Senate Subpoenas Trump JR. TRANSCRIPT: 5/8/19, The Beat w/ Ari Melber.

Daniella Gibbs Leger, E.J. Dionne, Steve Kerrigan

CHUCK TODD, HOST, MTP DAILY:  To get as a journalist when you’re advocating

for freedom of the press.  And guess what, Mr. President, freedom of the

press means the freedom to do good stories and bad ones.  Congrats, Andrea.


That’s all for tonight.  We’ll be back tomorrow with MEET THE PRESS DAILY. 

“THE BEAT” starts right now.  My friend Chris Jansing is in for Ari. 

Hello, Chris.


CHRIS JANSING, MSNBC HOST:  Hello there.  Thank you, Chuck. 

Congratulations, Andrea.  Nobody is more deserving.


I am Chris Jansing in tonight for Ari covering a lot of developing stories.


Calls for impeachment hit the Senate floor.  We’ll show you Senator

Warren’s fiery speech.


Plus, President Trump reportedly stewing for days over Bob Mueller

testifying and the Trump inaugural organizer says the White House threw her

under the bus.  President Obama’s inaugural chair joins us.


But we begin tonight just hours away from House Democrats vote on whether

to hold Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt of Congress for refusing to

hand over the full unredacted Mueller report. Judiciary Chair Jerry

Nadler’s staff sitting down with Barr’s team briefly, trying to work out a

last-minute compromise but that meeting lasted only 30 minutes.


And just moments ago, Nadler said the contempt vote is still scheduled. 

Barr would be only the second attorney general ever held in contempt and

Democrats also reportedly considering a contempt vote against former White

House Counsel Don McGahn after he refused today to comply with a request

for documents.


The White House saying McGahn does not have the legal right to disclose

these documents and arguing that Democrats should have asked the White

House for them instead.  Well, the standoff raises the possibility that

they would invoke executive privilege.


If that’s not enough, there is a third fight looming after Treasury

Secretary Steve Mnuchin who was at the White House today refused to turn

over Trump’s tax returns saying they cannot lawfully fulfill the

committee’s request, even though the law clearly allows Congress to request

anyone’s tax returns.


And in the midst of all of this, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

telling Democrats to move on.





question, the special counsel finding is clear.  Case closed.  Case closed.




JANSING:  Well, Democratic leaders firing back that the case is still open.





reported to be saying it doesn’t matter if we hear from Mueller.  Case

closed.  Case closed.


No, I don’t think so.  I don’t think so.  Just as a matter of observation,

that’s just not a fact.  The case is not closed.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER:  Our leader says let’s move on? 

It is sort of like Richard Nixon saying let’s move on at the height of the

investigation of his wrongdoing.  Of course, he wants to move on.  He wants

to cover up.




JANSING:  And while Democratic leaders are careful to avoid calling for

impeachment, those calls are getting louder in some parts of the party,

including from presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren who made her

argument today on the Senate floor.





to try to protect Donald Trump.  We took an oath to protect and serve the

Constitution of the United States of America.  And the way we do that is we

begin impeachment proceedings now against this president.




JANSING:  With me with a lot to talk about, former U.S. Attorney Joyce

Vance, former Federal Prosecutor Paul Butler and “New York Times” columnist

Michelle Goldberg.


This is an extraordinary series of simultaneous showdowns between the

executive branch and the legislative branch, the White House resisting on

multiple fronts.  But tomorrow, there will be that contempt vote.  It will

almost certainly pass and then head to the full House.


So, Joyce, is what we’re witnessing here no less than a possible, I don’t

know, redefinition of the separation of powers?  Are we in the middle of a

super stress test of this entire system?


JOYCE VANCE, FORMER U.S ATTORNEY:  I think that’s exactly right, Chris. 

We’re watching a situation where the traditional view that we have three

co-equal branches of government, that view that the founding fathers used

to create our Constitution, we’re moving forward into an era where that may

not be how this government is configured going forward.


We have an attorney general who is on record is having a very expansive

view of executive power.  He now seems to be driving that truck a little

bit, along with the president who has autocratic tendencies.


And what we’ll have to look for very carefully in the next days and weeks

is whether the institutions are strong enough to hold, whether the courts

and the legislative branch can stand up to a runaway executive.


JANSING:  And we’re seeing some of the nervousness from the White House. 

Trump clearly nervous about Mueller they’re asking for White House

documents, and notes on discussions about Michael Flynn, James Comey, Jeff

Sessions, Bob Mueller, Paul Manafort, the Trump Tower meeting, and Michael



And then in a letter to the white – in a letter, the White House counsel

said, “Look, if you want this stuff, talk to us, the White House, not

McGahn.”  Paul, what was that about?


