowledge. And knowledge is critical if you have to get a criminal -- if you have to show that someone had criminal intent.
MOHYELDIN: So Dan, I want to get your reaction as well. But interestingly enough, the point that Michael Cohen also made in the interviews was that a lot of what he was telling Mueller, Mueller to some extent knew about it because they had supporting documents and evidence. How damaging is that going to be for the argument that we heard Hogan Gidley try to make today saying, "Hey. Michael Cohen is a known liar from day one, he should not be trusted"?
DANIEL GOLDMAN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: So I actually think what`s far more important than Michael Cohen`s interviews this morning is the fact that the Southern District asserted to a court that Donald Trump coordinated and directed Michael Cohen to make these payments. Because the Southern District of New York, you`ll remember in April did those searches. And what they obtained is likely a treasure-trove of information.
And so that -- the fact that they could say that Cohen was credible about that indicates to me that they have a lot more evidence. But the problem that we run into or the problem that the Southern District runs into in not only this investigation but any investigation into the Trump Organization is that Michael Cohen is not cooperating with the Southern District of New York. He is not a witness available to them right now.
And this is why he got three years in prison is that he didn`t go the full- length that he needed to in order to become a full-on, signed up witness. He has provided information that they say is credible and forthright, but because he won`t be fully debriefed and fully vetted, they can`t use him.
MOHYELDIN: So to that point, do you think the president is kind of, you know, kicking himself a little bit saying I shouldn`t have been speaking disparagingly of Michael Cohen, because if Michael Cohen as you say he wasn`t as forthcoming as a witness or a cooperating witness, there -- he probably has an incentive now since the president has been like totally name-calling him, calling him weak, calling him a liar. Maybe now Michael Cohen is like, I was trying to be loyal, I shouldn`t be that way anymore.
GOLDMAN: No. Because I think this is where the fact that the president cannot be indicted actually hurts Trump. Because if this goes to impeachment and a trial in the Senate, for example, Michael Cohen can testify there. It`s just he wouldn`t testify in a criminal case right now against Donald Trump for the campaign finance. But if this -- but it doesn`t mean Donald Trump didn`t do it.
MOHYELDIN: Right.
GOLDMAN: If you still have enough evidence to believe that he did it, there`s Michael Cohen, there`s David Pecker, there`s documents, there`s recordings, there`s the cover-up that hasn`t gotten enough attention how they cooked the books and records in order to funnel this through the Trump Organization. There`s all sorts of evidence that is enough to say that Donald Trump did it, but he could not necessarily be charged with it in a criminal court.
MOHYELDIN: OK. So Maya, the other part of the president`s defense has been that Michael Cohen -- he told him deal with it, you know that he was breaking the law. The president almost kind of playing that card like he didn`t know what campaign finance laws were. We now have a recording of the president demonstrating that he knows very well what campaign finance laws were based on that 2012 recording we played.
Is his argument essentially that argument shattered now because you have that recording? Is that recording something that, hey, you know what, lawyers can one day look at and say you do know what the law was?
WILEY: Well, I will start by saying it wasn`t a credible argument, to begin with based on all the facts that we have out in public, including the fact that Donald Trump himself lied about whether he even knew about the payments. If you weren`t participating willfully in a crime, why are you lying? You know you`re lying. You know you knew what you knew unless he has an undiagnosed mental illness that we don`t know about.
So there are tons of facts in this case including what Michael Cohen himself had said and including that there`s a pattern of practice of a way of organizing the work that also AMI is reinforcing in the case of Karen McDougal. I think that we, to be fair to Donald Trump, are overstating potentially the meaning of his statement.
Meaning, saying you talked to lawyers about a different case and whether or not it was strong or not is not the same thing as saying you understand what a violation would be in your particular case. Because I would actually argue that while it`s the same type of case in terms of payments, it`s not enough that someone said I once talked to a lawyer about a different case and therefore I`ve blown my argument. I just don`t think it was a credible argument to begin with.
