IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Ex-Trump aide Sam Nunberg speaks out. TRANSCRIPT: 03/05/2018. The Beat with Ari Melber

Guests: Sam Nunberg, Barbara McQuade, Maya Wiley, Evelyn Farkas, Katty Kay, Shelby Holliday, Baratunde Thurston, Liz Plank, Mya Wiley; Barbara McQuade

Show: THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER Date: March 5, 2018 Guest: Sam Nunberg, Barbara McQuade, Maya Wiley, Evelyn Farkas, Katty Kay, Shelby Holliday, Baratunde Thurston, Liz Plank, Mya Wiley; Barbara McQuade

"The Beat" with Ari Melber starts right now.

Ari, you have got a good show.

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Thank you, Katie.

And we begin tonight with breaking news. Former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg is here with me live right now. This is his first on-camera interviews since Nunberg made some news late today, saying he received a new grand jury subpoena from Bob Mueller and he plans to defy it. I`m going to interview Sam about that right now.

Here is the context. Nunberg is the first witness to publicly say he will not cooperate with this Mueller probe. That`s an announcement that shook the political and legal world late today as just about everyone with any stake in the Mueller probe was assessing the meaning of a former Trump campaign aide vowing to defy the special counsel which can, theoretically land a person in jail.

And while the White House generally tries to avoid specific comments on the Mueller probe, the President`s spokesperson specifically rebutting Nunberg just this afternoon and disavowing collusion.


KRISTIN WELKER, NBC NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: He just said on MSNBC moments ago, I think he, meaning the President, may have done something during the election, but I don`t know that for sure. Your reaction?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, I definitely think he doesn`t know that for sure, because he is incorrect. As we have said many times before, there was no collusion with the Trump campaign.


MELBER: Sam Nunberg was one of Donald Trump`s first hires in this campaign. They did have a falling out in August 2015. His pledge to defy Mueller today comes along with an extraordinary revelation.

Nunberg taking the public inside Mueller`s probe and showing us these list of people. These are the people according to Nunberg`s materials that the special counsel wants more information on.

Sam Nunberg, thank you for coming on "the Beat."


MELBER: When we last spoke, when you were at this table.

NUNBERG: Yes, sir.

MELBER: You were cooperating with this probe. Why now tonight do you say you won`t?

NUNBERG: Well, when I look at this, for the period of November 1st, 2015 to the present, please provide all documents related to the following individuals. Carter Page, never spoke to him, OK? Never spoke to. Corey Lewandowski, Hope Hicks. I didn`t speak to them. They forced me out of the campaign. They pushed -- they pushed Roger out of the campaign.

Keith Schiller? Keith is a friend of mine. Why do I have to give them my personal communications?

Steve Bannon? Roger Stone? Roger is my mentor. I have email, Ari, with Roger, 15 times a day, OK? And we had a big disagreement during 2016, because once again, as you know, and I have been honest about this. I wanted Trump to lose. I didn`t care if Trump lost. I thought it would be funny.

MELBER: You go down this list of names. Some of them you say you don`t have much material with. Some of them you say you do. Why won`t you hand that over when last week you were willing to talk to these investigators?

NUNBERG: Because I talked to them. I have spent money on an attorney. I have cooperated with them. And when I got something like this, and then they wanted me to go to the grand jury next Friday, and I believe they`re trying to start a case against Roger, and the reason I believe that, Ari -- .

MELBER: You - let`s just be clear so everyone can follow this. You are holding a subpoena from Bob Mueller`s office.

NUNBERG: By the way --

MELBER: Just so we have the facts, that`s what you are holding.


MELBER: It`s a requirement. It is a requirement that you say to get documents or material on those people and for also to you go in the grand jury room. Why do you think after you did the other interview do they want to make you go in the grand jury room?

NUNBERG: Because they are trying to set up a perjury case against Roger, so I`m not going to have it. Roger is my mentor. Roger is like family to me, and I`m not going to do it. I`m not going to do it. And Roger did not talk. Roger may have lied about it, but Roger did not talk --

MELBER: Are you basing that view --?


MELBER: To use you to get to Roger. They are trying to use you to get to Roger based on a theory or based on the questions they asked you.

NUNBERG: Based on the questions they asked me. I have no idea in advance what they wanted for the grand jury. But what they did tell me was I wasn`t going to be a subject or target and I was going to get the same kind of immunity. But they wanted something. Now Ari --

MELBER: Did they offer you immunity?

NUNBERG: Yes. Ari, let me say something.


NUNBERG: The idea that we had some major plot with Roger, with Donald Trump? After he, Corey Lewandowski, the minute he got hired, he was, he was -- I don`t want to be -- he, let me put it this way, he ran a scam to get hired, OK? That`s my opinion. Corey Lewandowski, the minute he got hired wanted me and Roger out.

MELBER: But you think had Mueller`s investigation --

NUNBERG: I think Corey was in there. And I think Corey told them a lot of stuff about us. Corey tried to set something up.

MELBER: Did they say to you or your lawyer?

NUNBERG: To my lawyer. I have never communicated directly with them.

MELBER: And when you say they are after Roger, has Roger in any way encourage you not to cooperate?

NUNBERG: No, he has not. In fact, Roger maybe very upset. A lot of people may be very upset. I don`t think this has this been done before?