PAUL BUTLER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR:  So what the White House is saying

is that if the documents are going to come from somebody, they just kind of

loaned them to McGahn and so McGahn give them back and let the White House

work out the situation, claiming executive privilege, they’re saying at

some point we might claim executive privilege.


The president has talked so much about these issues but he’s probably

waived it.  The whole purpose of executive privilege is for the president

to be able to talk to his advisors, have private conversations.  But if

this information becomes public, then the approval is no longer applied.


Again, when the president allowed the redacted Mueller report to go public

without objecting, you have the opportunity to object, executive privilege

is gone.  It will go to the court. 


That’s how the Congress and the president will resolve this or not resolve

it.  They’ll let a judge resolve it.  That could take months.  The strategy

is to run out the clock until the 2020 election.


JANSING:  What if McGahn wants to talk?  I mean he is in private practice

now.  He could also be held in contempt for doing what the White House

wants him to do. 


And then like who pays his legal bills?  There are all kinds of questions. 

If Don McGahn wants to go before Congress, can he?


VANCE:  He can.  He could absolutely be a true patriot, go in front of

Congress, testify, provide documents but we’ve seen indications that he



Shortly after the White House released its demand that Congress negotiate

with it and not with McGahn, his lawyer released a statement indicating he

was caught between the presidency and the Congress.  And that for now, he

would follow the White House’s wishes.  So it is a little bit early to pin

our hopes on Don McGahn standing up having a country over party moment.


JANSING:  Yes.  And I guess a problem for Democrats right now, Michelle, is

if the witnesses either can’t talk or won’t talk, where does that leave

them?  What do you see happening?



think it’s just a problem for Democrats, it’s a problem for the country,

right, where you have this crisis, that you have this executive branch that

is just flatly refusing to comply with the law, flatly ignoring subpoenas.


In Steve Mnuchin’s case, the law is clear.  And he is simply saying that he

is not going to obey it and try to make me, right.  And so the next step

is, yes, they hold them in contempt. 


But who enforces a criminal contempt citation?  Bob Barr’s Justice

Department, right?  So that’s not going to happen.


Then they kind of can do is hold a contempt citation, they’re going to go

to court.  Ultimately, a lot of this stuff is going to be adjudicated by

the Supreme Court where Donald Trump’s nominees - Donald Trump has been

able to put people on the Supreme Court, not just towards sort of far right

Republican apparatchiks but are known for their expansive view of

presidential power and executive privilege.


And so it’s like all the guardrails that were supposed to keep the system

in balance, that were supposed to make sure that an autocratic president

could not run rough shod over our system of government are failing.  And

it’s kind of up to Congress to assert itself, to use whatever levers it can

find to push back against this power grab.


JANSING:  Which is exactly the argument that Elizabeth Warren was making.


GOLDBERG:  I mean I think she’s a hundred percent right.  And I think that

I understand why Democrats have wanted to avoid impeachment because they

feel like the time is running out on this presidency anyway and they see

the polls that showed that it is unpopular.  And they don’t really want to

lead the country in making the case for it.


But ultimately, there’s only one legal process to deal with an

administration like this.  And even if it doesn’t ultimately lead to his

removal, it is the system by which you compel all of this information to

become public.


JANSING:  Well, she mentioned Steve Mnuchin, the treasury secretary.  And

then he’s like, you know, you have no right to these tax returns, Donald

Trump’s tax returns.  Specifically, what he wrote is that their request

lacks a legitimate legislative purpose. 


I suppose that he’s decided that he’s going to make that decision about

what is a legitimate legislative purpose and amounts to exposure for the

sake of exposure.  So what happens here?


BUTLER:  So again, the treasury secretary’s argument is just flat out

wrong.  On a legal basis, the law is very clear the treasury secretary

really the IRS commissioner must hand over tax returns to the chairperson

of the House Ways and Means Committee.


So if he doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on once again, he’ll take it to

the courts.  It will be a long, drawn out proceeding.  Ultimately, Congress

will prevail.  But you know the expression.  Justice denied is justice

delayed.  Trump is all about delay, delay, delay.


JANSING:  One other top Democrats, Joyce, on the Ways and Means Committee

said it is unprecedented that Mnuchin is refusing what he called a lawful

request.  And “if these guys think they can outlast us with these tactics,

they’re dead wrong.  We’re not going anywhere.”


But how long could this take?  We mentioned this before.  Is this just a

tactic to try to run out the chock until 2020?