MOHYELDIN: I was going to say how many white collar crimes can you get away with the defense being I didn`t know it was the law, sorry.
GOLDMAN: Particularly, when you have to certify on your campaign finance disclosures as the head of the campaign.
MOHYELDIN: Yes, exactly. All right. Joining me now is Democratic Congresswoman Jackie Speier of California. She`s a member of the House Intelligence Committee. And she`s out with a new article today where she asks bluntly, "Did Putin buy Donald Trump?"
Congresswoman, great to have you with us.
REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CA), HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Thank you, Ayman.
MOHYELDIN: Let`s start with a big-picture assessment of your reaction to what we`re now hearing from Michael Cohen. What did you take away from everything you`ve heard about him?
SPEIER: Well, watching him, he looked like he was so exhausted, he couldn`t tell a lie anymore. I think that it`s very clear that the special counsel has the goods on Donald Trump as it relates to his involvement in trying to secure the silence of these two women. The tapes that Michael Cohen had in his possession that the special counsel was able to obtain probably have more than enough evidence.
And you have David Pecker who says that he made that payment intending to assist Donald Trump in his campaign for election and Donald Trump was in the room. So there`s no question that Donald Trump knew about all of this. He was a one-man show. He`s always been a one-man show. He had a small family company with about 50 employees. He knew precisely what was going on all the time.
MOHYELDIN: So Congresswoman, there`s been two components to Michael Cohen`s, if you will, cooperation here. You`ve got the hush money payments and the Michael -- sorry, the AMI David Pecker connection. You also have the connection to Russia and the Trump Tower in Moscow. Take a listen to Michael Cohen talking about Russia today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: The special counsel did say that you were doing your best to tell the truth about everything related to their investigation, everything related to Russia. Do you think President Trump is telling the truth about that?
COHEN: No.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How does this end for Donald Trump?
COHEN: That sort of gets into the whole investigation right now. I don`t want to jeopardize any of their investigation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: So Congresswoman, what more do you think we`re going to learn from Michael Cohen about that issue, the Russia connection to all of this?
SPEIER: Well, the Russia connection I think gets stronger and stronger by the day. I don`t know that President Trump ever thought he was going to win, so this whole effort to try and move forward on the Trump Tower in Moscow was his winning so to speak because he was going to get that prize that he has wanted for a long time. And so he wanted that project to move forward during the campaign. So it doesn`t surprise me at all. Now, Michael Cohen I believe will have lied not just to the special counsel but to the Intelligence Committee as well when all is said and done.
MOHYELDIN: Let me pose a question to you that you yourself asked in the article that you wrote. Did Putin buy Donald Trump? I`m going to give you a chance to answer that for our viewers tonight. What is your assessment?
SPEIER: I think he did. I mean one of the elements of kompromat, which is the Russian word for, you know, getting something on somebody, is sometimes you just pay them so that they are indebted to you. And that mansion in Florida that Ryboloblev actually purchased from Donald Trump during the height of the recession in which it was a $45 million increase in value, he never saw the property and yet made that kind of an accelerated and expensive payment to him. I think was all part of a deal that was concocted by Putin.
MOHYELDIN: All right. We`ll see if the investigation turns any of those stones. Congresswoman Speier, thank you very much.
SPEIER: Thank you.
MOHYELDIN: Daniel Goldman, appreciate it. Alexi McCammond, thank you as well. Maya, I`m going to ask you to stick around for us a little bit longer.
And coming up today, Bob Mueller debunking Trump`s claims about the lies of his former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
Plus, new revelations about how Jared Kushner replaced Cohen as Trump`s link to the "National Enquirer". And a real-life Mueller mystery, a secret witness trying to defy a subpoena with an entire court on lockdown. We`re going to talk to a reporter who was there at the scene. And then Nancy Pelosi reveals her plans to obtain Donald Trump`s tax returns.
