Senator Kamala Harris on The Beat. TRANSCRIPT: 5/20/19, The Beat w/ Ari Melber.

Guests:
Richard Stengel; Mara Gay; Al Sharpton; Neal Katyal; Kamala Harris
Transcript:

STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST:  Sotomayor, Jordan Jackson, Gary Grumbach,

Deepa Shivaram, and Ben Pu all MEET THE PRESS and MTP DAILY alums now going

out to cover the campaign first-hand.  That is all for us tonight.  We will

be back tomorrow with more MEET THE PRESS DAILY.

 

And “THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER” starts right now.  Good evening to you, Ari.

 

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST:  Good evening, Steve.  Enjoy watching the

congressman make a little news on your show, which I think we`re going to

touch on.   Always good to see you.

 

KORNACKI:  Thank you.  Thank you.

 

MELBER:  Senator and 2020 candidate Kamala Harris is here tonight.  We`re

going to speak live about investigating Trump, about her new plan to close

the gender pay gap, and why she says she`s going to make Wall Street do a

lot more if elected.

 

Also tonight, I want to tell you, Neal Katyal is back for Opening

Arguments.  Barack Obama`s former solicitor general who argued over three

dozen cases before the Supreme Court is going to tell you what you really

need to know about this Roe V. Wade fight.  Again, he`s been in that

courtroom.  He is the perfect person.  So we`re excited to have him on the

show later tonight.

 

But I begin with a blizzard of breaking news.  Today, a federal judge

ruling against Donald Trump`s accounting firm and ordering them to hand

over years of financial records to House Democrats.

 

Then separately, the White House announcing it is directing former White

House Counsel Don McGahn not to testify, that is to say, they`re telling

him to skip the subpoena ordering him to testify tomorrow in Congress.

 

And then moments ago, we just learned that Donald Trump`s former lawyer

Michael Cohen is pointing fingers at Donald Trump`s current lawyer.  He is

accusing Trump lawyer, Jay Sekulow, of something quite serious, of

instructing him to lie to Congress, a felony, about those infamous

negotiations and when exactly they ended over trying to build a Trump Tower

Moscow.

 

Take a look at this.  Sekulow blasting back moments ago saying this is more

of the same from Cohen.  Although he did not directly deny the substance of

these new allegations that`s leaking from Cohen`s testimony under oath to

the House Intelligence Committee.

 

So with all this breaking news, I`m going to go right to our panel. 

Reverend Al Sharpton, host of “POLITICSNATION” here at MSNBC.  Richard

Stengel who served in the Obama administration as a diplomat.  He`s also,

of course, a longtime Washington watcher.  He was managing editor of “Time

Magazine”.  And “New York Times” editorial board member Mara Gay.

 

Good to have each of you here.  With so much going on, I wanted to get your

first reactions to this news, including the Democrats having laid out a

strategy to appeal to the courts for help if they say they`re stonewalling. 

What does it mean that they have a judge ordering the accounting firm to

hand over this material?

 

RICHARD STENGEL, FORMER UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE:  That`s Judge Mehta in

his 41-page decision, having an extraordinary statement saying that it is

not fathomable that the Constitution allows Congress to investigate a

president for malfeasance but not allow Congress to investigate him for

that criminal conduct.  It encapsulates it in one beautiful phrase.

 

And I think this is what we`ve been looking at all along, Ari.  This is the

checks and balances between these two areas of the law, of the judiciary

branch and Congress.  And the judiciary branch has come in favor of the

Constitution.

 

MELBER:  And, Mara, what does it mean when you say to an accounting firm, I

guess you could try to disobey this.  You would soon be in contempt of

court and unlike Mr. Barr and Mr. Trump who have special jobs, if an

accountant wants to do, they would be in jail on contempt day of.

 

MARA GAY, EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER, THE NEW YORK TIMES:  Absolutely.  I think

it shouldn`t take such an extraordinary measure but it`s important

especially given the political polarization that we`re living in right now

because to have a second branch of government weigh in and say actually,

yes, this is the right thing to do, people see – Americans see the

judiciary branch as less politicized although that`s not always the case.

 

But I do think it`s important, it lends credence to Congress at a time when

Americans` faith in government is really breaking down along whether they

are a Democrat or Republican.  That`s unfortunate but I think it`s an

important step.

 

MELBER:  And, Rev, this comes as I was just mentioning to Steve Kornacki

that you had Congressman Cicilline on “MEET THE PRESS DAILY” saying look,

he wasn`t necessarily at the impeachment point but if there`s total

stonewalling, if they blow through this subpoena from McGahn again

tomorrow, then he thinks it is time to step forward on impeachment.  Do you

see that as an outlier or something that some House Democrats want to do as

the next step?

 

AL SHARPTON, HOST, POLITICSNATION:  I think that they are certainly moving

very quickly in that direction.  And I think that when you look at the fact

this judge hit the core problem, that I think many are missing, this is

beyond partisan politics now which side of the aisle.  We`re talking about

the basic construct of what the government of the United States was founded

on, checks and balances.

 

And he reminded people of that in his decision that Congress has the right,

they`re co-equals, and he spoke to the core of that.  I think that`s going

to also overlap in other areas because congressmen and women are now going

to have to say, wait a minute, am I now going against the fundamentals of

checks and balances here which changes the whole tenor now.

