Boosting Sanders TRANSCRIPT: 2/21/20, The Beat w/ Ari Melber

Guests:
Daniella Gibbs Leger, Evelyn Farkas, Benjamin Dixon, Nick Akerman, Joe Budden, Paola Ramos, Blake Zeff
Transcript:

 

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST:  THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER starts right now.

 

And, Ari, like I said, the breaking news, between the Trump administration

and the campaign is converging, brother.

 

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST:  It`s all converging, and it`s all – it`s 2020

meddling on both sides. It`s really – it`s extraordinary.

 

TODD:  Yes, it is. Good luck.

 

MELBER:  Thank you, sir. We will be watching you tomorrow.

 

We have a lot of ground to cover tonight.

 

This breaking news, as mentioned, intelligence officials for the United

States government formally telling Senator Sanders that Russians are

meddling and trying to impact the primary and trying to make it seem like

they`re helping him.

 

Sanders with a very different response than President Trump, who has been

lashing out, of course, at his own intelligence officials over the same or

similar set of findings.

 

Meanwhile, Michael Bloomberg absolutely flooding the race with money. And

we`re going to show you more from that newsworthy conversation we had with

the judge, who literally ended his controversial stop and frisk program.

 

So, you`re going to see all of that in tonight`s show.

 

But we begin with this news breaking courtesy of a big story in “The

Washington Post”: U.S. intelligence officials formally briefing Bernie

Sanders the Russians are meddling in the Democratic side in the 2020

primary and trying to help his campaign.

 

President Trump also has been informed about this.

 

Late today, Bernie Sanders addressing the news.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  I go to many

intelligence briefings, which I don`t reveal to the public.

 

Mr. Putin is a thug. He is an autocrat. He may be a friend of Donald

Trump`s. He`s not a friend of mine.

 

Let me tell Mr. Putin, the American people, whether you`re Republicans,

Democrats, independents, are sick and tired of seeing Russia and other

countries interfering in our elections. The intelligence community has been

very clear about it.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  A forthright condemnation there from Senator Sanders.

 

As mentioned, but really you can`t overstate how different his reaction is

to the president.

 

But something else is really striking here. What we are learning tonight

gives a whole different set of context to what`s been happening in this

primary over the last several weeks.

 

Now, let me walk you through it. First, in the new statements, Senator

Sanders discusses when he first learned this news that we`re all learning

now from the “Post” story.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SANDERS:  And what I say to Mr. Putin, if elected president, trust me, you

are not going to be interfering in American elections.

 

QUESTION:  Senator, when were you briefed on this?

 

SANDERS:  I`m guessing about a month ago.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Good, concise follow-up question. When were you briefed?

 

And he answered it, which gives us this new information that we didn`t

have, because as he mentioned, as we know from Adam Schiff and Chuck

Schumer and all the others who are privy to certain information, when they

get it, they`re not supposed to release it.

 

The senator was quite careful, but still quite interesting to look at what

he said in the debate, because now we know he knew that there was this

effort – we know it involves bots, we know it involves trickery, we know

it involves from 2016 and the Mueller report the Russians trying to make it

seem like Americans are worse than they actually are to each other, or hate

each other more than they are, because it`s some Russian bot pretending.

 

So all of this was known when Senator Sanders said this at the debate:

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SANDERS:  All of us remember 2016. And what we remember is efforts by

Russians and others to try to interfere in our election and divide us up.

 

I`m not saying that`s happening, but it would not shock me.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  He wasn`t saying it was happening, but it is happening.

 

And that`s the difference. Everyone`s got lenses when we watch these

candidates debate. If you were watching that night and you like or didn`t

like a certain candidate, you might take what they say with more or less

credibility.

 

But as a matter of facts, Bernie Sanders, according to “The Washington

Post” and the U.S. intelligence officials, did know the Russians were

working to help him. And then you get to how he responds, directly

condemning the person in charge, Putin, not freaking out at the Americans

who briefed him.

 

And that`s really the most straightforward way I can put it, because recall

the president`s reaction when he learned an intelligence official had told

members of Congress – Senator Sanders is one of them, potentially – that

the Russians were trying to help Donald Trump.

 

The president didn`t condemn Putin. He didn`t speak carefully, like we just

showed you. He just apparently, allegedly, reportedly, whatever you want to

call it, went to punish the person who told him the facts he didn`t like,

pushing out the person in charge of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire.

 

Now, his term was about to expire because he`s this acting – in this

acting role, but he had reportedly been under consideration to be in that

job permanently.

 

The briefing reportedly – quote – “ruined” the chances of that.

 

And, instead, the president has installed this loyalist, Richard Grenell, a

political operative and communications professional, to take over. He

doesn`t have an intelligence background. His other qualifications involve a

gold level membership in the Trump Organization loyalty program, emphasis

on loyalty.

 

I want to bring in Daniella Gibbs Leger of the Center for American

Progress, a former aide to President Obama, and Evelyn Farkas, who knows

all about this. She worked in the Pentagon and is now running for Congress

in New York as a Democrat.

 

EVELYN FARKAS, FORMER DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  Yes, I am.

 

MELBER:  Yes, you are.

 

Danielle, your view of the picture we now have of what Senator Sanders knew

and how he is dealing with what for many people may be a sequel they didn`t

ask for, Russian meddling 2020?

 

DANIELLA GIBBS LEGER, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS:  Right, second verse

same as the first.

 

MELBER:  Daniella. Excuse me.

 

Sorry, go ahead.