I`m Ayman Mohyeldin, in for Ari Melber. You`re watching THE BEAT on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MOHYELDIN: All right. So today Bob Mueller demolishing Donald Trump`s claim that the FBI and the agents that met with Michael Flynn tricked him into lying to them. In fact, here`s what Trump said about it yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: What`s going on right now with General Flynn? The FBI said he didn`t lie.
HARRIS FAULKNER, HOST, FOX NEWS: I saw your tweet on that about --
TRUMP: But Mueller said he did lie. So they took a man who`s a general and a respected person and a nice man. They took a general that they said didn`t lie and they convinced him he did lie and he made some kind of a deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: All right. Trump`s claim coming after Flynn`s lawyer suggested that the FBI treated him unfairly because they didn`t warn him it`s a crime to lie to agents before his interview with those FBI agents. But Mueller today said this, nothing about Flynn`s interview was set up to make him lie. And, in fact, he decided to lie about his contacts with the Russian ambassador weeks before the interview when the media started asking about it. He repeated the lies to top Trump officials. And when it came time for his FBI interview, he knew in advance what they`d ask him about.
The FBI`s deputy director told him the questions would be about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. He agreed to do the interview voluntarily and agents tried to give him a chance to correct his lies. When Flynn said that he didn`t remember something, the agents knew that he had said it. They used the exact words he used in order to prompt a truthful response but he never corrected the record. And if anyone should have known better, it was Michael Flynn, Mueller writing, a sitting national security advisor, former head of an intelligence agency, retired lieutenant general, and 33-year veteran of the Armed Forces knows he should not lie to federal agents.
With me now is former FBI Special Agent Frank Montoya and MSNBC Terrorism Analyst Malcolm Nance who`s the author of the book "The Plot to Destroy Democracy."
Frank, good to have you with us. Let me begin with you if I may. Does anyone within law enforcement experience know that it`s actually illegal to lie to the FBI? It almost seems like you don`t have to have a law enforcement background to know that you shouldn`t lie to federal agents.
FRANK MONTOYA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: No, it`s a given in many instances. In fact, I was thinking about this as I read through the documents today and I did thousands of these kinds of interviews and I don`t ever remember once having to remind somebody of that notion. You know, there`s a difference between this as well and a Miranda warning, which you do after somebody`s been arrested.
But, you know, the other part of this interview process that is peculiar to me is while they had -- while Mike Flynn had a pretty easy rapport with a lot of guys in the FBI, including myself. I worked closely with him at the OENI and also when he was at DIA. What really is peculiar to me is he even indicates in the document, in the interview that he knows not only why he`s being interviewed but that Andy probably knows the answers as well and that Andy being Andy McCabe. And yet he still is deceptive about that and ultimately acknowledges in sworn testimony in district court that in fact, he did lie to the FBI in the course of that interview.
MOHYELDIN: Malcolm, I want to pose you the same question with this caveat, which is from the filing itself, read the defendant undoubtedly was aware in light of his many years working with the FBI that lying to the FBI carries serious consequences. Is it -- do you buy any of the arguments made by Trump or Flynn`s attorneys that, hey, the FBI agents didn`t warn him not to lie?
MALCOLM NANCE, TERRORISM ANALYST, MSNBC: No. It`s completely and totally utterly implausible. It`s not just that everyone who works within that community, within the White House, within the defense intelligence network understands that you don`t lie to the FBI but we also know that they`re the principal agency for counterintelligence. He also knew that we conduct own force monitoring of foreign officers like Ambassador Kislyak in the United States and that anyone who would be communicating with him would be part of the collection process from the FBI.
He knowing all of that conducted a deception operation against the FBI. When they walked into his office, he was well aware of what the facts were. They led him on using the actual wording that he used in order to give him a break, and he still had a reason to lie. Within the world of counterintelligence, this would be a red flag that this man has something to hide, which exceeds his security clearance, his loyalty to the country, and the common sense that everyone knows never lie to an FBI officer.
