Behind the scenes with Sen. Cory Booker. TRANSCRIPT: 5/16/19, The Beat w/ Ari Melber.

Guests:
Juanita Tolliver, Marco Costa, Victoria De Francesco, Jonathan Capehart, Tony Schwartz, Sherrilyn Ifill
Transcript:

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST:  So I can`t resolve it today.  If we just put a

timer on these things –

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  We only have two more minutes.

 

TODD:  Two more minutes, we would resolve it, and the whole system of

checks and balances would be restored.  We`ll try that next time.  Tom, I

got to thank you.  Matthew, Donna, Dan, thank you all.  That`s all we have. 

We`ll be back tomorrow with more MEET THE PRESS DAILY.

 

“THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER” starts right now.  And I know what Ari is

probably now going to be leading with if he wasn`t before.  Hello, brother.

 

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST:  I think that`s fair, brother.  Thank you, Chuck

Todd.

 

TODD:  All right.

 

MELBER:  We begin on this breaking news in the Michael Flynn case.  There

is a brand new court filing in Michael Flynn`s case.  And it just became

public moments ago.

 

This is important because while it overlaps with things we know from the

Mueller report, it is a new filing as Chuck Todd was just mentioning.  Mike

Flynn, Donald Trump`s former national security adviser telling Mueller`s

investigators about specific documented incidents where people linked to

the Trump administration may have affected even his willingness to

cooperate.

 

Mueller spelling out the details in his report that includes a transcript

of a voicemail that one of Trump`s own personal criminal defense attorneys

left for Flynn`s lawyer.  It asked for information and the voicemail.

 

Here again, from the report in the filing, said, “If there is information

that implicates the president, we`ve got a national security issue.  So you

know, we need some kind of heads up.  Just for the sake of protecting all

of our interests, if we can.  Remember that we`ve always said about the

president and his feelings toward Flynn, and that still remains.”

 

These new revelations of how the president`s team were trying to engage in

these high-level discussions with an individual who now had an obligation

to Mueller.  The question being, were those efforts to potentially obstruct

or thwart the Mueller probe?

 

Now, this is interesting because some of this may sound familiar to you

because we`ve been hearing about it.  But it comes now in a backdrop where

the Democratic Party and congressional leaders are openly discussing what

to do about both congressional stonewalling and the hangover from what the

Mueller report showed.  All of which has people talking about the “I” word.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:  The president`s

policy now, the president`s posture now, is making it impossible to rule

out impeachment or anything else.

 

ERIC HOLDER, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL:  Well, I think there`s – yes, there

are ground for impeachment.  If you look at the second part of the Mueller

report, there is no question that obstruction of justice does exist.

 

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE:  I think the president

every day gives grounds for impeachment in terms of his obstruction of

justice.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  I want to get right to it with Juanita Tolliver, campaign director

for the Center for American Progress Action Fund.  And Robert Costa,

national political reporter for “The Washington Post” who has been a

chronicler of the Trump presidency, as well as its interaction with the

Mueller probe from its inception.  Good evening to both of you.

 

JUANITA TOLLIVER, CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION

FUND:  Hey, Ari.

 

ROBERT COSTA, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST:  Good

evening.

 

MELBER:  Juanita, what do you think of the significance of what we`re

seeing in these details in the Flynn filing against this wider backdrop, as

we just saw, including the former Obama A.G. Eric Holder, speaking by my

account more forthrightly than he ever has today on what he called “grounds

for impeachment”.

 

TOLLIVER:  It is absolutely clear that with Trump`s blanket rejection of

all these document requests from Congress, that he is hiding something. 

This evidence of his team coordinating as it relates to the Mueller report.

 

And everything that Mueller even laid out in his report all points to an

effort to really interfere and be engaged in an unproductive way that

should be raising flags for American people.  And honestly, at this point,

if Congress is not allowed to move forward, it really shows that Trump is

using his leverage to operate as a dictator would, as a tyrant would.

 

And that`s really dangerous because Congress has the legal authority to

hold him accountable.  They have the legal authority to request these

documents.  And this new report really highlights that they should be able

to move forward.

 

MELBER:  Bob, take us inside the White House based on your reporting and

against a backdrop where there has been, I think it is fair to say, some

moving of the goalposts.  And Mr. Barr has tried to put his view of things

out in Washington as the first draft of history.

 

They haven`t yet let Bob Mueller set a date for testimony but then Barr

today, in reports coming out today, says he`s not blocking Mueller`s

testimony to Congress saying, “It is Bob`s call whether he wants to

testify.”

 

COSTA:  And there`s a lot of pressure on the attorney general to allow Mr.

Mueller to testify.  With regard to this breaking news on General Flynn and

his interaction and his team`s interactions with the president`s lawyers,

there is a feeling inside of this White House that they have a blind spot

when it comes to some of these obstruction questions.

 

What I mean by that is, there are personal lawyers for the president who

have been on the outside.  An ever-changing cast at times from John Dowd

and Ty Cobb to Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow who have had exchanges and

interactions with witnesses in the Mueller probe, whether it was Michael

Cohen or Michael Flynn and others.

 

And those conversations are not always known or really understood inside of

this administration.  And they feel like as this obstruction investigation

moves forward on Capitol Hill, the president`s personal lawyers will be

under more scrutiny by Democrats.