 

(LAUGHTER)   

 

GIBBS LEGER:  Yes

 

It`s – we saw this playbook before in 2016. So I`m not surprised that,

once again, the Russians are meddling in the Democratic primary. And it

gives excellent context to the remarks that you said that Senator Sanders

made in a debate the other day.

 

And I really just want to point out the contrast in his response vs.

President Trump`s response. I just – I know that we get outraged a lot and

things are – we live in the Upside-Down, but, really, this is truly

outrageous and should be terrifying for people that the president of the

United States, not once has he said, Vladimir Putin, do not interfere in

our elections.

 

I have not seen those words leave his lips. And he instead goes on a firing

spree and puts the least qualified person I can imagine to head his

national intelligence.

 

I just – we have to, like – everyone has to be outraged. And I`m really

looking to Congress to see what they can do about this.

 

MELBER:  Well, let me show you something, because you`re looking to

Congress. A lot of people are looking for where the outrage is.

 

We`re talking about national security here, when you talk about what`s

going on in intel.

 

We dug this up for contrast. Here were just some Republicans who said they

cared a lot about that when the issue was trying to go after Hillary

Clinton on Benghazi. Take a look.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Play fast and loose with our national security.

 

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE:  And if you choose to put political

expediency and politics ahead of the men and women on the ground, for that,

you will have to answer to yourself. I find that morally reprehensible.

 

This was a failure at the most senior levels of our government.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  How does that look tonight?

 

GIBBS LEGER:  Like these people have sold their souls to the altar of

Donald Trump.

 

And they really should just be ashamed of themselves.

 

FARKAS:  I`m alarmed.

 

I mean, the Russians, what they`re doing right now, Ari, is they`re

supporting the far right, which is Donald Trump, but also stoking up what

they perceive as the left, I guess, right? They always support the polar

opposites to try to divide us.

 

They`re not supporting anyone in the middle. And the tactic is using all

the bots. So we don`t know. I mean, Bernie – I think he said something

like, I`m not – Bernie Sanders, he said something like, I don`t know

whether my people are spewing the hate.

 

But if you remember, about a week ago, people were very upset about the

Sanders supporters and what they were saying on social media. And there is

a valid question now, how many of them were actually Sanders supporters?

 

And this – and even if it`s – even if they really were Sanders

supporters, again, this – the Russians will create question marks in our

heads about our democracy. That`s ultimately what they want. They want to

discredit our electoral system. And they would love Donald Trump to stay in

because Donald Trump is on their side.

 

That, I think, is the most appalling thing, and, frankly, traitorous, I

mean, that this president says, I`m going to be on the side of the Kremlin,

and I don`t care about intelligence, because I don`t want to know that.

 

He probably knows the truth. He knows the Russians are helping him and he

doesn`t care about America.

 

MELBER:  Well, and the Sanders response reminds you that it`s not that

hard.

 

FARKAS:  Right.

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

MELBER:  As a candidate. You happen to be a candidate now, as disclosed.

 

FARKAS:  Yes.

 

MELBER:  I don`t think it`s the hardest thing for any candidate to do to

say, oh, they`re coming in. I condemn it. I don`t want that help.

 

And then, yes, you can move it back to other topics, because you also don`t

want, if you`re a candidate, the news, we`re going to cover the facts. But

if you`re a candidate, you obviously don`t want to only sit around talking

about some other foreign operation.

 

Let me show you some of our new reporting – this is airing right now on

THE BEAT – from our colleague Monica Alba asking about all this breaking

news of Trump supporters out in the field.

 

Take a look.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

QUESTION:  Do you think Russia is attempting to interfere again in the 2020

election?

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I think they are. But I`m pretty sure that Trump`s

going to win by a landslide. So what does it matter anyway?

 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I think it`s fake news. I just think the Democrats

fall for it and go, oh, Russia, Russia, Russia, when there`s nothing to it,

because I don`t know one person that voted for Trump because a Russian

influence them.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

FARKAS:  This is the problem. People don`t understand how the Russians

operate, how they get into their heads, how they use Facebook, how they use

Twitter, how they use bots. They`re fake bots.

 

I get attacked by them all the time. I`m constantly reporting them. At

least now I can report them to Jack, the head of Twitter, because I used to

complain that I couldn`t do it. There`s a way to report them now.

 

But there are too many of them. And the Russians just keep doing this over

and over again. Why? Because we haven`t put enough money into protecting

ourselves from these intrusions. We haven`t put enough regulations in

place.

 

In the graveyard, you know, the legislative graveyard that`s between the

House and the Senate right in front of Mitch McConnell`s desk, there are, I

think, something like eight bills, maybe nine, that have been sent over

from the House to address election security.

 

And you know, from earlier this year, about, I think, $200 million,

roughly, election – 250, I think – election security-related funding was

halted and was not approved by Mitch McConnell until everybody called him

Moscow Mitch, it became too uncomfortable.

 

But that`s still not enough. The graveyard that has these bills, about nine

of them, I`m told that about four of them have bipartisan support. But

Mitch McConnell`s not passing any of them.

 

So why is the Republican Senate and this White House, why are they actually

helping Russians and, by the way, potentially other countries interfere in

our elections?

 

They are being very shortsighted, because they think it`s going to help

them. But the Russians don`t care.

 

MELBER:  Oh, 100 percent.

 

FARKAS:  If they think that Bernie Sanders would help them, they will help

Bernie Sanders, and they will jump from Trump to someone else.

 

MELBER:  Or if a foreign country can get for cheaper than a wartime

operation a destabilizing attack that sows doubt about whether the election

was done fairly or who the winner is.

 

This is serious as a heart attack.