VANCE:  This is why I think what Michelle says is so accurate and in many

ways so frightening.  We have to rely on the courts to hold firm here.  And

there’s abundant precedent for the courts to expedite a process like this,

speeding a case along through the different levels of appeal so it can

reach the Supreme Court for a prompt decision.


We don’t have any way of knowing if that will happen here.  And it’s

possible that the president could delay this.  Other that, delay could

perhaps boomerang on him if the case is decided in the heat of an election

and all of a sudden, Trump’s tax returns are revealed.


Paul is absolutely right when he says the law here isn’t even a close call. 

The chairman of the House and Ways Committee is entitled to these tax

returns.  The IRS nor the treasury secretary has the right to look behind

the legitimacy of their request and their abundant reasons that the

commission needs them legitimately.


They should be turned over forthwith.  And this is just another example of

the crises this presidency has created.


JANSING:  Well, let’s talk a little bit more about this because it was just

reported today, while we’re having a stand-off over the federal income tax

returns, New York State lawmakers are expected to advance a bill that would

at least allow Congressional committees to see the state tax returns the.


We know that there are a whole bunch of different ways that people are

trying to get into various parts of this investigation.  But I want to go

back to what you said earlier, Michelle, which is that a lot of Democrats

out there, rank and file Democrats, who have only one requirement for 2020. 

That is to beat Donald Trump, believe that all of this activity is at cross



GOLDBERG:  I mean frankly, I think they’re wrong.  And I think that part of

– and I also think it is a mistake for Democratic leaders to take their

cues from the polls, right.


I mean I think that one of the reasons Democrats might believe this

activity is at cross purposes is because their leaders aren’t out there

making the case for why this is necessary.  I think – look at what

happened to Hillary Clinton –


JANSING:  Well, they’re in fact holding back for reasons that they’re

concerned that what the voters really want is they want to hear about the

economy.  They want to hear about health care.  They want to hear about

climate change.


GOLDBERG:  Yes.  But the sad fact is that Democrats aren’t going to make

progress on ay of those issues legislatively under this president either,

right.  That’s as much of a fantasy as the fantasy that the Senate is going

to vote to remove the president.


And so I mean look at how much the Benghazi investigation, which was

completely absurd but which dragged on forever and never sort of had the

support of the American people, but ultimately revealed this nugget about

Hillary Clinton’s e-mails that did immense damage to her.


I just don’t – I mean Donald Trump’s approval ratings are already pretty

low.  Having months of televised hearings laying out this kind of epic

corruption.  Even just the corruption documented in the Mueller report

itself which has over a hundred pages on his – on the various meetings

with Russia between members of his campaign staff and members of his



I understand the risk aversion because I understand how crucial this

election is in 2020.  But it is very hard to make the case I think to the

American people that, on the one hand, Donald Trump is an autocratic out of

control president who has committed impeachable offenses.  And

nevertheless, we are not going to impeach him.


JANSING:  Quick last question, Paul.  Any of this that is all unfolding

simultaneously, you see eventually ending up at the Supreme Court?


BUTLER:  Yes.  I think there are interesting questions with regard to

executive privilege.  Again, I don’t think the tax issue is a hard case. 

It’s clear that Trump’s Treasury Department needs to hand over those



JANSING:  Although federal courts have in the past said that there are

limits on congressional oversight.


BUTLER:  There are limits but again, this law itself is very clear.  And

what they’re saying – what Congress is saying is that they need the tax

returns in order to make sure that the president’s returns are being

audited properly under law.  The president, the vice president, their tax

returns are automatically audited.


They have no reason to have any good faith about whether that’s happening

with regard to Trump.  It’s the Congress’s responsibility to do checks and

balances and so that’s why they need the returns.


JANSING:  Paul Butler, Michelle Goldberg, thank you.  Joyce Vance, you’re

going to stay with me.


One programming note, Senator Elizabeth Warren will join Chris Hayes

tonight on “ALL IN”, 8:00 p.m. Eastern right here on MSNBC.


And coming up, new reporting on why President Trump doesn’t want Bob

Mueller to testify.  Also, Speaker Pelosi and Democrats debate the “I”

word.  How will impeachment actually affect the 2020 presidential race?


And a former aide to Melania Trump said she was thrown under the bus with

those investigations into the Trump inauguration.  All that, plus a major

milestone for comedian Dave Chappell


I’m Chris Jansing, in for Ari Melber.  You’re watching THE BEAT on MSNBC.