MOHYELDIN: So, Frank, to that point that Malcolm just raised about all the red flags, why? Why would Michael Flynn try to now or through his lawyers try and spin this in any other way that he`s simply lying? Why try to kind of obfuscate all of this by saying the agents were somehow disingenuine about it?
MONTOYA: Yes, it`s another great point especially because he`s not reneging on the fact that he admitted to lying.
MOHYELDIN: Right.
MONTOYA: I mean this is really about trying to massage the reputation a little bit to make yourself look a little bit better. And no question, Mike Flynn was a great warrior for this country. But at the same time, it`s hard to not believe that he was a pretty lousy politician. And this is, I think, his way of just trying to south some of the wound. I give him credit for standing up or manning up and admitting to the crime but at the same time, there is that -- the tear on that reputation in what was otherwise a great 33 years of service to our country.
MOHYELDIN: What is the filing today, Malcolm, that kind of undercuts the Flynn argument and the Trump argument due to President Trump`s argument that Flynn was entrapped?
NANCE: Well, to a certain extent, this really damages his argument that he should get no jail time. I mean if I were the judge, I would look at askance with this filing because it really goes back on his -- the belief that he`s remorseful about what he`s done. Maybe this is his lawyers trying to be too cute by half. But by making this argument, it`s almost as if you`re making an argument for a pardon, and that would again make me feel if I were the presiding judge that he was --
MOHYELDIN: That there`s something suspicious.
NANCE: Yes, not just suspicious but that he`s still keeping the effort up. And despite the fact that he was a great intelligence warrior, he`s not just an awful politician but he, in fact, may have been one step away from treason to a certain extent and he pulled back by cooperating. But then now, look at him now, he`s going back even on what he cooperated with.
MOHYELDIN: All right. Malcolm Nance, Frank Montoya, thank you guys very much this evening.
Ahead, a mystery Mueller hearing today had the courtroom on lock down. And inside the criminal investigation into the Trump inauguration, did Ivanka Trump have a role? But first, an explosive report on Jared Kushner`s close ties to the "National Enquirer" executive who killed Trump stories. That reporter is here in just 30 seconds. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MOHYELDIN: Jared Kushner is revealed to have become "National Enquirer" boss David Pecker`s top contact after Michael Cohen was raided by the feds. "The Daily Beast" reporting that Kushner replace Cohen as Trump`s "National Enquirer" connection, growing tight with Pecker during the early months of the administration. Kushner bonded with AMI`s chief executive who caught and killed negative stories about Trump and admitted to working in concert with Trump campaign to cover up the alleged Karen McDougal affair that she had with Trump.
NBC confirming Trump was in the room for a meeting with Pecker and Cohen on hush money payments to women. Cohen and Pecker are both cooperating with the feds. Kushner is a loyal son-in-law and has played a pivotal role in Trump`s administration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Jared, I want to thank Jared for what`s happening on prison reform because he has really been leading it. It`s something very close to your heart.
To have Jared in our family with all of his relatives and all of our friends is a great thing. I`m proud of him. I`m very proud of Jared.
Jared`s actually become much more famous than me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: All right. Joining me now is Asawin Suebsaeng, a White House reporter for "The Daily Beast". He broke the exclusive reporting on Kushner`s relationship with David Pecker. And back with us once again, Maya Wily.
Asawin, I want to begin with you. Let`s talk a little bit about the relationship between Kushner and David Pecker. Why has it become so important in all of this?
ASAWIN SUEBSAENG, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE DAILY BEAST: Well, because of all the legal news that happened earlier this week regarding AMI, David Pecker and, of course, Michael Cohen and President Donald Trump. It`s obviously been firmly established that for the period of time before Donald Trump entered the White House and particularly in the heat of the 2016 campaign.
Michael Cohen as an envoy of Donald Trump worked very closely to AMI and the "National Enquirer" and, of course, David Pecker to basically run a behind the scenes hush money operation that both AMI and Cohen say was at its core about the election and the Trump campaign. Trump and his lawyers obviously vociferously depute that but that`s to be expected.