 

Daniella, I also want to make sure – here we are in Friday night after

quite a week. We had a lot of news. We had a debate. We had a series of

pardons that were blatantly for well-connected insiders.

 

I quoted the “New York Times” report that said these were all basically –

almost all – rich white men who had executed public relations strategies,

some of them well-funded. And it worked. Conning a con is the way one

critic put it.

 

And I want to put context on this, because it wasn`t always this way. There

were many members of Congress who used to stand up, especially on these

types of issues, whether we`re talking national security, the pardon power.

 

It`s not a rule that Republicans have to just sit by and pretend this is

OK. And, again, I want to play, for your analysis how one – I just gave an

example of several. There was Bernie Kerik. There was Rod Blagojevich.

There was Michael Milken, billionaire – just this week from the president.

 

One controversial pardon for a fugitive, Marc Rich, by President Clinton

drew howls from Republicans even prompted, some forget, an entire

independent investigation. Take a look at the Republican concerns about

that back in the day.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT):  I think virtually everyone agrees that the

partners given to Marc Rich and Pincus Green were particularly outrageous.

 

JEFF SESSIONS, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL:  Marc Rich was among the 10

most wanted fugitives by the United States Marshals Service.

 

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY):  If, for example, President Clinton issued a

pardon to Marc Rich in exchange for donations to his presidential library,

this would indeed be a violation of 18 USC Section 201(d).

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  All three of those individuals are still prominent conservative

Republican figures today. Where are they on the use of these pardons

tonight?

 

GIBBS LEGER:  Oh, it`s the death of irony.

 

Where are they? They are scared of Donald Trump sending a mean tweet. This

Republican Party is – has been going on a long downward trajectory. But

they are nothing like the Republican Party that my parents remember from

several decades ago, and they really are – this is the party of Donald

Trump.

 

And they will not stand up to him, even if they know in their heart of

hearts that what he`s doing is wrong. They won`t stand up to him because

they are scared.

 

MELBER:  And it`s coming after quite a week, going into, of course, not a

normal week, because tomorrow is a workday in politics, a huge Nevada

caucus day.

 

Daniella and Evelyn, thanks so much to both of you.

 

As we get these new reports tonight on the 2020 interference by Russia, on

Senator Sanders` response, there`s new details about the president trying

to purge the government of people who disagree with him. That`s a potential

constitutional violation.

 

Later, we have new data we`re counting up on the clues to who is going to

be able to run the 2020 race all the way through. And I have a special

guest who`s reported on Mike Bloomberg for years, a former Obama aide with

received.

 

All that and, later tonight, guess who`s back? Nick Akerman, the Watergate

prosecutor, with the one and only Joe Budden. Pump it up.

 

You`re watching a special edition of THE BEAT on MSNBC.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MELBER:  You have probably seen by now this reporting about Donald Trump`s

intel chief on the way out, but there is something much broader going on.

 

Axios reporting that a former personal assistant who just took the job is

now – took this other job and the government – is telling people who work

in the administration it`s time to identify any appointees who may be –

quote – “anti-Trump.”

 

Donald Trump views this purge as something that can be done by this –

quote – “absolute loyalist” to purge the – quote – “bad people” in the -

- quote – “deep state.”

 

Now, as for those considered anti-Trump from getting promotions, they will

be moved around between agencies, kind of a drip, drip, drip slow death,

rather than the outright firings. Traditionally, firing people from

government for their views is a violation of the First Amendment, among

other things.

 

There is a kind of a creeping paranoia here in Donald Trump`s government,

this all happening right after he beat, of course, the Senate impeachment

trial.

 

And the question is whether there is what “The New Yorker” magazine

recently called a creeping authoritarianism, a blatant and now increasingly

public idea that Donald Trump can seek, demand and get allegiance not to

the nation, but to himself.

 

This is something that his enablers used to even warn about.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX):  This man is a pathological liar.

 

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC):  I think he`s a kook. I think he`s crazy. I

think he`s unfit for office.

 

SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT):  Dishonesty is Donald Trump`s hallmark.

 

JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR:  He`s a chaos candidate. And he`d be

a chaos president.

 

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY):  A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be

president.

 

GRAHAM:  We should have basically kicked him out of the party.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  What a difference things make now that Donald Trump is in charge.

 

When we are back after 30 seconds, we have a very special report and some

special guests.

 

Stay with us.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MELBER:  Now, we are on the eve of this pivotal race for Democrats in the

diverse state of Nevada. Early voting has begun.

 

The final polls have Bernie Sanders now out way ahead. And there`s other

data that shows quite clearly who will be able to run a long campaign all

the way to the convention if warranted. Billionaire Mike Bloomberg has

shown his war chest in newly released spending figures, $220 million in one

month alone, January, dwarfing all the other campaign spending combined.

 

Now, over that time, Sanders was first for the cash coming in, raising $25

million. Others, it turns out, were nearly broke. The new figures show

Elizabeth Warren headed into Iowa with almost no cash on hand.

 

That means the millions that she just pulled in over these past days after

the debate may have literally kept her in this race. Now up against the

wall, she`s also defending taking money from a super PAC that is organized

to help her election.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  We reached the point

a few weeks ago where all of the men who were still in this race and on the

debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires.

 

The only people who didn`t have them were the two women. All the candidates

want to get rid of super PACs. Count me in. I will lead the charge.

 

But that`s how it has to be. It can`t be the case that a bunch of people

keep them, and only one or two don`t.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  And I`m joined now by Paola Ramos, a veteran of the Clinton

campaign and an MSNBC analyst.