JANSING:  Tonight, we’re learning just how worried Trump is about Mueller

testifying before Congress.  Sources telling the “Associated Press” that

Trump has stewed for days about media coverage that would be given to

Mueller.  White House officials worry his gravitas would add weight to some

of the politically damaging and embarrassing material about Trump.


And “New York Times” reporter Maggie Haberman reporting that Trump wasn’t

just popping off when he tweeted Mueller should not testify but, in fact,

for days before the tweets, he had expressed desire to keep Mueller from

testifying.  That’s quite an about face from this.





testify?  Would you like to see him testify?



the attorney General who I think has done a fantastic job.




JANSING:  Yes.  Now, he’s saying no.  Well, here’s where things stand

tonight.  Mueller has tentatively agreed to testify in eight days, on May

15.  It will be the first time the American public will hear directly from



And Trump’s allies in Congress are fiercely trying to protect him.  Here’s

Mitch McConnell today echoing Senator Graham.




REPORTER:  Why not call for Mueller to testify?


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC):  Because I’m not going to do anymore.  Enough

already, it’s over.


MCCONNELL:  The special counsel’s finding is clear.  Case closed.  Case





JANSING:  But as we’ve seen today, the case is far from closed.  And by the

way, this is a new video.  That’s Robert Mueller leaving dinner last night

in Georgetown as negotiations for a possible congressional appearance



Joining me now, former Federal Prosecutor Gene Rossi.  So Gene, as a

prosecutor, if there is so much concern about someone testifying that

you’re doing and saying everything you possibly can, to keep it from

happening, what does that tell you?



President Trump, I would be scared.  This could be John Dean.  Only John

Dean wasn’t the prosecutor.


In all the trials I had, I was always amazed, absolutely amazed at what a

witness says in prep sessions versus how they come across in front of an

audience, especially if it’s a packed room, courses will be a Senate or a

House Committee hearing room.


And Donald trump is a media master.  He ran The Apprentice.  He knows if

Robert Mueller who is respected by a lot of people, including me if he

testifies and adds nuance, meat, and description to the footnotes, the

sentences, the phraseology in that report, Donald Trump knows that that

could be extremely explosive.


And here’s what it will cause the American people to do.  They will then

read the report.  I think there was a poll out that 5 percent to 10 percent

of the American public has not even read the – or only read the report. 

The other 90 percent has not.


People are going to read that report.  And if you read that report, Volume

I, and especially Volume II, you conclude one thing.  This is not how the

president of the United States should act.  That’s why –


JANSING:  But let me go back to Mueller testifying.  Because let’s remember

that Trump completely that, time and time again that this report totally

exonerated him.


ROSSI:  Right.


JANSING:  But I think to your point, there is sort of another nuance that

the “A.P.” story points out.  Trump has long known the power of televised

images and feared that Americans would be captivated by seeing and hearing

Mueller who has not spoken publicly since being named special counsel.


He was virtually a ghost during the entire time of this investigation.  And

I wonder – and this is something else that the “A.P.” article raised, is

Trump worried about a repeat of Michael Cohen’s testimony back in February?


I mean do you think that that would be comparable?  So many people

watching.  So many people finding that witness credible.


ROSSI:  Yes, absolutely, Chris.  This could be Michael Cohen two, times

three because Michael Cohen, we all know, had problems.  OK.  Putting it



He pleaded guilty to perjury, lying, and tax fraud.  And some people say he

continued that lying before the committee.  But also, Donald trump

remembers Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.  And after her testimony, Brett

Kavanaugh’s nomination was hanging in the balance.


And so he knows the power of live television and how that can impact the

poll numbers and the perceptions of the American people.  And he is afraid

that it possibly could be a game changer.


And this is the other point, Chris.  He has put out a narrative.  No

collusion, no obstruction.  If Robert Mueller testifies, you can guarantee

he’s going to shoot the no collusion and the no obstruction canards and put

two holes in their heads.


JANSING:  But as you just said, if he testifies.  I mean the thing is that

at least right now, Mueller still works for the Justice Department and Bill

Barr is his boss.


He can say, you can’t testify.  I mean so you’ve got Bill Barr who can say

you can’t testify.  He is facing contempt charges from congressional

Democrats who are the ones who want to hear from Mueller.  I don’t know. 

Is that a little bit of a conflict there?


ROSSI:  Well, here’s the thing, Chris.  You could have a congressional

subpoena issued for the testimony of Robert Mueller.  And the Congress

rightly could argue that executive privilege is trumped for several



One is the easy one.  There is a waiver.  And that one is a slam-dunk in my

view.  Two, the crime fraud exception, he is investigating what he may

believe Robert Mueller, his conduct that takes it outside of the privilege.