 

Because I think what has been going on so far, the Trump team has tried to

make this partisan.  This judge has been able to, in many ways, raise it

above that and say, wait a minute, they have the right to investigate in

order to see if there`s a necessity of checks.  And I think that that is a

very significant step.

 

MELBER:  Well, and when you put it like that, it would be easy to forget

partly because I think we have a president who tweets his way into wanting

everyone to forget, that we are in the very early period of divided

government.  Before this, there wasn`t a Republican House that was

demanding much of everything.

 

And although Reverend Sharpton doesn`t always echo Republicans and vice

versa, what you`re saying is similar to what some Republicans were saying

here in this “Politico” article out today basically saying, look, we have

oversight authority over the administration.

 

There is such a thing as congressional oversight, that Republicans have

become increasingly concerned in this period where they don`t know if

they`re two years out from – under two years out from a Trump re-elect or

going back to a different world and saying is this going to be an era that

define Congress out of the entire governing process?

 

SHARPTON:  That is exactly right.  And where President Trump and his team

has done is really render oversight to undercut.  And I think this judge

began turning the dial back the other way and I think that this may be very

perilous for the president along with turning over the financial records if

there`s something there.  And clearly, one would suspect he had a reason

for resisting this.

 

MELBER:  I don`t even know if he did.

 

SHARPTON:  Well –

 

MELBER:  Because here is the thing, this is – and this is why I try to

keep an open mind.  There were times in the Russia part of the Mueller

investigation where you thought they`re lying so blatantly it must be bad.

 

And I say in all fairness, although lying is bad, sometimes they were lying

out of the habit or out of the stonewalling or out of just a desire to

potentially obstruct, which is not OK, but did not mean that there was the

underlying offense, at least in a provable way.

 

And so I press you on that and all three of you.  Take a listen to, as I

mentioned, Congressman Cicilline putting this in the starker terms.  This

was just within the last hour on MSNBC.  Take a look.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. CICILLINE:  If Don McGahn doesn`t testify, it is time to open an

impeachment inquiry.  The president has engaged in an ongoing effort to

impede our ability to find the truth, to collect evidence to do our work. 

And this is preventing us really from ultimately finding the facts.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

STENGEL:  So I would say what we`re seeing is the institutional privilege

asserting itself, right.  The congressman is saying this is against my

branch.

 

And what I would say, also, about Don McGahn is he`s a private citizen. 

For years, White House aides have resisted and said there`s immunity for

testifying but he`s not a White House aide anymore.  He`s a private

citizen.

 

And I would also ask, Ari, Jones Day, his employer, the well-regarded

Washington law firm.

 

MELBER:  Top law firm, sure.

 

STENGEL:  Would they like one of their partners to resist a congressional

subpoena?  Subpoena as you know means under penalty.  He will be penalized

if he resisted as well as the law firm.

 

MELBER:  And what is he afraid of at this point?

 

STENGEL:  Well, I don`t know what he`s afraid of.  We know what Donald

Trump is afraid of.  Donald Trump is afraid of the truth.

 

Donald Trump is afraid of him saying, yes, I got a call at home from the

president of the United States asking me to fire the special counsel.  If

that`s not grounds for impeachment, I don`t know what is.

 

MELBER:  And I don`t want to go Mehta here on television talking to you

about the power of televised hearings, but it would seem for those of us

who have given careful reading and reporting of the Mueller report, which

we`ve tried to do, that I don`t believe that Mueller did such an incomplete

job interviewing McGahn, his most cited witness, that there`s a bunch of

stuff that McGahn would say that is factually new.

 

It appears that the Trump folks, maybe McGahn, I can`t say because we have

to wait to hear from him, are worried that it would be the act of having

that John Dean-style moment, of saying to the committee, of every one

hearing it and seeing it and playing around America that that might undo

some of what perhaps Barr did in mischaracterizing the report.

 

GAY:  Oh, that`s exactly right.  If you compare what my parents say

happened during Watergate in those hearings and you contrast that with the

release of the Mueller report, which most Americans, let`s be honest, are

not going to sit there and read the 400-page report, you can really get –

you see the difference between the kind of power political or otherwise

that that exercise holds.

 

And I think also, just for modern-day example, the Kavanaugh hearings.  The

entire nation was held captive for a week, a day essentially, watching

this, talking about it, and you didn`t see that in the Mueller report.  And

so the Democrats have an opportunity.

 

And I think, more importantly, Congress has an opportunity and obligation

to show the American people what the Mueller report has found.  And beyond

that, what those who testify can tell the American people about what

happened here.

 

MELBER:  Because, Rev, on the, say, the elements of obstruction, there are

two types of questions when you look at the allegation.  Number one is the

facts.  Did Trump try to improperly fire or oust Mueller, right?

 

Then there`s, what are you going to do about it?  And quite frankly, I`ll

hold both parties accountable.  So far, both parties in Congress have

basically said it doesn`t look like we`re going to do anything about it. 

And that`s their elective representatives.  They can decide that.