 

And making his first appearance on THE BEAT, “Progressive Army” podcast

host Benjamin Dixon. He recently broke the story about Mike Bloomberg`s

controversial audio defense of stop and frisk policing. Dixon is a Bernie

Sanders supporter.

 

Thanks to both of you for joining me.

 

BENJAMIN DIXON, EDITOR IN CHIEF, “THE PROGRESSIVE ARMY”:  Thank you for

having me.

 

PAOLA RAMOS, MSNBC ANALYST:  Thank you, Ari.

 

MELBER:  Paola, you`re out on the ground.

 

Your view of Elizabeth Warren both having a good week and also making the

case that she`s got to be pragmatic to stay in this?

 

RAMOS:  She had a big week, thanks to the debate.

 

But I think it`s interesting to understand why, right? Why? What – who did

that performance impact the most? And I think that boost that we`re seeing,

that new wave, is due to people of color.

 

Now, I think, in that debate stage, she sort of found this voice. And I

think a lot of people for the first time, particularly people of color, saw

themselves reflected in this new sort of Elizabeth Warren voice.

 

And it`s very simple why, right? She`s the only person on Wednesday that

talked about environmental justice. And I think there was a very important

moment when she sort of looked at Bloomberg and said, look, it`s not enough

to apologize for stop and frisk. You have to understand the intention

behind that policy.

 

And I think that moment for a lot of people of color, that moment when she

sort of nodded across the country and said, systemic racism is plaguing

systems, institutions and politicians. That moment was a game-changer for a

lot of people of color.

 

And you can see that today, Ari. Today, Alicia Garza from Black Lives

Matter endorsed her. Today, Lina Hidalgo from Texas, the judge from a

massive county in Texas, also sponsored her.

 

So that says a lot about whose eyes are being open and who she was

connecting with. And I think that boost is people of color.

 

MELBER:  Let me follow up. You`re asking about the – I`m going to ask you

about the impact these things have, because you look at these debates,

there`s theater, there`s punching, but then there`s also the results.

 

Elizabeth Warren pressed Mike Bloomberg on that stage about the NDAs. In

the moment, he defensively fought back. As recently as this afternoon, in

an interview with MSNBC`s Al Sharpton, he said he hadn`t decided, stay

tuned about what he would do.

 

And now ending the week Friday night, the news breaks that he will, he

says, release women who had signed NDAs with the Bloomberg company that he

ran. Your view of the results she got there, and do you think that`s an

issue that matters on the ground in the state you`re in, or it`s separate

from what working people are thinking about?

 

RAMOS:  I think, overall, if you take a step back, and you`re a woman, and

you`re a survivor, and you see that apology, and now this willingness from

Bloomberg, I think that that is a good thing.

 

Now, I think a lot of women are sort of – feel very good about that. And I

think a lot of that is giving credit to Elizabeth Warren. But I think now

the question is, we`re in Nevada. Now, I`m standing in a state where more

than 30 percent of the population is Latina, a state that is not only

important because of the diversity and the power of Latinas, but mostly

because Latinas here and across the country know what`s at stake, almost

more than anyone, right, because we have been the target of Donald Trump.

 

So the question tomorrow is, if the Elizabeth Warren that we saw on

Wednesday, if that message, that connection, that sort of empathy, will

that translate tomorrow with Latinas, with immigrants, right? That`s what

I`m going to be looking for tomorrow.

 

And I think there`s a high chance, now more than ever, that it will

resonate.

 

MELBER:  Yes.

 

Benjamin, it`s great to have on as a voice that has been doing this

reporting I mentioned. You have spoken about your ideas about Bernie

Sanders, why you think he`s the right one.

 

As you know, there`s all this talk about – quote, unquote –

“electability.” Now, you know what Dennis Kucinich used to say. If you vote

for me, I`m electable. And we have noticed Bernie Sanders talking about his

appeal, his potential appeal, and also, basically, on those terms, not on

the way we hear him sometimes talking about economic justice or other

issues, but just on electability, he just took a big shot at Bloomberg as

well in this new “60 Minutes” interview.

 

Take a look.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

ANDERSON COOPER, “60 MINUTES”:  Were you surprised by how unprepared he

seemed for some very basic, obvious questions at the debate in Nevada?

 

SANDERS:  Yes, I was. I was.

 

And if that`s what happened in a Democratic debate, I think it`s quite

likely that Trump will chew him up and spit him out.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  What do you think of that argument from the Sanders supporters,

that this latest potential entrance into the race isn`t any better suited

to beat Donald Trump, which is so clearly on the mind of so many voters?

 

DIXON:  Yes.

 

Anyone who watched the debate the other night knows full well that Michael

Bloomberg is completely incapable of going up against Donald Trump. If

we`re having a question about electability, you have to look at someone who

has not only the character, the charisma, but the tenacity to actually

stand toe to toe with Donald Trump.

 

Michael Bloomberg couldn`t stand toe to toe with his own past. And so

that`s going to be a problem for him for anyone who believes that he`s

electable by the sheer virtue of his money. Money can`t buy the tenacity

that Bernie Sanders is bringing it to this conversation.

 

MELBER:  And you just heard Paola discuss the diversity and the issues in

Nevada.

 

We`re headed after that to South Carolina. That hangs over all of this.

 

DIXON:  Yes.

 

MELBER:  Who knows why the Democratic Party as rules that sort of start in

one part of country, rush to another, then Super Tuesday, but this is what

it is.

 

DIXON:  Right.