And the third reason is the privilege is qualified.  If there is a public

interest that is greater than the president’s need for confidential

communications, Congress wins and the public wins.


JANSING:  Well, ii will be fascinating to see and I think that there is a

parallel with the way this testimony will be watched with John Dean, which

was, I remember vividly, I was in high school.  It was riveting.


ROSSI:  I do too.


JANSING:  Gene Rossi, thank you so much.


Coming up, the list is ballooning.  Over 700 former federal prosecutors now

say Trump committed crimes based off the Mueller report.  And Senator

Warren’s call to impeach Trump is sparking a big debate inside the

Democratic Party.  That when we’re back in 30 seconds.




JANSING:  Today, Senator Elizabeth Warren delivering a blistering speech

attacking Donald Trump’s war on the law.  And for the first time on the

Senate floor, she went there on impeachment.




WARREN:  If any other human being in the country had done what’s documented

in the Mueller report, they would be arrested and put in jail.  This is not

about politics.  This is about the Constitution of the United States of



We took an oath not to try to protect Donald Trump.  We took an oath to

protect and serve the Constitution of the United States of America.  And

the way we do that is we begin impeachment proceedings now against this





JANSING:  Pretty blunt.  Warren saying impeachment proceedings should begin

now.  Speaker Pelosi, of course, has been very careful on impeachment even

saying today, Trump is goading Democrats to impeach him.


But she did leave the door open.  She says the administration’s outright

refusal to comply with House subpoenas “could be an impeachable offense.” 

And 2020 candidate Senator Kamala Harris says Congress needs to make a

decision on obstruction.





about such a fundamental issue, which is whether or not the president of

the United States obstructed justice.  I think it is something that we need

to figure out.  And Congress has a responsibility to look into it and so I

support the effort to actually begin the steps toward figuring out what





JANSING:  So this is the political backdrop to the massive fight in

Washington.  And it comes with a rapidly growing list of former federal

prosecutors.  More than 700 now saying Trump would be hit with multiple

felony charges if he was not president.  Look how quickly, just from

yesterday morning to the afternoon to today, 700 plus.


Back with me is a former federal prosecutor who signed that letter, Joyce

Vance, Daniela Gibbs Leger from the Center for American Progress who also

served in the Obama administration, and E.J. Dionne, a columnist for “The

Washington Post”.


I don’t know, E.J., does this feel at least in some sense like a turning

point to you, the nervousness about impeachment over 2020 political

concerns, but now, the White House says no Mueller, no McGahn, no tax



Democrats obviously furious.  Prosecutors with that letter offering some

legal cover.  Do you sense we’re moving any closer to impeachment here?



completely with the premise to your question.  I think two months ago, a

lot of people, and I was one of them, said the country might be better off

if Donald Trump were simply defeated at the polls by a huge margin and then

we could move on.


Now, because the administration is turning down every single request

Congress makes, whether it is for taxes, whether it’s for Mueller’s

testimony, we’ll see if they try to block it, or McGahn’s testimony or

McGahn’s documents.  This is saying no to every form of accountability.  It

is more the behavior of a monarch or an authoritarian leader than a



And I think you see in Pelosi’s comment that you just reported that she who

has been very strongly of the view, we’re better off beating him at the

polls, she wants him on the ticket with the Republicans, is now saying

Congress can’t just lie down and accept being treated this way because it’s

not just about treating Congress, it’s about fundamental accountability

under the Constitution.  So yes I think we’re closer to impeachment today

than we were even a week ago.



worth remembering, Daniela, back in March when Nancy Pelosi kind of set the

standard for impeachment.  She said at the time “impeachment is so divisive

to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming

and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path.  But are we at

that point?



AMERICAN PROGRESS:  You know, I think we’re rapidly approaching it.  There

is some sort of irony in the fact that it is Donald Trump and his

administration’s behavior in the past couple of weeks that are pushing

Democrats who were – who were a little bit hesitant to say the I-word to

say look, we may have no choice but to impeach this president or to start

an impeachment referral or start impeachment hearings, because there is

something called the rule of law.


I know that Donald Trump seems to think that he’s above the law and above

the Constitution, but they can’t just say no to everything that Congress

legally has a right to see or ask for.  So I do think that as E.J. said we

are much closer today towards at least beginning impeachment hearings or

like more investigations than we were a couple of weeks ago.


JANSING:  Joyce, I want to play Neal Katyal.  He’s talking about the

unprecedented nature of this 700-plus signature letter from former federal

prosecutors including you.