 

But on part one, right, what even happened?  You had Bill Barr going “Fox

News” and try to say – and I thought this was astounding and we covered

it, that it didn`t happen, that he didn`t really try to fire Mueller, that

he really was interested in doing a conflicts check and that didn`t really

happen.

 

And, you know, Don McGahn packing up his bags and calling his criminal

defense lawyer because he was worried he was going to go to jail if he

didn`t stop this thing.  None of that happened.  And that`s the sitting

attorney general of the United States.

 

SHARPTON:  And the fact that they were saying that it didn`t happen and it

did leaves all the more reason why Congress has to now aggressively deal

with looking at the financial records and as well as looking at what has

been said here.  And I wouldn`t rush too far into saying that because

Mueller had done these 30 hours of interviews with McGahn and others that

we know everything because if, in fact, there was obstruction, we don`t

know what we don`t know.

 

Don`t forget, as you reported, Michael Cohen just said that the president`s

attorney told him to lie. Well, who else went in there and was instructed

to lie?

 

MELBER:  You`re telling me not to forget that.  How can I not forget it if

I don`t know it, Rev?

 

SHARPTON:  But that`s my point.  We don`t know if someone was instructed or

for whatever reason didn`t tell the whole truth or told a whole lie and

that was based on the obstruction.  So you`ve got to deal with the

obstruction to really find out if we know everything we should know about

the collusion.

 

MELBER:  I think you put that well.  And that brings us to Congressman

Justin Amash, who is a Libertarian Republican, member of the Republican

Party.  I want to read to you a little bit of what he laid out this

weekend.

 

He said, “After really studying this Mueller report, there are multiple

examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice. 

Undoubtedly, any person who is not the president would be indicted based on

such evidence.”  He goes on to say, “Impeachment, a special form of

indictment, does not even require probable cause.”

 

I think this is so important for where we`re headed because the reverse

engineering of this question has been used by, again, Republicans to say,

“We don`t care, we`ll do whatever we want.  He`s fine in the Senate.”

 

But it`s also been used by many Democratic leaders to say, “What`s the

point?”  And so speaking to you in your role both as a journalist and a

former diplomat dealing with the credibility of the government, doesn`t it

matter – wouldn`t it be better for the Congress to deal with the finding

of whether or not these obstructive acts occurred even if we don`t know or

we stipulate perhaps he would not be removed over it?

 

STENGEL:  Absolutely.  That`s their investigative function.  And I think

what`s interesting about Amash is this.  He`s a Conservative Republican. 

Frederick Coyett is his idol when it comes to economics.

 

The fact is what Trump has done in terms of obstructing justice and

executive overreach is exactly the sort of thing that traditional

Conservative Republicans are against.  And they have gone along with it all

along.  He is, might be the tip of the iceberg, because he`s objecting to

it on not just ideological grounds but on the grounds of executive

overreach which Conservatives object to.

 

MELBER:  Rich Stengel, Mara Gay, and Reverend Al Sharpton, thanks to each

of you for a very hot panel.  You can also catch the Rev on POLITICSNATION

weekends, 5:00 p.m. Eastern.

 

Now, coming up, I am joined live by Presidential Candidate and Senator

Kamala Harris.  She`s unveiled a sweeping plan to close what she calls the

gender pay gap across America.

 

We`re going to get into that, as well as all the breaking news, the Trump

subpoenas and whether these tax records are going to be forked over.  We`re

also hours away from these nationwide protests against abortion bills

targeting women`s rights.

 

What does the Supreme Court actually do if they get jammed by some of the

state legislators?  Well, Neal Katyal is here for another edition of

Opening Arguments and all the answers for you.

 

Later, what a billionaire surprise for college graduates may reveal about

where the country is headed on forgiving student loan debt.

 

I`m Ari Melber.  You`re watching THE BEAT on MSNBC.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MELBER:  Thousands of protesters marching in Alabama to protest the most

restrictive anti-abortion law in the country.  Joining the total of eight

states that passed such laws just this year alone.

 

Now, the Republican sponsors say their explicit goal is to put this

abortion bans before the Supreme Court to narrower end Roe V. Wade.  This

is about abortion and women`s rights but it`s also obviously about

politics.

 

Take a look at “Politico” reporting that Trump`s campaign team thinks his

re-election could turn on the courts while Democratic candidates vow to

protect Roe.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  They`re trying to

overturn Roe Vs. Wade.  That`s wrong and we will fight back.

 

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  The idea that women in this

country should not be able to control their own bodies is beyond belief. 

They have that constitutional right.

 

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Women`s access to

reproductive health care is under attack and we will not stand for it?

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  So how does the U.S. Supreme Court approach bills that are

designed to draw the court into election year controversies?  Can the

justices find a way to punt if the lower courts are actually putting

pressure on them to act?

 

Well, we turn now to an expert on these matters.  With me for an edition of

Opening Arguments is former Solicitor General Neal Katyal.  He argued

dozens of cases before the Supreme Court as a private attorney as well as

President Obama`s acting solicitor general.  Good day to you.

 

NEAL KATYAL, FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL:  Good day to you.  I`ve missed you,

Ari.