 

MELBER:  Well, I want to ask you about that.  You`re talking about a blind

spot.  One of the things that come through to me and I`m curious what you

think having talked to a lot of these folks is, there was kind of an

apparent fear that Donald Trump may have actually done more than Mueller

found that he did, did something worse than what part one of the report

says.

 

Now that we know it all.  Because you can see I think quite clearly the

panic in that voicemail.  Lawyers don`t want to generally leave a voicemail

like that.  They want a live call.

 

They know that a cooperating witness and his lawyers will have every

incentive to turn over the voicemail and the material.  And you get the

question of, hey, you know, what does Flynn have?  What do you know that

could really hurt the boss?

 

And I say to you, how did they get so nervous unless they didn`t believe

what Trump was telling them, which is that part one of the Mueller report

would suggest that there was not a quid pro quo that was chargeable in

Russia.

 

COSTA:  They`ve been nervous since day one because they know how the

president operates in this extemporaneous style.  Often not briefing his

own aides about who he`s talking to, what he`s saying, even when it comes

to things like foreign policy.

 

He has phone calls with friends, associates, builds his own perspectives on

different issues, and doesn`t always bring in the formal circle of people

that a president would bring in to this decision-making process.  And

because of that, they didn`t feel exposure inside of this White House about

not really knowing the full context of every conversation he had with many

of these witnesses during the course of the transition and early on in the

presidency.

 

MELBER:  Yes.  I mean, Juanita, to simplify it a little bit, I don`t want

to put words in Bob`s mouth.  But I`m saying this, you hear what he just

said and you get the feeling that the one thing that like the resistance

and Rudy Giuliani agree on is you cannot really trust Trump.

 

TOLLIVER:  Can`t trust Trump.  He`s lied to the American public.  He`s

apparently lying to his own attorneys to the point where they`re all trying

to scramble and figure out what he has omitted from their conversations. 

And honestly, it really lays the foundation that Congress should be able to

move forward to find the truth.

 

We all need to hear from Mueller in a public testimony.  We all need to get

to the bottom of this.

 

MELBER:  Yes, it`s a big story and it is why it was our breaking news lead. 

Bob Costa, thank you for jumping in with us.  Juanita, stay with me.

 

Because the other big story with these investigations twirling is the

president stepping out today, proposing a plan that would basically require

a lot more cooperative relationship with Congress than what he has.  As we

have just been discussing, this is an immigration plan that would try to

increase what the White House calls the education and skills requirements

for incoming immigrants.

 

It would also attempt to build parts of Trump`s famous border wall that

would also keep immigration levels in their broad numbers as the same as

they are now.  Changing the categories of who might get into the country.

 

Now, as you know, anything Donald Trump says on immigration tends to be

polarizing.  This plan today has already managed to draw rebukes from both

parties.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT):  This sham proposal is dead on arrival.  It

is a mockery of what America needs.

 

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC):  The White House`s plan is not designed to

become law.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Also today, we`re learning that the Trump administration wants to

use executive power to try to have the U.S. Military erect tent cities to

detain immigrants.  Reporters uncovered this comment as well from January. 

This is from Donald Trump`s nominee to lead I.C.E.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

MARK MORGAN, FORMER BORDER PATROL CHIEF:  I`ve been to detention facilities

where I`ve walked up to these individuals that are so-called minors, 17 or

under.  And I`ve looked at them and I`ve looked at their eyes, Tucker, and

I said that is a soon to be MS13 gang member.  It is unequivocal.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Soon to be gang member.  I want to bring in Victoria De Francesco,

a professor at the University of Texas.  Juanita, of course, still with us.

 

Victoria, put this into context for us.  Anyone watching, even if you land

from Mars tonight, right now, and only saw this much of the news, you`d say

well, there`s this huge clash over potential impeachment.  There`s this

stonewalling of Congress on its basic oversight.  And then there`s the

president stepping out today and saying he`s got a plan and he wants to

work with Congress on it.

 

Walk us through that apparent tension as well as what is in the plan itself

in your view.

 

VICTORIA DE FRANCESCO, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS:  Right, Ari.  So

immigration has always been the president`s safe space.  This is what he

built his campaign on from day one when he announced that he was going to

be running for presidency.

 

So a couple of different moving parts.  The Rose Garden speech today was

about a legal immigration plan.  It`s really a refried component of the

Gang of Eight Bill from a couple of years ago that said we want more merit-

based immigration as opposed to family reunification.

 

But it is a no go because both sides of the aisle are not happy with it. 

He`s not giving Democrats what they want in terms of resolving the

undocumented population and how we normalize that, or the DACA recipients,

or asylum seekers.

 

And the right – the bases this is way too liberal.  You`re giving away too

much.  So on that part, we`re seeing –

 

MELBER:  So is it – so on that substance, to your point, does it have in

your view progressive ingredients?  And what are people to make of the idea

of, oh well, keep numbers the same but have more “skilled migrants”.  Tell

us what you think about that.

 

DE FRANCESCO:  Right.  And I`m just going based off of history here.  So in

2013, the Gang of Eight Bill did that give and take.  They were able to get

a bill passed, a bipartisan bill in the Senate saying we`re going to tamp

down family reunification but there`s going to be a path for legalization

for these 11 million undocumented persons who are here.