 

MELBER:  I`m curious what you think, quite candidly, given your reporting

on issues that you and others argued are demerits to Mike Bloomberg, the

way he racially profiled in New York, what you think about what Sanders is

doing or needs to do to build the kind of coalition going into these

states?

 

DIXON:  Yes, we have seen a marked turn from what happened in 2016.

 

Bernie Sanders` team has put a lot into South Carolina. But now it`s time

to push back against this false narrative that minorities, and African-

Americans in particular, are not supporting Bernie Sanders, when, in fact,

millennials, by a large margin, African-American millennials, we are

supporting Bernie Sanders.

 

There is a large coalition of people who believe in what he`s trying to do

for the working class, because, quite frankly, there`s a lot of black

people who are working class and not just misfits, according to Dr. Jason

Johnson of your network.

 

MELBER:  Shots fired, as they say.

 

I will try to get you and Jason on a segment together, so you guys can have

conversation.

 

Paola, what do you think about that?

 

RAMOS:  Now, I was just going to say, that sort of support for Bernie

Sanders, you are also seeing it with the Latino community here in Nevada,

right?

 

I have to say it`s very hard for candidates to sort of earn a name like Tio

Bernie, right? That – we take it for granted, but that means that there`s

a lot of trust. And I do have to say that the ground game that we have seen

here in Nevada, right, that door-to-door knocking, that trust-building,

Bernie Sanders has done a really good job.

 

And also, we have to say that the older that the new generation is going

for Joe Biden. So there`s this interesting ideological dynamic between a

part of the Latino group that is sort of holding on to this notion of

survival and holding on to like what we have, and this other spectrum of

younger Latinas that are sort of ready to be – certainly ready to dream,

you know, ready to take on and be part of this political revolution.

 

And that is a dynamic that I think we`re going to see tomorrow.

 

MELBER:  Really interesting hearing from both of you out there doing this

work.

 

Benjamin and Paola, thank you very much.

 

We turn to an announcement.

 

DIXON:  Thank you.

 

MELBER:  Thank you both.

 

We turn to announcement that`s pretty relevant to what we have been

discussing, the presidential race, of course, taking this turn from mostly

white electorates in Iowa, New Hampshire, to these other more diverse

states.

 

Well, if you live in or near Harlem, you can join me this coming Monday. At

noon, we`re holding a free event to discuss this 2020 race, talking

politics, power and, yes, diversity in Harlem. Who is shaping this race?

Who should be shaping this race?

 

We`re going to gather at a neighborhood favorite in Ginny`s at the Red

Rooster in Harlem. admission is free, but you must, must RSVP in advance.

 

So, right now, if you are in or near Harlem and want to join us on Monday,

go to MSNBC.com/theredrooster, MSNBC.com/theredrooster. You can even

memorize that. And you can get your free tickets now, learn more about the

event. Admission is free.

 

You can even order off the menu while you`re there. And like I said, if

you`re in Harlem, I will see you there. We will be filming.

 

So if you join us, you might even end up on THE BEAT.

 

As they say on the campaign trail, from Manchester to Harlem – you know

the rest.

 

All right, we`re going to fit in a quick break.

 

When we come back, we have a breakdown on uneven justice in Donald Trump`s

America.

 

And, later, I`m joined by a special guest who worked for Barack Obama and

Hillary Clinton on where exactly the race is really headed.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MELBER:  President Donald Trump issued 11 pardons this week and has clearly

made it very plain there are more to come.

 

The Justice Department does have a nonpartisan team to vet any and all

pardons and commutations. But Trump is flouting that, now assembling his

own personal team of advisers, led by Jared Kushner, to pick pardons.

 

The president blatantly focusing his pardons on celebrities, on insiders,

on people also convicted of offenses that are similar to Donald Trump`s own

alleged wrongdoing.

 

And that is why some of these celebrity pardon recipients are making a

seamless shift right into Trump-allied punditry.

 

Witness newly freed former Governor Rod Blagojevich touting a very familiar

line after leaving prison just recently here this week on FOX News.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

ROD BLAGOJEVICH (D), FORMER ILLINOIS GOVERNOR:  There is no crime. There`s

no quid pro quo. There was not in my case.

 

And I appreciate what those congressmen are saying. But they ought to point

that – those statements in the direction of the prosecutors who did this

to me, and many of whom are the same people who are doing this to President

Trump.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Blagojevich also in that interview recounting who he was

surrounded by in prison.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

BLAGOJEVICH:  There were men there were committed murder, con artists, a

lot of sex offenders.

 

For most of my time there, my home was a six-foot-by-12-foot – a six-foot-

by-eight-foot prison cell, with four-cement walls, a big heavy iron door

that can shut you in.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  There are all kinds of grim realities in this U.S. system, so many

people locked away, including for many offenses far less serious than those

committed by these new Trump-pardoned beneficiaries.

 

And most of those people behind the bars and the conditions you just heard

Blagojevich describe, they have less money to defend themselves. They have

no celebrity friends to lobby for them, let alone links to Jared Kushner.

 

Well, we have covered some of those cases on this show. And here`s another

very important, given everything that`s going on, the case of 36-year-old

Ashley Menser, who has cancer. Now, she was sentenced to 10 months in jail

for stealing $109.63 worth of merchandise, including basic items like

makeup, a candle, some hair dye.

 

This case has sparked outrage already and garnered national attention,

including an exhaustive report in “The New York Times.” Now, we have done

some reporting as well and obtained a transcript of the actual sentencing.

 

You`re going to hear this for the very first time on television, Menser

telling the court that her doctors wanted her to have surgery. It was a

hysterectomy. And her lawyer asked for house arrest.