 

MELBER:  Well, we miss each other.  When you look at what`s happening here,

explain to us what does the Supreme Court do when it balances its

obligation to obviously deal with certain cases, particularly if they have

to resolve something from the lower courts, but also something you`ve

taught us about before which is that Chief Justice Roberts and other

members of the court are keenly aware of the risk of being drawn in to

election controversies by politicians.

 

KATYAL:  Yes. So it`s often said that the Supreme Court and American law,

in general, is built on the idea of precedent.  It goes by the Latin phrase

stare decisis.  And the notion here is that basically, the Supreme Court

follows what predecessor courts have done.  It`s kind of a burke and notion

of like there`s wisdom and how our past generations have dealt with

something or past decisions.

 

And so they`re really reluctant to overrule things.  Sometimes they will

but they will so only rarely.  So I think the best example of this is Roe

V. Wade.  I think many people think it wasn`t the best-executed decision in

terms of its legal reasoning but the Supreme Court in 1992 in an opinion

joined by three Republican appointees, Reagan appointees and Bush

appointees, Justices Kennedy, Sutter and O`Connor all said Roe V. Wade,

just the precedent behind it should be upheld.

 

And so even if we have some problems with the decision, social expectations

have crystallized around Roe V. Wade and it would destroy the court`s

legitimacy to overrule it.  And so that`s the general way the court

approaches these things, which is to say we follow our past precedent.

 

This court, there`s a question about that, though, a big question mark, are

they going to do it?

 

MELBER:  You saw Justice Breyer make some comments through a ruling that

were quite restraint and broad.  But he says, “It`s dangerous to overrule a

decision only because five members of a later court come to agree with the

earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question.”

 

And then he says, “Today`s decision can only cause one to wonder which

cases the court will overrule next.”  What do you view is the significance

of that?

 

KATYAL:  Huge significance.  So that case itself was about a relatively

minor issue, nothing like abortion.  This is the franchise tax board case

the court decided last week.

 

But Justice Breyer who is a very, very moderate justice was signaling his

concern that the more Conservative members of the court are not going to

follow this rule of precedent, not going to follow stare decisis.  And the

number one example of where the rubber meets the road is abortion.  Are

they going to follow that 1992 decision or not?

 

And what`s going on in Alabama, it`s all about literally this, Ari.  So I

mean our Alabama legislators are saying we think the Conservatives on the

Supreme Court will overturn Roe V. Wade.  And, of course, President Trump

promised to only put justices on who are pro-life justices.

 

MELBER:  Let me ask you, do you think – and this is where the public

politics and strategy meet the law.  Do you think that was smart of them or

does that actually make it harder for some of the votes they would need to

get on the court?

 

KATYAL:  Right.  I mean so Thurgood Marshall really pioneered modern

Supreme Court litigation by saying, “Look, I have this ultimate goal,

desegregation of our society but I can`t just go in and do it all at once. 

If I go in and do it all at once, the courts aren`t going to buy it.”

 

And here, Alabama has tried to go in and do it all at once.  I mean this is

a very extreme bill that bans abortion at any stage including for rape and

incest so it doesn`t even meet the Ronald Reagan test for an abortion law.

 

So I do think that there`s a risk that if this was the case that went up,

the Supreme Court could say, well, that goes too far and leave for another

day the question of whether Roe V. Wade will be overturned.  But make no

mistake, there are these laws in other states that are being considered,

these so-called Heartbeat Laws in Georgia and other places.

 

And all of them are the more moderate strategy, get a case to the Supreme

Court after the election, not before, and that they think they have the

votes to overturn Roe V. Wade.  And there`s certainly a possibility that

that is going to come to fruition –

 

MELBER:  Right.

 

KATYAL:  – absent a change in the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

MELBER:  I also want to get –

 

KATYAL:  That`s what the meaning of the Kavanaugh thing was about last

year.

 

MELBER:  Right.  I also want to get you on some Constitutional fireworks. 

Republican Congressman Amash saying that what Trump did is impeachable,

brand new response from the president.  Take a look.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  He`s been against Trump from

the beginning.  He probably wants to run for some other office.  I don`t

think he`ll do very well.

 

He`s been a loser for a long time.  Rarely votes for Republicans.  And

personally, I think he`s not much.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Not a very substantive response to what Amash said.  I wonder if

you agree with his points that the underlying conduct would be indictable

if anyone else did it.

 

KATYAL:  Yes.  So I have been at a conference so I haven`t seen that clip. 

But I think that basically –

 

MELBER:  Brand new.

 

KATYAL:  Yes.  So I think that – I mean you can just tell from Trump

there`s no legal reasoning in there whatsoever.  And by contrast, there`s

now been a letter signed by almost a thousand former federal prosecutors

and there aren`t that many former federal prosecutors around.  That`s a

small number in general and a thousand is a very large number of people

coming forward and saying this would be indicted if it were anyone but the

president.

 

So this whole idea of the president says the Mueller report clears him and

this and that is to use the technical legal term poppycock.  And if the

president thinks this is right that he`s been cleared, fine, let`s have a

trial and let`s prove it up the way it would be for you or me if I were

accused of this obstruction of justice grounds.

 

MELBER:  Neal Katyal, always great to get your insights.  I want to remind

everyone, you can go to msnbc.com/openingarguments to see this and other

segments.  It is like free law school right here on THE BEAT.