 

So but without that component, it is dead on arrival.  You have to have

give and take and there is no give in this component.  There is been a lot

of bellyaching about family-based reunification for decades in this

country.  Even though I`m just going to throw it in there, Ari, Melania`s

parents were naturalized as a result of family-based reunification but I

get off topic.

 

In terms of family-based reunification, this is going to be a really tough

one because, for the Democratic Party, this is a core issue that they`re

going to fight through the nail unless there is something really

substantive in return.

 

MELBER:  And while I have you, one of the things I was wondering is, you

know, reading the “New York Times” account today, they mentioned, well, if

you`ve implemented this and you`ve just explained why, you and Lindsey

Graham and Senator Blumenthal may all agree this isn`t going to happen.

 

But in terms of taking the policy part seriously and putting aside Trump`s

antics, if you did increase this type of immigration, it says the salaries

of those immigrants would actually go up.  Potentially double.  And I

wonder, does that appeal to Trump`s base?  Or does that not look like, oh,

the Trump immigration plan would send a lot of money at skilled immigrants,

which is not exactly what he ran on in the first place.

Notwithstanding the other points you`ve raised.

 

DE FRANCESCO:  Right.  So this language about increasing the earnings of

immigrants to me speaks very directly to that Country Club Republican, to

the George W. Bush Republican or the home of George W. Bush.  So I think

here, this is purely a political ploy.  He knows that his base is going to

hate it.  He knows the Democrats are going to hate it –

 

MELBER:  So that`s important –

 

DE FRANCESCO:  – but he`s trying to get that –

 

MELBER:  Just to slow down what you`re saying.  When you say his base,

you`re saying the grassroots Trump base doesn`t even like that part of the

plan but the sort of corporation side does.

 

DE FRANCESCO:  Yes.  Yes.  Yes, the old school Republicans, the more

moderate ones, the ones who want to see that fiscal growth that know that

comes with a healthy and robust immigration system.  I mean our

underemployment is at record lows.  We need immigration.  And they know

this is the way to go.

 

MELBER:  Well, there is an old saying.  Nothing says kicking it old school

like a fiscal growth based immigration plan.

 

DE FRANCESCO:  Indeed.

 

MELBER:  Indeed.  I`m going to fit in a break.  And I`m sure everyone is

happy about that.  Victoria, Juanita, thanks to both of you.  Appreciate

you being part of our coverage.

 

Coming up, we have a lot more to get to.  I have a special report on what I

think is wrong with the Trump White House and Sarah Sanders` breaking

records for dodging White House press briefings.

 

Later tonight on the show, I`m thrilled to tell you, Sherrilyn Ifill will

be here with her views on important civil rights fight as well as the

latest in the abortion battles out of Alabama.

 

Also tonight, Tony Schwartz is here reacting to new financial documents

revealing Trump`s profit problem.  All that, Plus something you won`t see

literally anywhere else.  Behind the scenes with Senator Cory Booker right

here at 30 Rock.  He opens up about the poems he writes to his girlfriend

and does a little freestyle.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ), 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  We can try to

freestyle it right now.

 

MELBER:  I don`t know how.

 

BOOKER:  It`s no feat to be on the beat so far away from the actual street.

 

MELBER:  And we`ll a beat under that.

 

BOOKER:  Yes.  If you want to be understood, you got to come to my book.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  We have a whole lot more where that came from.  We`ll be right

back.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MELBER:  Now, we turn to a story the Trump administration is trying to keep

out of the news.  It is fairly unusual crackdown, unprecedented access. 

Because whether or not anyone`s talking about it right now, today is a

negative record for the Trump White House.  Sixty-six days since its last

formal press briefing in March.

 

The footage you see right now of the White House press secretary is months

old because neither Miss Sanders or any other government official has

stepped to that lectern in 66 days.  A record, the longest for any

administration in the past 26 years.

 

And you think about that whole fancy White House press room with the whole

official White House lectern.  At this point, you`ve got to wonder if it`s

going to start collecting dust if the staff never use it.

 

In fact, this new photo snapped by a reporter shows there is dust amassing

on that lectern.  This is not normal.  As you certainly know if you watch

the news across both parties, the White House holds, usually over 10

briefings a month and often on a daily basis to inform the public about

major developments.

 

Those numbers have plummeted under Trump which is two briefings this year. 

Now, whatever one thinks of press briefings, they can be tedious and

frustrating and less than enlightening depending on who is at the lectern.

 

In the modern era, the act of holding them provides a forum for

accountability, for fact-checking, for some exchange between the government

and free press.  In the times since the last briefing, the White House has

avoided facing televised questions about say the trade war or this battle

plans in Iran or a single day of questions about that little thing called

the Mueller report which included evidence on both current and former White

House staff, thwarting the probe or lying for the president, including

Sarah Sanders herself.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REPORTER:  What led you and the White House to believe that you had lost

the confidence of the rank and file of the FBI when the acting director

says it`s exactly the opposite?

 

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY:  Well, I can speak to

my own personal experience.  I`ve heard from countless members of the FBI

that are grateful and thankful for the president`s decision.

 

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC HOST:  The Mueller report reveals then deputy press

secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders lied to the press about Comey`s firing. 