So when the Trump transition in 2016 and 2017 rolled around and it became very clear to Pecker and his associates that Michael Cohen would not be landing a plum job in the Trump administration even though Michael Cohen was going around telling people close to him that he might even get something as seniors chief of staff in the White House that obviously did not happen for a multitude of reasons.
Pecker went searching for someone who could be his new Michael Cohen essentially, his new point person and direct line to Donald Trump in the Oval Office. He found that person in from son-in-law and senior White House adviser Jared Kushner who Pecker talked on the phone with numerous times since the dawn of the Trump era in early 2017 and the conversation topics ranged from things as weighty as relations with Saudi Arabia, AMI much like the Trump administration and Jared Kushner both had their own separate interest in cozying up to the regime in Saudi Arabia.
And also, topics of discussion also includes things much more -- much more petty and tabloid centric than that including the dirt the National Enquirer supposedly had on MSNBC -- excuse me -- colleagues of yours, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. This was something that Pecker actually talked to Kushner directly about around the time Joe Scarborough jumped (INAUDIBLE) Jared Kushner talked about it middle of last year. So when it came --
MOHYELDIN: Yes -- yes, sorry, I was just going to say this really quickly because you brought up a really good point so I want to get Maya`s perspective on this really quickly. So Maya, what would -- with all the things that I was just mentioning, what would prosecutors want to learn about the relationship between Pecker and Jared Kushner?
MAYA WILEY, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: What they were talking about and why. So if you have a President who by -- apparently corroborated evidence used his connection to AMI to actually divert negative stories about himself in order to win election, so you already know that he is absolutely willing to abuse authority so we would -- we would translate this now as president is what ways would he use his authority in his relationship to AMI or to pecker through Jared Kushner to protect his administration. And it`s possible that there may have been various forms of abuse of power in doing that.
Now, what the actual crimes might be would be -- would depend on what the conversations are, but one question would be are there -- are there other people you`re paying off? What are you paying them off to cover up?
MOHYELDIN: Where is all of this going for Jared Kushner? Has he become a central figure in all of the kind of loose thread investigations that are hovering around the Trump Organization, the inauguration, the White House, the President, his hush money payments?
WILEY: Well, I think we don`t know with regard to the Trump Organization per se. Meaning, I have not at least heard any evidence that it connects Jared Kushner to the operations of the Trump Organization but obviously as it relates to conspiracy to defraud the United States in the context of Russia. There are lots of reasons to be wondering what connections Jared Kushner has and that. Actually, he was in the June 9th, 2016 meeting with the Russian obviously with Paul Manafort and with Don Jr.
So you do want to know what he knows and what he was connected to. There`s no question that it could be any number of things but we will only know if the evidence starts to produce to become public.
MOHYELDIN: All right, Maya thank you very much. Asawin, thank you as well. And now to some breaking news on a mystery Mueller hearing today and it is highly intriguing. Mueller`s team at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to hear a mysterious argument about a witness defying a grand jury subpoena. You can imagine it was on locked down with the court staff closing the entire courthouse floor where the case was actually being heard.
Joining me now is Tierney Sneed, a reporter for Talking Points Memo who was at the D.C. Courthouse today where all of this unfolded. Walk us through what was going on today. Do we have any sense, are we any closer to what actually happened in that courtroom?
TIERNEY SNEED, REPORTER, TALKING POINTS MEMO: No. It was -- it was a crazy day because we have not received any public confirmation that this mystery case is Mueller length. What we`ve had so far is hints in terms of when court filings have been filed, about what`s been observed in the court when court filings are filed that suggests that this is linked to a Mueller situation. But there`s the whole docket is under seal. We can only see when things are filed or not filed but we haven`t been able to read any of the filings.