 

The court says, given the prior criminal history because she had priors, it

would be three to six months. And the judge says, well, we will give you a

furlough to get health care, so she should go to a facility that has

adequate medical treatment.

 

Now, this is what the system can look like. These are the people who aren`t

getting pardons and TV interviews. And it gets chilling.

 

Menser says – quote – “I`m not even going to be able to take care of my

cancer anymore. I`m just going to let it kill me.”

 

And the judge replies – quote – “You should have thought about that on

the last 13 times you stole.”

 

“You should have thought about that” to a woman who reportedly here is

facing terminal cancer.

 

And that particular charge that she has to go to jail for and can`t get

treatment instead of was basically petty theft.

 

Now, you should know we asked for comment on this case from the court. They

declined.

 

And it`s unclear what Menser will do now,what kind of treatment she may or

may not be receiving. The court files do show that, at one point last

summer, she did refuse a type of treatment.

 

But this goes beyond the details of this particular case. When you look at

the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which Donald Trump and now I guess Jared

Kushner are going to be considering pardons for, but without the help of

many of the nonpartisans in the DOJ, there are almost 20,000 inmates over

the age of, say, 55.

 

Makes you think twice about this claim from newly released white-collar

criminal Bernie Kerik.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

BERNARD KERIK, FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER:  I think the

president`s doing exactly what he said he was going to do three years ago,

when he said he was going to be totally committed to criminal justice

reform.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Reform is not doing favors for people like Mr. Kerik, who are

close with your own lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, or for Mr. Milken, a

billionaire.

 

Reform, by definition, would involve dealing with the kind of cases I just

showed you in the federal system, as well as asking ourselves the larger

question:  Why are we locking up so many people for so long?

 

Whatever this is, it is not reform.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MELBER:  This week has had former Republican mayor Mike Bloomberg in

whiplash.

 

After muscling his way into the Democratic primary with a record $400

million spending spree and getting onto the debate stage, he then got

hammered in front of 20 million viewers.

 

Now even his own campaign admits today that debate did not go well for him.

A top Bloomberg adviser saying – quote – “I led the debate prep, and I

accept the responsibility for inadequately preparing him.”

 

Many watching the debate agreed Bloomberg did not look prepared.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

VAN JONES, CNN:  Disaster for Bloomberg. Bloomberg went in as the Titanic,

billion-dollar machine Titanic. Titanic, meat iceberg Elizabeth Warren.

 

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN:  Gloria Borger, what`s the big headline?

 

GLORIA BORGER, CNN:  Bloomberg was awful.

 

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS:  And the big picture big, big, big picture, the

biggest winner tonight, Donald Trump.

 

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS:  Bloomberg ate it last night.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  They tore the skin off him.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  So that is what happened when Bloomberg was basically seen on a

level field, one he doesn`t control, with independent reporters and rival

candidates able to press the issues and to also contest his claims.

 

Now, let`s be clear. That is a contrast to how many voters had seen him up

until this week through those million-dollar ad blitzes that Bloomberg does

control.

 

And that is following a playbook that he actually perfected in New York

politics, a point pressed by our next guest, who worked right near

Bloomberg in New York politics, an aide to Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer

and New York`s attorney general, as well as a stint in the Obama team,

Blake Zeff, who I first met on Capitol Hill and have been friends with for

a little while.

 

And you`re also now a filmmaker and a writer. I think I listed it all.

 

Nice to see you.

 

BLAKE ZEFF, JOURNALIST:  Good to see you.

 

MELBER:  I want to start with that contrast. You have been so close to

this. And you have been documenting the money around Mayor Bloomberg and

what it actually does. Explain.

 

ZEFF:  Yes,

 

I think a lot of the reporting you see is around the fact that Mayor

Bloomberg can spend a ton of money on commercials. And make no mistake,

that is a big part of this. But it also extends far beyond the commercials

in some more hidden ways.

 

For example, the mayor`s rolled out a number of endorsements from leaders

throughout the country, which could be surprising to a number of people, in

the sense that he was a local mayor, hasn`t been in office for a long time.

 

But he spent $110 million just a year-and-a-half ago boosting a number of

house races. And, as a result, he has these types of relationships with

people who are in office. Another example is community groups. He`s been

notoriously generous to these community groups.

 

And then they have supported him in his past races as well. One last

example would be crowd sizes. Very impressive. You see these thunderous

applause and these big groups for him when he goes to open an office

throughout the country, but they`re also serving free food from the finest

places in town and unlimited wine.

 

And that tends to inspire people to come out on a weekday night.

 

MELBER:  Unlimited wine could get you out to listen to all kinds of things,

Open bar, open bar event.

 

I think that what you have done in flagging this – and we have heard it

from other reporters and independent people as well – is explained sort of

the architecture around it. And what`s funny is, in a way, piercing that

bubble on the debate made the fall even harder, because he went from the

perfect ad vision to what we saw.

 

But you didn`t need just this debate for folks who follow New York

politics, as mentioned. There was a moment when he was trying to literally

rewrite the rules to get an extra term just so he could stay in power

longer that we want to show for your analysis. Let`s take a look at that.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

BLOOMBERG:  The rationale for extending term limits is, the city council

voted it and the public`s going to have a chance on November 3 to say what

they want.

 

And I don`t think we have to keep coming back to that. When you have a

serious question about the economy, I`d be happy to answer it. Anything

else?

 

Thank you very much.

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

BLOOMBERG:  Nothing else?

 

(APPLAUSE)

 

BLOOMBERG:  You`re a disgrace.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  It`s a little moment on a handycam, but why should it matter, in

your view?