NEAL KATYAL, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST:  I mean, it’s hugely significant.  I’ve

never seen anything quite like it.  All of them saying when we review this

evidence, it’s obstruction of justice.  And if this were anyone else but a

sitting President, this person would be labeled a felony and staring down

the fallen and staring down the barrel of a federal indictment.


And what you have in this letter is 370 prosecutors saying we agree the

Mueller report shows the president is a felon.




JANSING:  So again, 370 yesterday at this hour, now 700.  So Joyce,

summarized the case because clearly, this has momentum.



letter is not that it was signed by political appointees, although there

are some people like me who were U.S. attorneys on it.  What’s striking is

it’s signed by career people by line prosecutors by criminal chiefs who

every day are charged with evaluating the evidence in a case and making a

decision about whether to indict.


And here, an extraordinarily large number of prosecutors has looked at the

evidence laid out in the Mueller report and said you know, I would indict

this case.  And that’s an important decision because these are people who

just by their training, by their practice leave their politics at the door

when they walk inside of their offices at the Justice Department and look

just at the law and the facts.


They’re not saying that the President is guilty, they’re saying that they

believe that there is sufficient evidence to bring an indictment.


JANSING:  Were you surprised that it’s gone up to 700 because I was a

little stunned when I heard the number.


VANCE:  I wasn’t surprised at all.  And in fact, I noticed that several of

my predecessors in North Alabama are on the list as are prosecutors from

across the country.  Many of them people with 20, 30 even in a couple of

cases 40-plus years’ experience at DOJ.  This is really a rising up of the

career folks at the Justice Department in support of this proposition.


I suspect that if people who were still working at DOJ had the ability to

sign this, we would see significant numbers there as well.


JANSING:  Wow, a rising up.  Well, Daniela, take a listen to 2020

Republican challenger, former Governor Bill Weld who also signed this

letter talked about impeachment.




BILL WELD (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  I’ve been one who’ve been agreeing

with Steny Hoyer and others that impeachment might not be a wise thing to

do right now because the president might you know, not get convicted

because of not 67 votes in the Senate, and then he would declare victory

just before the election.  I don’t know.  This stuff is pretty tough.


ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST:  So you are open to impeachment now?


WELD:  Well, I think it needs a little rethinking in view of the brazenness

of the response by both the President and you know, my friend Bill Barr.




JANSING:  And Daniella, expand a little bit on something we’ve touched on

which I think is a central question here now in Washington, this conflict

between what on one side is a political imperative for people who believe

the president committed crimes as well as constitutional imperative, but

for Democrats who believe the path to victory is the issues, it’s a

different kind of calculus.


LEGER:  Yes, you know in D.C. you can never separate the politics from

anything but you know, I would encourage you know, my Democratic friends to

really think through what’s at stake here.  The American people deserve to

have a full and open hearing and understanding of what is in this report. 


And I think once the American people fully understand everything that has

happened, all the contacts, all the obstruction that is clearly laid out

that 700 you know, DOJ – former DOJ and prosecutors have signed on and

said they think is obstruction.  Once the American people actually hear

that and understand that, I think some of those political concerns may go

by the wayside.


But you know, at the end of the day, like Democrats were elected to you

know, be a check on Donald Trump.  They won the House by record numbers

because people wanted there to be a body that stood up to Donald Trump and

also you know put forth policies that would make the American people’s

lives better.


So I think that Democrats sometimes have to get out of their heads a little

bit and understand what’s really at stake.  We are facing a constitutional

crisis and it’s important for there to be an open hearing of everything

that happened with the Mueller investigation.


JANSING:  I also find it really interesting earlier this week, E.J., when

Nancy Pelosi was talking to the New York Times and she suggested that she

thinks Trump might try to contest the results of the 2020 election if it’s

a really close margin.


Here’s what she told them.  “If we win by four seats by a thousand votes

each, he’s not going to respect the election.  He would poison the public

mind.  He would challenge each of the races.  He would say you can’t seat

these people.”  What do you make of that?


DIONNE:  Well, I agree with her.  In fact, Trump said the other day that

he’s lost two years so he’s owed two years more.  So I don’t think that’s -

- I think Pelosi is on to something.


JANSING:  He was robbed, E.J., he was robbed.


DIONNE:  Exactly, and that I think that you know, in any event, in order to

govern ourselves this margin has to be big so everybody in the country can

say we’re done with this.  I think with Pelosi on impeachment, the refusal

to let witnesses appear, the refusal to hand over documents has kind of

wrecked the strategy she had in mind.