 

Coming up, Senator and 2020 Candidate Kamala Harris is here live.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

HARRIS:  Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or

suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?

 

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES:  The president or

anybody else.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Questioning Bill Barr, holding the Trump White House to account,

and a new plan to get equal pay.  We`re going to get into all of it. 

That`s next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MELBER:  Presidential Candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris launching a

new plan to close the gender wage gap.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

HARRIS:  People are working.  They`re working two and three jobs to put

food on the table.  In our America, nobody should have to work more than

one job to put food on the table and have a roof over their head.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  And these proposals making headlines tonight for its get-tough

approach.  Harris would force corporations to prove they`re paying equally

across genders or face public shaming and strict fines from the federal

government.

 

I`m joined now by 2020 candidate Senator Kamala Harris.  Thank you.

 

HARRIS:  Good to be with you.

 

MELBER:  Thanks for being here.  Absolutely.

 

HARRIS:  Hi, Ari.

 

MELBER:  Hi.  Let`s start with this.  What does your plan do to combat the

gender pay gap?

 

HARRIS:  Well, first of all, it is just a fact, right?  So the reality of

this is that we don`t have to debate the point which is that on average

women make $0.80 on the dollar to men.  If you`re talking about African-

American women, that`s $0.61.  If it`s Latinas, it`s $0.53.

 

So there`s an obvious issue that we have around not only around disparities

but fairness and equal pay for equal work.  So let`s get beyond that

because it`s not a debatable point.  The question becomes what are we going

to do about it?

 

And I think the goal we would all agree should be that people should be

paid equally for equal work.  But we haven`t yet reached that point.  We`re

going to have to create incentives to get there.

 

So what I am proposing is that we shift the burden away from that working

woman and instead on to that corporation to prove that they`re paying

people equally.

 

Because here`s the reality of it, Ari, every day in America there are women

who are you know, hanging out at the water cooler with one of their

colleagues who works in the cubicle right next to them, does the same work

they`re doing, and then they might start talking about what they got their

kids for Christmas or what`s you know, what the new car is or the new

washing machine they brought, and it becomes clear to that woman they`re

not getting paid of the same amount.

 

So then what does she do?  She`ll go to the supervisor are we getting paid

the same amount and the supervisor is likely to tell her we can`t disclose

salaries of other people.  So then what is she supposed to do?  Well, she

can go and complain to the EEOC.  She can try and do her own work to

investigate the salaries.  She might you know, take it as far as litigation

to sue.

 

But why should she and have the burden on her to figure out that she is not

being paid at the same amount?  That would be the business of the leaders

of these corporations.

 

MELBER:  Well, let me – let me dig in on that exact point because you call

that the burden.  And this was something that President Obama was working

on with Congress.  Let`s take a look at that when they pass the Ledbetter

Act.

 

HARRIS:  Yes.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Lilly could have

accepted her lot and moved on.  She could have decided that it wasn`t worth

the hassle and the harassment, that would inevitably come with speaking up

for what she deserved.  But instead, she decided that there was a principle

at stake something worth fighting for.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  I thought it was interesting reading your plan today.  You say

that`s a fine little start but it shouldn`t take as you say years for the

burden to be on individuals to sue.  Why is it important you have the

government step in here?

 

HARRIS:  Well, first of all, I applaud the Obama administration President

Obama and Lilly Ledbetter herself who I`ve met for the extraordinary

leadership that she and they provided on the issue, but it is time to take

it to the next step which is to shift the burden away from that woman to

prove that she`s not being paid the same amount, and instead put the onus

on the corporations to prove that if they`re a good business they`re doing

the right thing which is to pay people equally for equal work.

 

So that`s what we`re requiring.  And what will it end up happening is that

you called it a shaming.  I don`t think of it that way but what we will

require is that they do –

 

MELBER:  Well, but you don`t think it`s a good thing.  You`ve got this plan

here where you`re going to make them put up in public what they`re doing or

if they`re failing.  Is it – wouldn`t that be a shame if they were

failing?

 

HARRIS:  Of course it would, but I think of it as creating positive

incentives and –

 

MELBER:  OK.

 

HARRIS:  But I`m going to – I`m going to tell you why, Ari.  I`m going to

tell you.  Because listen, when they know that they`re going to have to

start reporting publicly you know, there may be some that have not looked

into this.

 

MELBER:  Sure.

 

HARRIS:  But there are some who have.  I mean, you look, Salesforce is

doing a great job.  Microsoft has been doing a great job.  (INAUDIBLE) is

doing a great job.  So there are corporations –

 

MELBER:  Well, then, let me push you on an example – have you been in some

of these cities like New York where they`ll put up the A or the B or the C

for the food?

 

HARRIS:  I have and I keep walking – just walk right by anything with it

less than A and that`s exactly right. 

 

MELBER:  If you get – if you get too far down the grading, that is –

there is a bit of a shame in that whether that`s something important –

 

HARRIS:  Well, and there will be consequence.  But there should be a

consequence, Ari.  There should be a consequence to the corporation if

they`re not paying people equally for equal work.  Women deserve to be paid

as much as men, and they are not.  And this has not changed over decades. 