What we did know was that there was a hearing today so what myself and about two dozen other reporters did was show up at the core, get -- position ourselves right in front of the courtroom where the hearing was supposed to happen in hopes of seeing the attorneys, presumably Mueller`s attorneys and then the other side`s attorneys who are still a mystery to us. But what they did is closed down not just the courtroom which was expected but the entire floor where the courtroom was down to going through the stairwells to make sure reporters weren`t lingering the stairwells to try to see attorneys exit or enter. So we did not get to see the glimpse that everyone was hoping to get of who`s involved in this case.
MOHYELDIN: So very quickly, how did you guys even know about these hearings? I mean, how did you know to show up today to the courtroom and how long was the hearing?
SNEED: So what we can see is basically what`s known as a docket so we can see when things are being filed but we can`t open those filing so we can see when one side files are briefed and when the other side replies with their brief.
We can`t see who the sides are we can only just see that they`re filing these briefs. And on that same page, we`re seeing when judges are giving instructions on when to be filing these documents and when they`re going to be holding hearings. And there`s a couple different reasons why we think this is Mueller related.
One of which is that early on in the proceedings, this is at the appellate court level now. An appellate judge who used to work in the Trump White House recused himself from an issue that was in front of the appellate court.
Another reason we think it might be Mueller related is that on one of the days that a filing was due, a reporter was in the clerk`s office and heard an attorney asked for the Special Counsels filing in a case because they were going to respond to it. And sure enough later debts that day a filing was filed in this case.
MOHYELDIN: Wow. Absolutely incredible. Listen, keep us posted. If you hear any more of these types of filings, come back and let us know. Tierney Sneed, thank you very much.
SNEED: Thanks for having.
MOHYELDIN: And ahead, the Trump Pelosi showdown just got even more explosive. She is going for the tax returns. But first the potentially crooked scheme to sell access at the Trump inauguration. New details on foreign money and Ivanka Trump`s role in all of it. The head of the President Obama`s inaugural committee will be here exclusively next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MOHYELDIN: All right, new smoke swirling around Donald Trump`s inaugural committee. The New York Times today detailing exactly who federal prosecutors think may have been involved in a crooked scheme to curry favor with the incoming Trump administration. The feds looking at "whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to President Trump`s inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC. Focusing on whether people from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates used straw donors to disguise their donations.
In a moment I`m going to talk to the president of Obama -- President Obama`s Inaugural Committee about this long-standing mystery. What in the world happened to the record-setting money Trump`s inaugural team raised? Previous inaugurations raised millions as well but nowhere near what the Trump campaign brought. More than twice as much as President Obama raised just four years earlier and now we may be starting to find out where all that Trump money went and came from.
Joining me now is Steve Kerrigan he was the President and CEO of Obama`s 2013 Inaugural Committee and Seth Waxman a formal -- former Federal Prosecutor. Excuse me. Gentlemen, great to have both of you with us. I want to put up that graphic once again because take a look at this like stark difference in the money raised from past presidents. Steve, when you look at something like this, why would President Trump double in your explanation what previous administrations were able to raise. You`ve sat in that position of having to raise money but this is really something unexplainable.
STEVE KERRIGAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, OBAMA`S INAUGURAL COMMITTEE: It is actually -- I was chief of staff in 2009. He raised more than what we did in both of President Obama`s inaugurations which were the two largest in history but we`ll leave that for another conversation.
Look, the opportunity to give to an inaugural is a unique one and particularly for a candidate like Donald Trump where as you know, there`s been reporting he set up a super PAC in the summer of 16 because frankly his campaign was waning on money. He wasn`t raising a lot of money from traditional Republican donors. So when it came to inaugural spending, this was a chance for folks to come to him with an awful lot of money, millions of dollars in fact, and say look I`m here and I support you in your presidency in your inauguration.