Sanders who was interviewed by the special counsel`s team admitted that her

claim of hearing from countless members of the FBI was a “slip of the

tongue.”

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  The point here is not about whether Ms. Sanders would get some

fastballs on that.  It is that the Trump White House continues to press,

test, attack, and shatter all kinds of obligations of government to see

what it can get away with.  Confiscating the press pass of a TV reporter in

November, for example, of last year that went too far.  A judge overruled

it.

 

But the White House is back at it this month taking press passes from

“Washington Post” reporters like Dana Milbank and Jonathan Capehart.  Now,

you may recall, conservatives attack President Obama for far smaller moves

against press access.

 

And the new drought comes as Trump grinded through five communications

director and has now concluded he doesn`t need one at all, Trump

determining that he and his staffer will convey his message on Twitter and

he`ll focus on interviews with friendly media outlets, 44 with “Fox News”,

under a dozen with all other networks combined.

 

And this isn`t just about Trump beefing with the press.  This about the

role, the very existence of a free press dealing with the White House. 

Now, when you think about that dusty lectern, it is just the latest sign of

how the Trump administration will do anything it can to dodge

accountability and then see whether anyone notices.

 

I am joined by Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist Jonathan Capehart from

“The Washington Post” who as mentioned has figured into this story.  Good

evening to you.

 

JONATHAN CAPEHART, PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING JOURNALIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: 

Hi, Ari.

 

MELBER:  What does it mean that they`ve cut off these briefings almost

entirely in 2019?

 

CAPEHART:  It means that they don`t want to be held accountable.  Look, the

president`s predecessors didn`t have a good relationship with the press. 

They had a contentious relationship with the press.

 

But they respected the press and they respected the role of the press.  I

can – I always tell people this and we can`t mention it often enough,

there`s only one profession that is protected in the Constitution of the

United States and that is the press.

 

Freedom of the press is vital for a democracy.  It is vital because that is

how the citizenry is informed about what the government is doing in its

name.  And when the government decides that it doesn`t respect the press

enough to hold press briefings, to hold it, to make itself accountable to

the American people by not doing briefings at all.

 

Or to be fair, the president does make himself available to the press, but

as you said in your set up there, he is only talking to friendly press

where the questions will be softballs at best for him.  And not stand there

in the east room as he`s only done a handful of times to answer questions

from NBC, from “The Washington Post, ” from “CNN” and “ABC”, and all those

folks who had been sitting in the White House briefing room asking

questions that are important and vital for the American public.

 

MELBER:  Yes.  And when you put it that way, I mean a lot of this is

important about whether you get it on the record.  So the first thing that

happens, if the White House or anybody in government is caught lying,

there`s anger at them for that.  But you have to have a forum to hold them

accountable to even see whether that happens in the first place.

 

CAPEHART:  Right.

 

MELBER:  And so I think – I wonder whether this sort of the relative

unpopularity of the press briefing is part of, what, lets them get away

with this.  I`m curious what you think about this Pentagon statistic that

we can put on the map.  And here, we`re talking about holding them

accountable and having questions about where we send out troops off to. 

Over 300 days since the Pentagon press briefing in this administration,

Jonathan.

 

CAPEHART:  Right.  And you know, this gets into a situation where, I`m sure

you`ve seen this on your Twitter feed and I`ve had people mention this on

my Twitter feed and come up to me in person and ask, why do folks even

bother to show up at the White House?  Show up at the briefings?  Why do we

even bother to cover the president?

 

And, on the one hand, I understand where they`re coming from.  They don`t

want to give out information.  They don`t respect the press.  They don`t

want to be transparent despite what the president says about his being the

most transparent administration ever in the history of everything.

 

You know, the fact that they`re not – the fact that they`re not doing

that, to me, says, they don`t care.  They really do not care.  And the

point I was trying to make in terms of the president`s predecessors, they

had – they not only had a – have and had a reverence for the

constitution.  They had a reverence for the role of the press.

 

And what we have now in the White House is a president who has no reverence

for the Constitution.  Otherwise, he would be honoring the subpoenas.  He

would be allowing Special Counsel Barr to testify.  He would be bending

over backward to be accountable to the American people but he doesn`t

revere the press.

 

And so when you have those two things, it is not surprising that we haven`t

had a briefing in the press briefing room in 60 something days or at the

Pentagon in more than 300 days.

 

MELBER:  Right.  And –

 

CAPEHART:  And we`re talking about the Pentagon because of Iran and Iraq. 

But what about the other agencies, Ari, where there are other consequential

things happening?

 

MELBER:  Right.  And they`re going to keep and they`re going to test and

see what they can get away with which is part of why we wanted to make sure

to shine a light on tonight.

 

CAPEHART:  Right.

 

MELBER:  Jonathan Capehart, thank you so much.

 

CAPEHART:  Thanks, Ari.

 

MELBER:  Still ahead, civil rights leader Sherrilyn Ifill is here.  But

first, new revelations on Trump and how his presidency is damaging his

profits when we`re back in 30.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MELBER:  Many Trump insiders insist Donald Trump ran for president to

promote his brand, not to actually win.  Longtime Trump attorney Michael

Cohen made that point under oath before going to prison.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

MICHAEL COHEN, LONGTIME TRUMP ATTORNEY:  Donald Trump is a man who ran for

office to make his brand great.  Mr. Trump would often say, this campaign

was going to be the greatest infomercial in political history.  The

campaign for him was always a marketing opportunity.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  The idea was free promotion from a losing campaign to help the

business.  But what about a winning campaign?  Well, there`s new figures

out today that show actually being president is costing Trump money.