 

And so we`re going to have to change the way that we`re approaching the

issue.  And the way that I`m proposing we change it is that the

corporations have to make it their business to investigate and do an

analysis of how they`re paying people and then they have to report that

information.

 

And then that woman or even man and anybody when their applying to work –

 

MELBER:  Right, it`s gender so whatever is unfair.

 

HARRIS:  – but what whoever is applying for a job with that business or

might be a consumer of the products of that business, they can look up the

rating of that corporation and make a decision about whether they want to

encourage good or bad behavior.

 

MELBER:  Now, one more thing on the details if you don`t mind me nerding

out deep into the written plan.

 

HARRIS:  Yes, let`s get into it, please.  Yes.

 

MELBER:  You have a one-for-one thing where you say, OK one percent off, if

you`re one percent off gender parity, you`re going to give up one percent

of your profits.

 

HARRIS:  That`s exactly right.  Now, I want to get your answer on the

record.  You know, people say things about you as a candidate.  And one of

the things sometimes they say is oh, well, is she “bold enough.”

 

HARRIS:  OK.

 

MELBER:  Now, I don`t know what that really means –

 

HARRIS:  I don`t either.

 

MELBER:  But I looked at one for one and I thought that`s really bold.  I

mean, it might read that if a company has a 15 percent pay gap which some

do as you just were telling us, they`re going to give up 15 percent of

their profits?

 

HARRIS:  They will be fined 15 percent of their profits from that previous

year, yes.

 

MELBER:  So that`s a lot.  I mean, are you hearing about that from your

donors from Wall Street?  Are you – is that for real, I guess is what I`m

asking?

 

HARRIS:  It is for real because look, Ari, it`s for real that that woman is

getting paid 80 cents on the dollar.  It`s for real that that other woman

is getting paid 61 cents on the dollar.  It`s for real that that other

woman is getting paid 53 cents on the dollar.  And she`s sitting at her

kitchen table in the middle of the night trying to figure out how she can

pay her bills.  When she wakes up at the same time the next morning is the

guy who was working in the cubicle next to her, she performs the same work

but she`s not getting paid the same amount.  That`s for real too.

 

MELBER:  Very, very strongly put and very interesting.  I want to get you

on some of the other breaking news.

 

HARRIS:  OK.

 

MELBER:  You have Michael Cohen telling Congress that the President`s

lawyer told him to lie to Congress.  Do you believe that and if so what do

you want to do about it?

 

HARRIS:  I think it is something that we should investigate.  I think that

folks need to respond to subpoenas and show up before the United States

Congress so that we in our capacity of oversight can figure out what`s

going on.

 

I have been very clear.  I think that there`s no question that the Mueller

report outlined what are – and could have been indictable offences but

they were not – and there was no indictment returned because I believe

there was that they leaned on the Office of Legal Counsel`s memo and

there`s a lot of work to be done to let the American public know what

really happened.

 

MELBER:  Did the president commit – did the president commit obstruction?

 

HARRIS:  Well, there`s – certainly when you look at the outline of what`s

in the Mueller report there`s good reason to believe that he did and we

need to let Congress do its job to be on the course of figuring it out and

then responding to the American public.

 

HAYES:  I want to get you on several other breaking items.  Attorney

General Bill Barr who you`ve tangled with just gave a new interview to The

Wall Street Journal, follows up on his Fox News interview.

 

To the Journal, he says there`s a reason he`s doing all this even if it

looks very protective of Trump.  He says, “I felt the rules were being

changed to hurt Trump and I thought it was damaging for the presidency. 

And here, moments ago was Donald Trump coming out from the White House

making a very similar claim on why they`re stonewalling Congress.  Take a

look.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Well, as I understand it,

they`re doing that for the office of the presidency for future presidents. 

I think it`s a very important precedent.  And the attorneys say that

they`re not doing that for me, they`re doing that for the office of the

president.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Is this for the office of the presidency in your view?

 

HARRIS:  I believe that Attorney General Barr has proven himself to believe

his first duty is to this president and not to the American public.  And I

believe and I think there`s clear proof that he is making decisions with

that priority and not with the priority of being the people`s lawyer, not

with the priority of running the United States Department of Justice which

should fight for justice for all people and not justice for the president

to the exclusion of the American public.

 

MELBER:  I wonder what you thought of his Fox News interview which had

several remarkable claims.  Let`s play a few for your reaction.  Take a

look.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES:  We should be worried about

whether government officials abused their power and put their thumb on the

scale.  And so I`m not saying that happened but I`m saying that we have to

look at that, to have opposition research like that especially one that on

its face had a number of clear mistakes.  They use that to get to conduct

counterintelligence against the American political campaign as a strange –

would be a strange development.  If you were the president, I think he

would view it as a witch-hunt and a hoax.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Your response.

 

HARRIS:  I think that we all know that there has been an obstruction of

justice clearly, that there is good reason to believe that this

administration has not been forthcoming with the United States Congress or

with the American people.  I believe that it is also clear that this

Attorney General is not equipped to speak about what is biased or unbiased

behavior when he has clearly demonstrated his bias in favor of the

President and not in favor of justice.