What she had in mind is we won’t impeach but we will have hearings.  We’re

going to instruct the public on what is in the Mueller report and let them

decide and then and only then will we face the impeachment question.


But with Trump with a sense of television, he knows that this television

show would not be good for him so he’s trying to block all the characters

from appearing on the show and that’s why I think she has to reconsider the

strategy that she would prefer but may not have available to her.


JANSING:  Yes, she keeps – in the back of her head, she keeps thinking

he’s goading us, he’s goading us.  We shouldn’t play into it.  Tough,

tough, tough times but also important ones for the decision-makers.  E.J.

always great to see you.


DIONNE:  Always a joy.


JANSING:  Daniella, Joyce, thank you very much.  I appreciate it.  Ahead, a

major honor for comedian Dave Chappelle, hasn’t going home to D.C.  But

first, Melania Trump’s former friend and Trump inauguration organizer says

she was thrown under the bus.  That’s next.




MELBER:  Someone who was a top organizer for Trump’s inauguration has

turned on the White House.  Stephanie Wolkoff, a longtime friend of Melania

Trump telling the New York Times she was thrown under the bus disputing

White House claims that she was fired last year from her unpaid role

advising Melania, and pushing back against anonymous White House officials

who accused her of profiting from the inauguration.


Here’s the quote.  “Was I fired?  No.  Did I personally receive $26 million

or $1.6 million?  No.  Was I thrown under the bus?  Yes.”  Here’s the thing

Stephanie Wolkoff is talking to investigators with the Southern District of

New York who are looking into the inauguration.  A probe triggered by the

federal raid of Michael Cohen’s office.  That raid uncovered recordings

that Cohen had made of Wolkoff talking about her concerns about the

inaugural committee’s spending.


The news tonight, just a day after Cohen went to prison, another former

Trump loyalist is breaking with team Trump and not pulling any punches. 

Joining me Steve Kerrigan who was President and CEO of President Obama’s

2013 Inaugural Committee.  Steve, thanks for coming in.  Look, you know

better than anybody what’s involved in running an inaugural.  So what would

Wolkoff potentially know that would be of interest to SDNY?



COMMITTEE:  How all that money was spent, and she says that she didn’t

personally get $26 million and she didn’t get personally $1.6 million of

that money.  But if she didn’t get it who did?  I mean, the clearest

answered all of this and what she can be most helpful with to SDNY is to go

through all of the financials of how that $107 million are spent.


I mean, this was either a colossal mismanaged inaugural that spends more

than we spent on both of President Obama’s inaugurations in ‘09 and ‘13. 

It was either mismanaged or frankly, it is just an inaugural slush fund

that was put there to pad the pockets of all of the president and the first

lady’s friends and business partners.


JANSING:  I mean, look at that graphic.  $107 million, the other – going

back to Clinton, dwarfed by that number.  Again, I mean, even before any

legal questions were raised, did you see that number and say what the heck

are they spending all that money on?


KERRIGAN:  Yes, it was egregious from day one.  I mean it’s – and it’s a

recipe by the way for corruption.  Because the rules around transparency

for inaugural funds are almost non-existent, and frankly the Congress

should be acting on that.


JANSING:  Really?


KERRIGAN:  Yes.  It’s really – it’s egregious that the Congress of the

United States – and they are working on it.  HR-1 has some language in it

that they took up about inaugural funding, but really Congress should put

in place and transparency rules.  Right now, you’re supposed to report all

of the donations that you receive as a committee and only the top five

expenditures that you make.


And you spend $107 million, his top five were all in the $20-$25 million

expenses and within those are $500,000 we know for a fact went directly to

miss Wolkoff as a payment to her which by the way $500,000 is more than the

entire senior staff made at the 2009 inauguration for President Obama, the

entire 12 person junior staff –


JANSING:  That was their salary?


KERRIGAN:  I know.  Believe me.  I’d be doing inaugurals every four years

for the rest of my life if it was but it wasn’t.  I mean, that’s what this

comes out it.  We need to see – we need to have transparency because when

there is not transparency, is when we have all kinds of opportunities.


$2.7 million paid to support performers who are coming to the inauguration

that Steve Wynn brought with him from Las Vegas.  I mean, you’ve got Tom

Barrack who by the way should be looking for buses like the one that Miss

Wolkoff got thrown under left right and center because that man had a

dinner where they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of the inaugural

funds to carpet the place, the Mellon Auditorium where they had a dinner

for the chairman of the inaugural.