There was no need for $107 million. They had you know, probably a third of the staff that we had, a quarter of the event that we had, that both us had we had and President Bush`s previous inaugurals and they raised twice as much money. It only sends up a red flag about why is the need for that much money. The need for that much money is because people want to give that to curry favor and buy an opportunity. That`s why I`ve been calling it the inaugural slush fund for a probably a year and a half because this is -- this is an opportunity for him to have used transparency as past presidents have to really show the American people what is inaugural is all about and he chose as he does almost every single time to take the easy way out and frankly show us that he has no integrity and refuses to be transparent with the American people.
MOHYELDIN: Steve, let me ask you really quickly a follow-up on this. OK, so you`ve been in this position. You talked about red flags. Did you guys ever -- I mean, walk us through the due diligence that you guys did when somebody wanted to come and give the Obama inaugural committee a big chunk of change. What did -- what kind of due diligence is expected from you guys and did you and your position ever turn away money saying like hey we can`t accept this for this event?
KERRIGAN: Absolutely. Yes. Look, we -- it`s called vetting in the -- in the donor and politics business where you investigate the person to determine whether or not they meet your own standards that you as an inaugural committee set. And we had very strict standards. Even back in 09, you couldn`t buy an inaugural ticket if you did not meet some of our standards. Take it to the inaugural ball which you could do through Ticketmaster but we would get the list and be able to throw a quick vet in and frankly, we turned away an awful lot of money.
Look, this is an opportunity for a presidency right at the outset to set the that the pace and the example of what their presidency is going to be about. President Obama for both of his inaugurations wanted it to be about serving the American people, giving the people an opportunity to serve each other, and work together. And that`s why we set our restrictions on money. We set a very strong set of principles on who we would take money from and which one well above and beyond the legal limits. And yes, we returned a lot money.
MOHYELDIN: And I think it`s probably for the folks of this current investigation. Seth, let me ask your thoughts on this. Is this just simply mismanagement of funds or do you think something else is going on here when you look at the spike in the numbers from previous administrations?
SETH WAXMAN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, whether I do are not, clearly the Southern District of New York, the prosecutor is looking into this too, so it does raise those issues. And what you have are two questions, the money coming into the committee and then the money going out.
So the money coming in, foreigners not Americans are not allowed to donate to these types of committees. So if you have foreigners that are donating funds through Americans, in other words, straw donors to conceal the nature and source of those funds, that can be a campaign finance violation. And of course, if those funds are being donated to curry favor with the President or then-candidate or a president-elect and he knew that and was promising favors in return, you have the makings of a potential bribery case.
And then on the other end the money coming out of the inauguration committee, if those funds you know, we see $100-plus million. If any of those funds were being used for non-inauguration purposes, if anyone was using them for -- you know, to pay their mortgage or to take fancy trips or anything non-inauguration related then you can have a wire fraud case because of course the donors that we`re giving that money we`re giving it under the auspices that they would be used for the inauguration.
MOHYELDIN: So how do -- how do federal -- how do federal investigators figure this out, Seth? How do they go about piecing this together?
WAXMAN: Well, like every other federal prosecution, you look at the bank records, you look at emails and text, and then you start talking to people. And if you get someone that`s clearly engaged in criminal conduct, you try to flip them, and then they tell you what the purpose and how the transactions were structured. So much like we`ve heard through much of the Mueller investigation. There are building blocks. You start low. You work your way up and you try to figure out if there was criminal wrongdoing.
MOHYELDIN: Yes, and there`s even some reporting according to ProPublica that e-mails exchanged with Ivanka Trump suggests that there was some concern if in fact this was at some point audited. Steve Kerrigan, Seth Waxman, thank you guys both very much.
KERRIGAN: Thank you.
WAXMAN: Thank you.
MOHYELDIN: Nancy Pelosi is ready to cross Trump`s redline. The fight to uncover Trump`s tax returns is starting. Developing news on that front next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MOHYELDIN: The Democrats are ready to cross Trump`s red line. In fact, they are going after Trump`s tax returns. Pelosi is saying Democrats will take the first steps towards obtaining the President`s tax returns. The incoming chairman of the tax panel will insist Trump release them confirming the news that already broke on election night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: We have some news on that front. Our friend Ari Melber has been doing some reporting in terms of what to expect now that the Democrats seem assured of control in the House, Ari?