 

MELBER:  And so when you lay it out like that and I think many people were

struck by your very precise lawyerly questioning of Mr. Barr and his

inability to give straight answers to some of that under oath.  Why is it

in your view that we have not seen Mr. Mueller come and speak before say

your Senate Judiciary Committee?  What is going on there and is that at the

end of the day something that it really falls to the Democrats or is Mr.

Barr lying when he says he`s not preventing that testimony?

 

HARRIS:  I honestly don`t know, Ari.  But I strongly believe and have said

continuously that Bob Mueller should be able to come before the United

States Congress and tell us why he concluded his investigation the way he

did.  I think those of us who have been prosecutors, those of us who can –

have read the OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel advisory opinion are pretty

clear the almost 1,000 former employees of the United States Department of

Justice pretty clear that these were indictable offenses and but for the

Office of Legal Counsel`s opinion they would have been charged.

 

So we need to have Bob Mueller come and clear that up for the American

public.  But even if he doesn`t, Ari, I think everyone`s pretty clear about

this.  I really do.  When you look at that letter and you look at a

bipartisan group of almost 1,000 former prosecutors who worked as

professional lawyers doing the work of Justice with the United States

Department of Justice and they have said openly and quite courageously that

these were indictable offenses, I think we should take them at their word.

 

MELBER:  You`ve also been speaking out about abortion and women`s rights –

 

HARRIS:  Yes.

 

MELBER:  – as of your – as of your other candidates here in this race. 

Do you see that as an issue where there`s any difference in the field?  For

example, Senator Joe Biden also served in the district committee in which

you`re on.  He voted to confirm Scalia to the court.  Was he wrong to do

that?  Would you do that?  Is there a difference there or are you all

basically the same on those Roe v Wade issues.

 

HARRIS:  I mean, I haven`t done a full analysis of where the various

candidates are, but I`ll tell you that what happened in Alabama, what might

be happening in Missouri in Georgia, there was a full-on attack, full-on

attack on women and their access to reproductive healthcare, and we are

going to have to be vigilant and we`re going to have to fight.

 

And I`m traveling the country as you know, and women and men are outraged

and concerned and in fear about the consequences of these laws that are

being passed that are unconstitutional, but also are clearly designed with

the spirit of taking away a woman`s right to make decisions about her own

body.

 

You`ll recall – you`d want to talk about hearings, you`ll recall the

Kavanaugh hearing when I asked him, are there any laws that tell a man what

he should do with his body.  There are so many fundamental issues at play

right now and we`re going to all have to be vigilant.

 

I`ve been proud to do what we can to encourage people to support the folks

on the ground in Alabama around getting resources for the women who are

there and getting resources for the advocates who are there to support

them.  This is a critical issue.

 

MELBER:  And I`m thinking about the arc here.  We started with some of your

plans on gender parity in economics, now we`re talking gender parity in

rights in medical decisions.  I want to fit in a very quick 30-second break

as we do on THE BEAT and come back with more including our lightning round

with Senator Harris in 30.

 

HARRIS:  OK.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MELBER:  Back with me is U.S. Senator and 2020 candidate Kamala Harris. 

Thanks for waiting for the 30 along with I hope most of the viewers

listening to you.  Before the lightning round, one more topic that you`ve

worked a lot on but there`s a big debate on which is what`s the best way to

deal with police shootings and alleged police brutality?  And you`ve been

very clear as a prosecutor about wanting to stand up and deal with that,

but you`ve also taken at times a different view than some.

 

I want to read something you said when there was reform proposals to have

independent investigations.  And you said, “I don`t think it would be good

public policy to take the discretion from elected DA`s.  Where there are

abuses, we`ve designed the system to address them.”

 

As you know, in the wake of many of these incidents, the view is by some

that the independent probes are better, they let the D.A. investigate the

cops they work with daily.  Have you changed your mind about that or what

is the best approach?

 

HARRIS:  i believe the best approach is to have independent investigations. 

There`s no question

 

MELBER:  So what – I wonder what moved you to change your mind.  Was it

some of these cases you saw?

 

HARRIS:  Well, if you have the time, Ari, I can explain.  When I was

District Attorney of San Francisco, I had a case where I refused to seek

the death penalty, and there were people who didn`t agree with my decision

and wanted to take the case from me.

 

And so I had a very real personal experience where I had to fight to keep

my case.  And my argument was that I was elected to exercise my discretion

and no one`s going to take my case from me.  And that frankly, it was that

personal experience that informed my principle which is that these cases

shouldn`t be taken from the person who was elected to exercise their

discretion.  But on the issue –

 

MELBER:  But you feel that`s different.

 

HARRIS:  Yes, on – but I feel – but this is a different issue.

 

MELBER:  Right.

 

HARRIS:  This is an issue that is about what we need to do when it comes to

these shootings and I think we are all very clear that there`s got to be an

independent investigation conducted from the first moments of the incident

so that we can be certain and sure that there has been a thorough

investigation that is not informed by bias and so that there will be

justice for all of the people concerned.  So I am absolutely –

 

MELBER:  Copy.  And I know a lot of – a lot experience on this.  I want to

do a lightning round with you which we do in all fairness to all

candidates.  So we go –

 

HARRIS:  OK, but can I go back to one thing and then I`ll do the lightning

round?