 

ZEFF:  Well, I will leave it up to the voters and viewers to decide whether

it should matter, but the information is important for people to have.

 

The information is, in New York, there was a rule that you can only run for

two terms. That was decided by the voters in a referendum. So the voters

only wanted their mayors to have two terms. There was a term limit.

 

Mayor Bloomberg decided that he wanted a third term. And rather than go

back to the voters and have them decide, he essentially engineered a

backroom deal, where he was able to pull – get some city council members

to sign off on the deal. It also extended term limits for themselves as

well.

 

And one of the ways he was able to curry support for it was, again, using

his status as a billionaire in two ways. One, he gave lots of money to

charitable groups throughout the city, whether it was nonprofits, arts

groups. There was one group that was charged with trying to combat

homelessness.

 

They all came and testified in front of the city council on behalf of Mayor

Bloomberg, saying he should really have a third term. Meanwhile, they were

getting millions of dollars from him.

 

Secondly, he went to the publishers of the big paper newspapers in the

city, “The New York Daily News,” “The New York Post,” “The New York Times.”

These were his billionaire friends, these other publishers, met with them

before even unveiling this plan, and got them to all agree that this was a

good idea, and that they would then all simultaneously endorse this idea

just as he presented it.

 

And, Ari, for those who aren`t fans or followers of New York politics, it

is very hard to get these three papers to agree on anything, let alone on

this very controversial idea.

 

MELBER:  Right. Right.

 

I mean, and, again, you don`t have to be around New York to understand that

the idea of term limits is a bipartisan, longstanding issue. And most

politicians, when they get in office, decide, suddenly, oh, maybe they want

more time. He actually was able to engineer the full shift.

 

Stop and frisk was going to be a big issue last night, obviously, in your

writings. It`s an issue we have covered. We covered it before the issue got

supersized by the leaked audio, which I mentioned earlier in the show. We

covered it with the Bloomberg campaign manager.

 

You wrote, basically, Bloomberg repeatedly defended this tactic throughout

his term. He argued crime would soar in 2013. He said, if you don`t want to

be stopped – quote – “Don`t look like a suspect.” We`re not going to walk

away from the tactic because we would – quote – “lose control of our

streets.”

 

And I want to show something which was, he was so misleading at the debate

that the very federal judge who ordered this tactic stopped says,

basically, that he lied about how it ended. Take a look.

 

This was on THE BEAT last night.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, RETIRED FEDERAL JUDGE:  Mayor Bloomberg said, when I

realized it was bad toward the end, I ended it and dropped 95 percent.

 

That is not accurate.

 

It wasn`t because he realized, had an epiphany that it was wrong. It`s

because of the court rulings.

 

That`s what happened. I ruled.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MELBER:  Almost out of time, but your view on stop and frisk and how he

didn`t really handle it well in the debate either.

 

ZEFF:  Well, when Mayor Bloomberg came into office, there were under

100,000 stops in 2002.

 

Under his tenure, it rose up to almost 700,000 stops by 2011. That`s not

reducing it by 95 percent. The judge is right. It ended up going down

considerably in 2013, when she ruled it unconstitutional.

 

And the mayor did begin to reduce it a bit just before that, but, clearly,

under Mayor Bloomberg, he expanded it very, very dramatically.

 

MELBER:  Blake Zeff, lots of interesting stuff. And you have certainly been

in the field. Thank you very much, sir.

 

And we will be right back.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MELBER:  Time now for a very special “Fallback.”

 

We are joined by rapper and podcast sensation Joe Budden. You may remember

when he burst on the scene with the Grammy-nominated hit “Pump It Up” in

2003, also remixed by Jay-Z, if you will. Today, Budden leads several media

projects, including Revolt, State of the Culture. “The New York Times” dubs

him the Howard Stern of hip-hop. He also hosts one of the most downloaded

music podcasts in the world.

 

And he is flanked by one of the most well-known prosecutors in the country,

Nick Akerman, an expert on RICO and computer fraud. He served in the

legendary Southern District of New York  and was, of course, a Watergate

special prosecutor.

 

Thanks for being here, both of you.

 

JOE BUDDEN, CULTURAL CRITIC/MUSICIAN:  Thank you for having me.

 

NICK AKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR:  Thank you.

 

MELBER:  You look good together.

 

AKERMAN:  I would think. I just wish I had this coat.

 

BUDDEN:  I think Nick, all due to Nick.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

MELBER:  Maybe you could borrow the coat at some point.

 

AKERMAN:  I tell you, it`s cold enough. I`d love to.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

MELBER:  Joe, what`s on your “Fallback” list?

 

BUDDEN:  What`s on my “Fallback” list?

 

I have got Tyler Perry writing alone in the writing room, in the writers

room, just because I have never heard of that concept.

 

MELBER:  He basically says he doesn`t have a writers room. He doesn`t have

a bunch of other writers, as you say.

 

BUDDEN:  He works alone.

 

MELBER: “My audience wants my voice.”

 

And you can`t mess with success. He`s gotten this far. But what do you

think more he should do?

 

BUDDEN:  I like the route he`s going. I appreciate the – how unique it is.

Writers rooms are usually reserved for a group of people.

 

So, to have one person say, nah, I`m not going to do things that way, and

to get a little backlash from it, because he received some. But I like it.

It`s arrogant a little bit, narcissistic a little bit, things I related to.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

MELBER:  Well, Nick, you don`t use the write a motion all by yourself,

certainly not a big one.

 

AKERMAN:  No, no, of course not.