 

Mar-a-Lago did raise its membership fees after he won but it still pulled

in $15 million less last year than 2016.  The Doral Resort is down $41

million.  And a local consultant says that drop is from the negative

connotations associated with the Trump brand.

 

Now, this extra scrutiny of the presidency has revealed extra details on

how losing money has long been a core part of Trump`s business practices,

the billion dollars he lost over about a decade heading into the `90s was

more than double.  Those are the nearest taxpayers.

 

On the one hand, Trump is now paying a business price for his political

career.  On the other, Trump has experience with this challenge that he

faces right now, spinning giant business losses into claims that he`s good

at business.  In fact, the Republican primary tested this very issue. 

Because back in 2016, party leaders were standing up to Trump and noting

his faults.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

TRUMP:  Well, I don`t know anything about bankrupting four companies.

 

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL):  You bankrupt –

 

TRUMP:  You know why?

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  One at a time.

 

RUBIO:  There are people who borrowed $36,000 –

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Hold on.  One at a time, Mr. Trump.

 

RUBIO:  – to go to Trump University and they`re suing them now.  $36,000

to go to Trump University.  That`s a fake school.

 

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX):  The litigation against Trump University, it`s a

fraud case

 

RUBIO:  You lied about the –

 

TRUMP:  Yes, yes, yes.

 

RUBIO:  You lied to their students for Trump University.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Many of those loud voices have gone silent about what they then

called Trump`s alleged fraud.  And despite the six bankruptcies, despite

the new losses today at Trump properties, despite the “New York Times”

reporting Trump lost more money than virtually any other taxpayer, Trump is

still running for election on the myth that he`s a tough business tycoon

with the kind of overcompensation that hints at insecurity.

 

Consider some spiritual wisdom from the Texas musician, La Cre, a self-

described purpose-driven Christian rapper who post some questions to wanna-

be gangsters that may apply here.  All this killing but where the bodies

at?  All this money, where the Bugatti`s at?

 

You dig a little deeper and you`re going to see another insecure man

sitting in a two-seater.

 

Our next guest worked with Trump on this myth, The Art of the Deal

bestseller, 1987.  Tony Schwartz also then later announced Trump and has

the energy products.  He`s also the author of The Way We Work Isn`t

Working.  And he leads our recurring State of Mind series.

 

What is Trump doing here when he has such a bad business story to tell?

 

TONY SCHWARTZ, CO-AUTHOR, THE ART OF THE DEAL:  What he always does, 10,000

lies later, is deny, dissemble, accuse, do anything to deflect attention

from what the reality is.  What he`s been remarkable at throughout his

career is keeping an image, at the very least, about his effectiveness as a

businessman, alive in the face of what we now know are massive losses.

 

And I say we because I include myself.  I was writing that book in 1986,

1987, when we now know he was losing hundreds of millions of dollars or at

least, tens of millions of dollars on an annual basis.  And you could sit

with Donald Trump and have no clue that that was going on.  The way he

presented it to me and therefore in turn to the world was I`m doing better

than ever.

 

Now the art of the deal was ostensibly about a series of successful deals. 

If you go through that book today and you look at what actually happened,

three of the chapters are about casinos that he owned or built.  All of

them went bankrupt.  And we`re in the midst of going bankrupt as I was

writing that, the two that were thought that would already belong to him.

 

The story of a 100 Central Park South where he got rid of tenants who he

didn`t want because they were paying rents that were too low was a massive

story of a failure.  The United States Football League which we wrote about

was something that went bankrupt and yet what Trump would say was net-net,

I am making you know tens of millions of dollars and I`m a billionaire.

 

He was already saying he was a billionaire.  I don`t believe at any point

during his career Trump has been a billionaire.

 

MELBER:  You don`t?

 

SCHWARTZ:  Absolutely not.  And there`s – actually, the media has

continued to act as if that`s true.  Maybe the Times report changes that,

but year in and year out you know Forbes finds him to be a billionaire.  I

don`t think – there are times when I think he hasn`t been worth virtually

anything and this may be one of them.

 

HAYES:  When you look at the Republicans in 2016 as we showed, they were

making some of this case.  There`s more details now, but he managed to

vanquish that then.  Is there any learning curve here in your view?

 

SCHWARTZ:  Trump has managed, Ari, to debase our collective humanity. 

That`s the most depressing thing about Trump.  It`s not Trump, but it`s the

impact on the – on the collective.  And you know, we are meant as human

beings to evolve through our lives to see more, to develop, to be capable

of more to have a wider deeper longer perspective, but you can also

devolve.

 

And what makes us devolve is fear.  And Trump is a genius about fear.  He`s

a genius about stoking fear in a way that gets people to support him

because only he will save them.  And he`s a genius about stoking fear and

anger and frustration in the people who oppose him and therefore drag him -

- drag us down to his level.