The inaugurals are there to celebrate a peaceful transition of power not to

pad Tom Barracks personal pocket by giving him business opportunities to

invite a thousand guests that will help him in his business later.


JANSING:  I’ve only got 30 seconds left but Wolkoff said she did not

discuss the inaugural spending with The Times because she signed an NDA

non-disclosure agreement saying, “If the committee were to release me from

this obligation, I would be able to speak freely without the fear of legal

or financial repercussions.”  Are NDAs common for inauguration officials? 

Did you have to sign one?


KERRIGAN:  So I checked with a few of the folks who worked with me in ‘09

and in ‘13, I don’t remember signing them, maybe we did.  But certainly,

the intent if we have them was to keep planning private before the

inauguration so it’s not so creating security risk and not to protect

somebody from legal liability when it comes to graft and misspending of



I’ll tell you, the people are dispensable to the Trump family, and frankly,

that’s something that people like Tom Barrack and Steve Mnuchin should be

looking out as they are frankly obstructing Congress in the actions that

they’re taking.  But this is really – transparency would really help solve

all of these problems but we’re never going to get that out of Donald Trump

or his administration.


And hopefully, in a couple years, we’ll have a Democratic inauguration that

can help hit the reset button for the United States of America.


JANSING:  And I’ll just make note of the fact that you are in fact still in

touch with and clearly friendly with people you worked with on the

inaugurals.  Steve Kerrigan, thank you so much.  Still ahead, it was one of

the wildest Midterm elections and it’s not over.  News on the fight in

North Carolina.




JANSING:  There’s no drama to tell you about tonight in what was already

one of the most dramatic congressional elections in 2018.  I’m talking

about North Carolina’s Ninth District.  Now, remember, this was the first

case of election fraud to actually result in a new election.


Back in November, Democrat Daniel McCready lost the election to Republican

candidate Mark Harris by 900 votes.  But accusations of ballot tampering

from a Republican operative caused the elections board to decertify the

results.  Then it all blew up because of emotional and gripping testimony

from Mark Harris’s own son who said he warned his father before the

election that the aide was doing something wrong.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  And you had suspicions from – about McCrae Dowless

from the start?




UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  And you’ve expressed that to your father.


HARRIS:  I did.  I love my dad and I love my mom, OK.  I think they made

mistakes in this process.




JANSING:  Well, after that, Harris dropped out and on Tuesday, this Tuesday

Republicans are in a fierce battle to run against McCready who was on the

beat back then talking about the importance of this election.





the largest case of election fraud in living memory.  You had a situation

of covering up of e-mails, of lying on the stand, of week early voting

information to Mark Harris’ campaign.  This really goes to, I think, what

does it mean to live in a democracy.  What does it mean to be an American?




JANSING:  Well, McCready was running on a post in the Democratic primary

but ten Republicans running in the primary and if any one of them gets 30

percent of the vote, they’ll avoid a runoff.  Right now, only one candidate

has that, State Senator Dan Bishop.  He’s the frontrunner polling at 31

percent so obviously narrowly passing that 30 percent threshold, and he has

more than a ten-point lead over the candidate in second place, Stony



A couple of points to make about this.  First of all, Mark Harris endorsed

Rushing in the race, but his campaign ads raised eyebrows after he wore a

live snake around his neck.





country, you learn to deal with things that come out of the swamp.  I’m not

coming to support lobbyist and insiders.  I’m coming to fight for the Ninth





JANSING:  Snakes aside, it’s good to remember that the leading Republican,

once again, that’s Dan Bishop, is the very same guy who cosponsored North

Carolina’s bathroom bill which requires people to use public restrooms

match the gender on their birth certificate.  That bill caused an uproar,

people were canceling things in North Carolina.  Since then, it’s been

partially repealed.


So buckle up.  If Bishop wins the primary next week as the polls suggest he

will, McCready has made it clear he is ready for a fight and we’ll be

watching.  Ahead, comedian Dave Chappelle is going home to D.C.  We’ll tell

you why.




JANSING:  Dave Chappelle is getting the Mark Twain Prize for the humor. 

The Kennedy Center is saying Chappelle is the embodiment of Mark Twain’s

observation that against the assault of humor, nothing can stand. 

Chappelle is making headlines in recent years with his take on Donald





DAVE CHAPPELLE, COMEDIAN:  I listen to him say naive, poor white people

things.  Man, Donald Trump is going to go to Washington and he’s going to

fight for us.  I’m standing there thinking in my mind, you dumb (BLEEP). 

You are poor.  He’s fighting for me.










Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC.  All materials herein are

protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,

distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the

prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter

or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the