 

All right, my “Fallback” relates pretty much the same idea of a writers

room and what`s going on in the digital world, because Mac just came out

with this new Mac Pro that, if you buy the entire ball of wax – that is,

the up-top system, for $54,000, and then for $6,000, you throw in the

monitor….

 

BUDDEN:  Insurance? Oh, Applecare?

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

AKERMAN:  … the insurance.

 

MELBER:  Applecare, they really get you.

 

AKERMAN:  Yes.

 

Now, look, I`m a big Apple fan. I`m a Steve Jobs fanboy. I have got the

iPad. I have got the…

 

MELBER:  The buds?

 

AKERMAN:  The buds. I have got the watch.

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

MELBER:  OK, the watch. A lot of people have the buds.

 

AKERMAN:  I got the watch. I got the phone and I have got the computer.

 

BUDDEN:  Pardon me, Nick. Do you like the buds?

 

AKERMAN:  I really like the buds, yes.

 

BUDDEN:  OK.

 

AKERMAN:  Now, I understand they have now have the iBuds with the Pro

version that are another $50, which I have not tried.

 

MELBER:  Let me ask you this. Do you the buds need to fall back?

 

And, obviously, I`m asking Joe Budden, but so there is a potential pun that

I won`t make.

 

BUDDEN:  I see what you did there. I see what you did there.

 

AKERMAN:  Right, or a conflict of interests.

 

MELBER:  Should the buds fall back just because they`re not very cool?

 

BUDDEN:  They`re not good.

 

MELBER:  They`re not good sound?

 

BUDDEN:  I`m probably in the minority with this.

 

I prefer the Beats Pro earpods. These fall out my ears a lot. When I used

to have them, I had to purchase 10 different pairs. They`re plastic. They

don`t seem very durable. It`s just not good to me.

 

MELBER:  What do you use when you`re bumping your favorite song or a

deposition recording, whatever it might be in your cases?

 

AKERMAN:  I`m using these.

 

But I have not tried the Pro version yet. And I think you`re right. I mean,

those are probably a lot better.

 

It`s just that I bought these just before the Pro version came out.

 

BUDDEN:  Well, you can`t get the Pro version, because there`s a long

waiting list for them now.

 

AKERMAN:  That`s right. That`s true, but also I couldn`t bring myself to

spend the extra money to buy a new pair of these buds just to have the Pro

version.

 

BUDDEN:  Yes.

 

AKERMAN:  The same reason I will not put down $60,000 for the Mac Pro. No

way.

 

MELBER:  Anything else on your “Fallback” list, Joe?

 

BUDDEN:  The AXE Body spray, when they – what happened? They kicked the

guy off the bus.

 

MELBER:  Yes, this is a middle school student. And I – my heart goes out

to anyone trying to smell good.

 

But he used so much AXE, 911 got called – 911 got called.

 

BUDDEN:  Nine-one-one, 911.

 

And that`s excessive. But I think we all did that at one point, which is

why I kind of identify, and I kind of have a lot of compassion for the kid.

Like, when you get your kid his first bottle of cologne, he probably sprays

too much.

 

I probably still spray too much. And AXE has a very particular smell. So I

get both sides of the coin here, but I`m with the kid. I don`t think he

should have got kicked off the bus or had 911 called.

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

MELBER:  Excessive.

 

AKERMAN:  No, I totally identify with the kid.

 

I used to do the same thing when I was that age.

 

BUDDEN:  Yes.

 

AKERMAN:  Forget it.

 

MELBER:  Can I ask you, Nick, what your scent was?

 

AKERMAN:  It was – gee, I can`t remember at this point.

 

MELBER:  Because, when I got started out – this is a little personal.

 

AKERMAN:  Yes.

 

BUDDEN:  Give it to us.

 

MELBER:  I was at the mall. And one of the samplers put out Jean Paul

Gaultier on my wrist, didn`t ask, just put it out.

 

And it`s a sweet, some say overly vanilla, notes of cinnamon, Joe, but I

got hooked on it.

 

BUDDEN:  That`s a lot of our – that`s a lot of our first. That was my

first, I think.

 

MELBER:  Really?

 

BUDDEN:  Yes.

 

MELBER:  Jean Paul Gaultier.

 

BUDDEN:  Jean Paul Gaultier.

 

MELBER:  And the bottle is shaped like a body.

 

AKERMAN:  Old Spice, that was another one.

 

MELBER:  Old Spice, wow.

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

AKERMAN:  I used to take my father`s Old Spice. That`s what I used.

 

BUDDEN:  Did you know that I purchased the Old Spice body spray from the

supermarket? That doesn`t sound weird to anybody here?

 

AKERMAN:  No, not at all.

 

BUDDEN:  Oh. Well, I`m at home.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

AKERMAN:  Not in the least bit.

 

BUDDEN:  And I sprayed a lot of it.

 

MELBER:  I love it.

 

Well, I want to thank both of you, looking very good and looking good

together, Nick Akerman and Joe Budden.

 

AKERMAN:  Thank you.

 

MELBER:  Everyone should check out the podcast.

 

BUDDEN:  Thank you. Thank you, Ari. Appreciate that.

 

MELBER:  Real style, real flavor, real old-school, Old Spice.

 

Well, you are looking at a live shot of our election headquarters here at

30 Rockefeller Center in New York.

 

And we will be busy tomorrow. I will be part of our special coverage of the

Nevada caucus. That`s tomorrow, Saturday.

 

And “HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS” is next.

 

 

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

BE UPDATED.

END   

 

Copyright 2020 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.>