 

So the level at which we operate it`s so much closer to survival today than

to any kind of thriving, evolving perspective that I see that as the legacy

that is most at this moment, because it could get worse, the legacy that is

worst about him.

 

MELBER:  Right.  Which again goes to whether not only is there not a

learning curve but whether he will get away with more because you won`t

have some of those validators pushing against it.  Tony Schwartz, thank you

as always.  I appreciate you being here.  Coming up, Sherrilyn Ifill joins

us to discuss abortion rights under attack and another landmark Supreme

Court case that many people are very focused on because it`s supposed to be

the law of the land.

 

And later, our behind-the-scenes interview with Cory Booker.  He opens up

about poetry and his girlfriend and drops a freestyle.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA):  I don`t want to be a fear monger but I do

believe that they`re trying to go on a path that will totally dismantle Roe

v Wade and we have to be vigilant.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Speaker Pelosi issuing that warning as Alabama is adopting the

strictest anti-abortion law in the country sparking protests and court

battles which lot of supporters say they want, betting the Trump`s

additions to judiciary could change all of this.  And then consider this

action in the Senate today.  52 senators voting to confirm Trump pick Wendy

Vitter as a federal judge.

 

Now, she has falsely claimed Planned Parenthood kills 150,000 women a year

and that abortions caused cancer.  She also joins over two dozen Trump

picks who refused to say whether the Brown versus Board decision banning

segregation was correct.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Do you believe that Brown versus Board of Education was

correctly decided?

 

WENDY VITTER, FEDERAL JUDGE:  I think I get into a difficult – different -

- difficult area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions which

are correctly decided and which I may disagree with.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Now, it can be difficult for judicial nominees to discuss certain

new issues that they might have to later rule on or every specific case

under the sun.  But civil rights leaders stress the unanimous Brown

decision against apartheid is not a difficult case to say you support.  And

tomorrow marks the 65th anniversary of that ruling.

 

So we turn now to one of the nation`s leading civil rights advocates NAACP

Legal Defense Fund President Sherrilyn Ifill.  Thanks for joining me

tonight.

 

SHERRILYN IFILL, PRESIDENT, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND:  Thanks for having

me, Ari.

 

MELBER:  What do you see as important here as we mentioned given the

anniversary tomorrow and the refusal to discuss this case and so many of

those Trump nominees hearings?

 

IFILL:  Ari, it`s actually quite significant and I think it`s important too

for us to kind of see the wake-up call.  There are nearly thirty judicial

nominees who since when Wendy Vitter have refused to say that Brown versus

Board of Education was correctly decided.

 

This is a sea change from what we have seen over the past decades, those on

the right and those on the left.  Chief Justice Roberts at his confirmation

hearing talked extensively about Brown and saw no problem about it.  He

thought it was as likely to come back before the Supreme Court as Marbury

vs. Madison, that seminal case that created judicial review.

 

Justice Alito said that Brown versus Board of Education actually vindicated

the true meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment.  Even just as Kavanaugh last year described Brown versus Board

of Education as the most important case in Supreme Court history.

 

And yet suddenly in a move that I have to believe is orchestrated, these

Trump nominees have refused to discuss the brown case.  And we would be

foolish to ignore this and to think that this is an accident or by chance,

it is not.  And because Brown constitutes such an important and seminal

moment, and expression about American democracy, we should all take note.

 

MELBER:  Well, and you say that you believe it might be orchestrated.  Rod

Rosenstein is the most famous Deputy Attorney General I think in American

history.  He`s got a replacement who`s less famous but as you know is now

on the job.  And this is what he said when pressed about it by Senator

Blumenthal.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT):  Was Brown versus Board of Education

correctly decided?

 

JEFFREY ROSEN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES:  Senator, I don`t

think that it would be a productive exercise for me to go through the most

thousands of Supreme Court opinions and say which ones are right and which

ones are wrong.  Whatever the law is, whether it`s the decision I would

favor or disfavor, I see it as the role the Department of Justice to uphold

the law such as it is unless Congress or the courts change it.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  What do you say to their rebuttal as you just heard that they`re

just not going to get into it?

 

IFILL:  Well, get into what?  Get into whether or not African Americans are

entitled to be treated as full citizens, whether the Fourteenth Amendment

truly guarantees equal protection to all people in the United States? 

Brown is not one of thousands of cases.  It is a seminal a Supreme Court

case as Marbury vs. Madison.  It is a case that speaks directly into modern

American democracy.

 

And until last year, this was not controversial.  The idea that somehow you

have to do mirror on Brown because you`re going to be on slippery slope is

absolutely absurd.  If Chief Justice Roberts recognized brown as lying at

the center of the canon of the rule of law, if our entire profession has

been united over decades on the right and the left, about the importance of

equal protection and the Brown decision, it`s astonishing that someone

who`s going to be the Deputy Attorney General overseeing departments like

the Civil Rights Division that has a portfolio of cases that directly

depend on Brown to feel as though he can`t talk about the Brown case is

truly astonishing, that he was confirmed today is quite alarming.

 

We should beware.  Tomorrow is the 65th anniversary of Brown versus Board

of Education.  I can tell you that the Legal Defense Fund and other civil

rights groups who are out at our rally this morning on the Hill, we are not

going to be deterred.  We see what is at stake, we see what the plan is,

and we`re leaning in hard to protect equal rights for all in this country.