 

MELBER:  I just dropped my lightning – we`ve got so excited.  Yes, of

course, one more thing before –

 

HARRIS:  On the earlier point.  I just want to – I want to emphasize also

that the pay equity issue, the issue about woman`s right to choose, it`s

about women`s value.  It`s about the value of women.  That`s the – you

know, if you want to find a line of symmetry, it`s about the giving women

their value which is about their ability to make decisions about their own

body, it`s about their right to be paid equally for equal work.  OK,

lightning round.  I`m ready.

 

MELBER:  All right, she said lightning round.  Here it is.  If you could

have anyone living or dead as your perfect running mate, who would it be?

 

HARRIS:  Mohammed Ali.

 

MELBER:  Mohammed Ali.

 

HARRIS:  How do you like that?

 

MELBER:  I like it.  We did read you like to cook.  What`s the thing that

you want to cook when you need to relax or chill?

 

HARRIS:  Roasted chicken.  No question.  I just – I have some herbs in my

garden, chop them up, and chop up some garlic, kind of put it in there, let

it sit for a day, roast that up, you know, put a lemon inside and it`s the

best dinner and comfort food.

 

MELBER:  All across America, I can – I can feel people at least on the

East Coast saying maybe that`s what we will cook for dinner.  Favorite

album?

 

HARRIS:  Favorite album, I think Songs in the Key of Life, Stevie Wonder.

 

MELBER:  Stevie Wonder, beautiful album.  Do you remember which reggae star

you quoted in your announcement speech?

 

HARRIS:  Bob Marley.

 

MELBER:  Why did you quote it get up stand up in that speech?

 

HARRIS:  Because it was all about saying we got to stand up for our rights. 

Shall I sing?

 

MELBER:  Yes, do you want.

 

HARRIS:  No, I`m not going to do that.  I was joking.  I don`t want to do

that to your viewers.

 

HAYES:  That`s fine.  You know, Joe Biden said he asked Obama not to

endorse him.  Is there anyone you`re asking not to endorse you like Oprah,

or Taylor Swift, or George Clooney?

 

HARRIS:  You know, I`ll take – no, I`m not going to reject those

endorsements if they`re offering.

 

MELBER:  You`ll take your Obama endorsement if you could get it.

 

HARRIS:  Of course, I will.

 

MELBER:  Interesting.  We covered I think a lot of ground.  You`re working

a lot of policy but also having a little fun with us at the end which we

appreciate.

 

HARRIS:  Thank you.

 

MELBER:  Senator Harris, I hope you`ll come back on THE BEAT.

 

HARRIS:  For sure.  Thank you, Ari.

 

MELBER:  Thank you.  And we will be right back.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

OBAMA:  So don`t try to shut folks out.  Don`t try to shut them down no

matter how much you might disagree with them.

 

OPRAH WINFREY, AMERICAN EXECUTIVE:  You want to be in the driver`s seat of

your own life because if you`re not, life will drive you.

 

ELLEN DEGENERES, COMEDIAN:  I didn`t go to college at all, any college. 

And I`m not saying you wasted your time or money but look at me.  I`m a

huge celebrity.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Great moments from commencement speeches and it is that season. 

Another star was addressing one Morehouse College students this weekend,

billionaire Robert Smith, and he went beyond wisdom or jokes, pledging to

pay off the student loans of every senior there.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

ROBERT SMITH, CHAIRMAN, VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS:  We`re going to put a little

fuel in your bus.  Now, I`ve got the alumni over there.  This is the

challenge to you, alumni.  This is my class, 2019, and my family is making

a grant to eliminate their student loans.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  In the crowd, surprised students and relatives celebrated.  Now,

there`s nothing new about expensive college but it is now a crisis. 

Consider this.  U.S. student loan debt is at its highest point ever, over a

trillion, surpassing debt on cards and credit cards.  Now, many are

celebrating Smith`s generosity, but his contribution is also highlighting a

key problem that faces young people.

 

They`re taking on so much debt with a system that has no path for

forgiveness.  And so, some are wondering whether this is something to not

only celebrate but consider in policy.  Now, coming up, a Republican

lawmaker says Trump is engaged in impeachable conduct.  We`ll show you how

that`s reverberating, next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D-RI):  If Don McGahn doesn`t testify, it is time to

open an impeachment inquiry.  The President has engaged in an ongoing

effort to impede our ability to find the truth, to collect evidence to do

our work.  And this is preventing us really from ultimately finding the

facts.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  You just heard a member of the committee that has the power to

launch impeachment proceedings saying it is time.  This comes after

billionaire Democratic donor Tom Steyer was running this ad.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  This is a message.

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  For leaders of the Democratic Party.

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  For over two years, this President has broken the

law.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  And nothing happens.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  You told us to wait for the Mueller investigation.

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  And when he showed obstruction of justice –

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Nothing happened.

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Now you tell us to wait for the next election?

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Really?

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Really?

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Really?

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Really?  It`s not Jerry Seinfeld but it is Tom Steyer and he is on

THE BEAT tomorrow to lay out why he is spending so furiously trying to what

he says, is calcify the democratic backbone in Congress.  Tune in tomorrow.

 

That does it for me.  “HARDBALL starts now.

 

 

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.>