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: That`s right, Rachel. I have spoken to a senior Democratic source on the Ways and Means Committee who says tonight, breaking news, they do intend to request President Trump`s tax returns.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: So that fight is coming and it is coming now from all sides. This New Yorker headline today incoming intelligence chair Adam Schiff plans to obliterate Trump`s redline vowing to probe Trump`s personal finances and get his bank records. All of this coming as Mueller and federal prosecutors eye Trump`s family business. And Michael Cohen breaks his silence on what really went on behind closed doors inside the Trump Organization.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s saying very clearly that he never directed you to do anything wrong. Is that true?
MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER LAWYER OF DONALD TRUMP: I don`t think there`s anybody that believes that. First of all, nothing at the Trump Organization was ever done unless it was run through Mr. Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: All right, joining me now we have E.J. Dionne, MSNBC Contributor and Columnist for The Washington Post. E.J., great to have you with us this evening.
Great to be with you.
MOHYELDIN: Let me -- let me first get your reaction to this move by the Democrats to insist on going after Trump`s tax returns right out the gate.
E.J. DIONNE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think it`s the right thing to do and I think it`s important that they begin by putting this in the right context which is this is not a fishing expedition. They are simply asking Trump to live up to a norm that every president since the Nixon years has lived up to in putting out his tax returns. It`s something that was expected because the American people have a right to know what conflicts of interest might this person have. Did this person pay their taxes properly? We ask cabinet -- potential cabinet officials to give all kinds of information to congress and yet Trump is saying I don`t have to give up anything.
Now, it`s also true as your lead-in suggested that there may be a lot to learn here about whether Trump is in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution perhaps. Has he done business with foreign entities in the past that he might be paying back now? I make an assumption here. I`m just saying right what we could learn. We could learn some things that would affect the Russian probe. We might even learn if Trump is as rich as he says he is.
MOHYELDIN: OK, fair enough. All those points are totally valid specially the conflict of interest. But legally speaking, how can they go about getting them beyond just simply requesting. Obviously, if they request it, they are not going to get it so is there anything they can do to compel him or compel agencies to provide those tax returns.
DIONNE: Well, I think they can subpoena the tax returns. Certainly, I think they can assert that Congress does have a right to see these things in sight precedent of all the other times that Congress has gotten tax returns on request. But I suspect that this will be fought out in court. You know, one assumes that Robert Mueller has seen some of these tax returns so we might see them anyway. But again, I think it`s important that they keep underlining this principle that this is something not only Congress but citizens and voters have a right to look at.
MOHYELDIN: And so, how does President Trump then push back against this? I mean, is there a legal defense for him to make that this is private, that he does not offer these or is this too much of as you said public inquiry at this point that it could be a critical piece of the puzzle?
DIONNE: Well, he`s usual excuse is he`s under audit but he seems to have been under on it forever and that didn`t stop him from releasing returns that weren`t under audit. He can argue I suppose some kind of executive privilege and as you suggest he may argue some kind of privacy but I`m not sure it`s a public fight that will do him much good because you can point back other Republicans like George W. Bush whether it may not have been happy to do it but they were certainly willing to release their tax returns. But I suspect he`ll use that he means at his disposal to try to prevent it.
MOHYELDIN: Yes, and I think the central question people are always asking is what is the president hiding by not releasing these tax returns. E.J. Dionne, thank you so much. We`ll be right back.
DIONNE: Good to be with you. Thank you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MOHYELDIN: All right, so finally tonight, check out Ari`s latest episode of "MAVERICKS" featuring his in-depth interview with SNL Star Chris Redd. Go to msnbc.com/mavericks.
I`m going to see you here Sunday at 4:00 pm, and Monday at 5:00 am with MORNING JOE FIRST LOOK.
HARDBALL starts right now.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END