 

MELBER:  And as we talk about civil rights under the law, you think about

all of the cases for leniency for commutation for a second chance given the

racial disparities in the system.  And so while I have you, I`m curious

your reaction to how the president is using his pardon or commutation power

here.

 

For viewers who may have forgotten is Conrad Black, a very wealthy

individual who went to prison, wrote this book Donald J. Trump:  A

President Like No Other, and has now received this commutation you know,

from the president.  Your reaction.

 

IFILL:  My reaction is that it`s appalling, but it could never be more

appalling than the pardon that was given to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, someone who

was convicted of engaging in racial discrimination, racial profiling

against immigrants who was held in contempt by a federal court and who was

pardoned by this president.

 

The President is using his pardon power strategically to speak to his base. 

He pardons Scooter Libby.  That spoke to a particular segment of

Conservative Republicans who wanted to see the vice president`s former

counsel, Vice President Cheney`s former counsel vindicated.  He`s using it

very strategically for his own power not to recognize a true injustice that

has been done.

 

There are many thousands of people waiting for mercy and clemency from the

President of the United States.  These do not strike me as the best

candidates.  But more importantly, it shows you that when this president

talks about law and order, he does not mean in order.  He means the law

that he believes in.  He means the order that he wants.  He means law and

order only as it applies to people that he demonizes and stigmatizes as

being criminal.

 

And so this pardon is very much consistent with that, but frankly, the low-

water mark was with Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  I don`t know if it gets any lower

than that.  And so this president`s use of this pardon doesn`t surprise me.

 

MELBER:  Sherrilyn Ifill, thank you so much for being here tonight.

 

IFILL:  Thank you, Ari.

 

MELBER:  Coming up, we see a lot of candidates who often are of course, on

the record and careful.  Well, one is about to let their guard down.  Cory

Booker when we come back.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MELBER:  New York Mayor Bill de Blasio jumped into the 2020 race today

touting his experience actually running a city, something only a few of the

Dem candidates can claim including Senator Cory Booker who rose as an

untraditional Mayor of Newark, New Jersey.  Booker was just with me in our

newsroom and we ended up covering some unusual ground while talking

backstage, you see right here.

 

He brought up some of the poems he writes for his girlfriend, the

importance of authenticity, and we discussed why so many musicians have

links to New Jersey.  Booker also became the first candidate of this cycle

to volunteer a freestyle rap for us.  Here is our new conversation airing

right now for the very first time.

 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

 

MELBER:  You know you represent New Jersey in the sense of you literally do

as a senator.

 

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Yes, proud.

 

MELBER:  But there`s also the concept of representing.

 

BOOKER:  Rapping?

 

MELBER:  So we`ve got some New Jersey lines.  I want to run them by you and

you give us your thoughts on it.

 

BOOKER:  All right.  Go ahead.

 

MELBER:  Lauryn Hill, talented MC, she says, rock hard like granite or

steel, people feel Lauryn Hill from Newark to Israel.

 

BOOKER:  See, and that`s the proud thing.  If you listen to her like epic

album, the person you hear, the teacher – you know, how they had classroom

scenes.

 

MELBER:  Oh yes, yes, Miseducation, yes.

 

BOOKER:  That is actually the – that is actually the Mayor of Newark right

now, named Ras Baraka.  That`s whose voice it was.

 

MELBER:  Get out – are you for real.  I had no idea.

 

BOOKER:  100 percent, yes.  It`s pretty cool.

 

MELBER:  So what was he doing there?

 

BOOKER:  He was their school teacher.

 

MELBER:  So that`s like a legit classroom recording.

 

BOOKER:  Legit classroom recording.  It was powerfully –

 

MELBER:  Thank you, Jeff.

 

BOOKER:  Portending of the future.

 

MELBER:  That`s wild.  All right.  So that`s – so she does represent

Newark?

 

BOOKER:  She reps Newark hard.

 

MELBER:  Now, this one is basic but from a great lyricist so we included –

 

BOOKER:  I`m going to guess.  I won`t even look at the paper.

 

MELBER:  OK.

 

BOOKER:  I`m going to guess that it`s Redman.

 

MELBER:  No.  Although we – see don`t – all right, we don`t have Redman

on here.  What will Redman say about?

 

BOOKER:  Listen, first of all, Redman straight up from the bricks.  That is

the nickname for brick cities so I don`t want a quote a Redman lyric

because some of them might – some might –

 

MELBER:  There`s a lot of Redman lyrics that candidates can`t really

usually be quoted.

 

BOOKER:  Unfortunately the ones that are popping in my mind right now.

 

MELBER:  Well, this is – this was puck and he once said through your town

and downtown Newark (INAUDIBLE).  Showing some love for the East Coast.

 

BOOKER:  I literally did not know that.

 

MELBER:  French Montana.

 

BOOKER:  OK, you`re giving me one.

 

MELBER:  Came up on the sewer, you got the workout in Newark, riding with

Colin, watching for the grease.

 

BOOKER:  That`s actually the second one over my head.  I did not know that.

 

MELBER:  And this is the thing.  I talk about this sometimes.  When you get

to be a really famous rapper, you don`t even need to rhyme anymore.  It was

just – it was just line – OK, that`s cool.

 

BOOKER:  So I`m going to say something I like to regret.  But I may or

might not occasionally write things to my girlfriend and I think sometimes

I did creative license for my – for my hip-hop love that you can –

 

MELBER:  You write a poem without rhyming?

 

BOOKER:  I will write a poem that sword or rhymes in a way that hip-hop

folks can get away with.

 

MELBER:  Right.  Well, and Eminem used to say you just – you bend the

word.

 

BOOKER:  You bend the words.

 

MELBER:  If you`re good at it, bend it into anything.

 

BOOKER:  Yes.

 

MELBER:  Interesting.  Well, we`re going to have to get some of those lines

for you someday if you want to share them.  Now this one is – see people

sometimes come at me for the – for the dad jokes and bad puns on the show

and I`m like that`s just part of who I am, terrible jokes.  I`ve been –

I`ve been that way.  I haven`t changed.

 

BOOKER:  I respect that because I`m the same way.

 

MELBER:  So here`s –

 

BOOKER:  What you call 100 rabbits in a row going backwards?

 

MELBER:  100 rabbits, what?

 

BOOKER:  A receding hairline.

 

MELBER:  I need a joke.

 

BOOKER:  You know, we are – there are times we actually did a really great

story about our generation, about X generation which is kind of a small

population bubble compared to the ones that came before us, baby boomers

and the ones that coming after Millennials.  But we really did have – we

were the hip hop generations.

 

I was – I was checking some Millennials that tried to talk about them

being more down with sort of a rap music hip hop is that we were the

literally the originators of a whole sort of – which I think is really

powerful because it`s sampling the old but it`s also innovating on one on

the middle.

 

MELBER:  And again, it`s not to glorify any particular era because

different areas have different things, but if you go back old enough, you

had to work harder to find your music to dig in the proverbial crates,

right.  And now, everything is you know –

 

BOOKER:  It`s – yes, I think it was something powerful you know, when you

hear two turntables in the microphone.  You kind of know that it`s of a

different era right or to what where the digital music is today.

 

MELBER:  So this brings us back to the bad pun, chameleon air, and this is

a freestyle in fairness.

 

BOOKER:  Yes.

 

MELBER:  Call me New Jersey because I`m always in New Jersey.

 

BOOKER:  That is pretty cool.

 

MELBER:  It`s a New Jersey pun.

 

BOOKER:  We could try to freestyle right now.

 

MELBER:  I don`t know –

 

BOOKER:  It`s no-feet to be on the beat so far away from the actual street.

 

MELBER:  Yes, and we`ll add a beat under that.

 

BOOKER:  Yes.  If you want to be understood, you have to come to my hood.

 

MELBER:  When are you going to –

 

BOOKER:  – till you find out what is really good.

 

MELBER:  Are you going to do this in the debates?

 

BOOKER:  I will not do this in the debates.

 

MELBER:  I bet you could go on freestyle with Bernie.

 

BOOKER:  You literally –

 

MELBER:  I don`t know.

 

BOOKER:  I`m going to make no comment on that because that part will be

replayed.  I think that people connect to authenticity even if it`s a

different rhythm.  I walked into graduation this past weekend in New

Hampshire and they were playing Irish bagpipes and it moved me.  That`s not

– I`m not sort of like native to that incredible music, but the power of

great music, and you know this from hip hop is authenticity connects.

 

MELBER:  Right.

 

BOOKER:  Even if it`s – even if it`s a different culture, even across

religious lines, people who are real need to be celebrated.  So what I

wanted – you went – we went to the senior citizen buildings in Newark,

they would laugh when I come in and say, jokes, jokes.  I used to always

come in and tell a corny dad joke.

 

MELBER:  But now, you have that covered.

 

BOOKER:  I had – I had it covered.  But I really think that this is one of

those presidential elections where people are (INAUDIBLE) enough not want

people who are trying to be something they`re not and just want you to be

your 100 percent yourself.  And I feel liberty in doing that.

 

And by the way, I like a lot of the people in the race.  I think I`m the

best person.  But if I end up not being the person, at least I know I`m

going to sleep well tonight because I gave my – all my heart, all my

spirit to the race, and it was 100 percent myself.

 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

 

MELBER:  There you have it.  Now, to be clear, we didn`t ask Senator Booker

to freestyle.  It`s not one of our requests for candidates this cycle. 

Don`t worry, if you`re watching at the end coming on the show, but we did

definitely enjoy it.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MELBER:  More breaking news.  We led the hour with developments in the

Michael Flynn case and now there is more.   A federal judge has now in that

case ordered prosecutors, that`s the Mueller side of this, to file

transcripts of Michael Flynn`s conversation with Russian officials and they

asked them to submit the actual audio recordings of those Flynn

conversations.

 

Now, prosecutors have until Friday, May 31st to submit.  Flynn famously

talked to Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition and his guilty

plea was about lying to the feds about that very conversation.

 

Also before I go, a programming note about tomorrow.  We have a very

special “FALLBACK FRIDAY” with my “TODAY SHOW” colleague, Al Roker, and

Grammy-Nominated Musician and Activist Moby.  They`ll be together on THE

BEAT tomorrow with a whole lot more.  That does it for us tonight.

 

 

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY

BE UPDATED.

END   

 

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

content.>