MELBER: many people are upset, I think. And I`m going to speak to you as an interviewer and also a human being. I think there`s two reactions right now. I think some people are worried about you. And they are worried about what you are doing. I think others are upset because we just showed the White House which doesn`t comment on this --.

NUNBERG: Sarah should shut up, frankly.

MELBER: Really, you are in the eye of the storm.

NUNBERG: Sarah should shut up.

MELBER: Let me ask you this.

NUNBERG: She`s a terrible communications -- by the way, her Presidential, the person she defends every day, he has a 35 percent approval rating. She should shut her mouth.

MELBER: Let me ask you an important question.

NUNBERG: Yes. And I`m warning her to shut her mouth.

MELBER: Do you understand that you have a legal obligation to comply?

NUNBERG: Yes, I have a legal -- technically, I have a legal obligation. But Robert Mueller and the team is going to have to determine if they really want me to add every communication I have with Steve Bannon and Roger Stone.

MELBER: Well, sir, I think they have decided. And let me read to you because this is important. Defying a subpoena is a jailable offense. I`m reading to you here. Under the rules, the court may hold in contempt --

NUNBERG: They are going to send me to jail. That`s funny.

MELBER: If you are saying that they set a Friday deadline. In your mind - -.

NUNBERG: No, they wanted a 3:00 p.m. deadline.

MELBER: For the documents. And then on Friday, they like for to you go in there, yes.

NUNBERG: Yes, and I`m not going.

MELBER: So if you are not going, are you prepared to be held in contempt and potentially go to jail?

NUNBERG: Yes. And you know why?

MELBER: Why? Yes, tell us why.

NUNBERG: Because when they ask for something like this from me and the way they treated, And Ari, you and I can disagree about it. And once again, Donald Trump is responsible for this investigation, because he was so stupid after he fired Comey, he had the Lester Hold and he had the Russians in his office.

But if they are going to do something like this after the way they treated all the Hillary people, with the emails, during that investigation, I`m not going to have it. Because this shows --

MELBER: I just want to get the facts, because there is a lot flying here for people.

You are making two serious claims about what Mueller`s asked of you. Number one, you are saying that they subpoenaed this information about other Trump officials by 3:00 p.m. today, and that deadline has passed and you are now - you are saying in defiance of it.

NUNBERG: Yes, correct. I`m not going to go over 50,000 emails.

MELBER: You are saying this is not a pledge that you will violate, but now are you not complying with that deadline.

NUNBERG: Something like this is so ridiculous, after I went down there, after, by the way, I spent money on the legal.


NUNBERG: You know, for a lawyer. And a lot of other people have spent a lot of money. And it`s not fair. It`s really not fair. Now once again, it`s Donald Trump`s responsibility that this investigation`s going on.


NUNBERG: And as I have told you, I think it was 100 percent right that he started this independent counsel, not because Trump fired Comey, which I agreed with, because Trump gave the Lester Holt interview and had the Russians.

MELBER: The things he said about why he did it. Let me ask you a question it is not about the law.

NUNBERG: Yes, sir.

MELBER: You and I have both been around these types of situations, these of probes. They can be stressful even for people who are completely innocent, did nothing wrong. It can be stressful. How are you holding up? And do you want to take more time to think this through? Could you change your mind?

NUNBERG: I`m not going to answer something so wide as this. This is so ridiculous. I`m not going to give them every email I had with Steve Bannon and Roger Stone. I communicate with them every day.

MELBER: And are you feeling OK? Are you feeling stressed out with this?

NUNBERG: No. I`m feeling -- I want to see what Mr. Mueller does. It has never been done before. Once again, and here`s where we go, where you are very fair about this. I think that there`s hypocrisy.


NUNBERG: I think there`s two separate rules for Democrats and Republicans. I want to see if they are going to do something to me about this after the way they treated Hillary Clinton during the Comey investigation. Let`s see that. Let`s see it. Why, Carter Page? I mean, look at this. Do you think I talk to Corey on November 1st? I despise Corey. If I could see -- if I could find Corey in an alley, it wouldn`t be very nice.

MELBER: Well, here is question. Since you are showing this. And this is your choice.

NUNBERG: Yes, sir.

MELBER: If you don`t talk to Corey much and you don`t have a lot of material of you and Corey going back and forth, then this wouldn`t be very Honorius at all for you.

NUNBERG: Yes. But the issue isn`t that it is Honorius. The issue is why is the government asking for my communications when they know they are casual and they know we did not collude and we did not collude with Russians?

MELBER: Let me try to be fair. The short answer for me is I don`t know because I`m not inside the probe. But let me put it this way to you. Are you aware that they may already have all of that?

NUNBERG: I think they do. They definitely do. They definitely have Roger Stone`s emails. They asked me questions about Roger Stone`s -- they asked me questions about Roger and me that they would only have had Roger`s emails.

MELBER: The questions they asked you in your previous interview suggest that they were already raiding you reading communications between you and Roger Stone.

NUNBERG: Yes, sir.

MELBER: So that goes to the point that Preet Bharara who I`m sure you heard of, the federal prosecutor.

NUNBERG: Yes. Very nice guy.

MELBER: Well, this is what he said in response to what you have done today. He said I`m prepared to bet special counsel Mueller already has Nunberg`s emails. Even if you already have them from other parties or from the service provider, you ask for them anyway. Among other things, you learned a lot when people selectively disclose.

And so wait, this is an important question, Sam. Don`t you think it is possible that what they are testing here is not against you, assuming you would completely comply?


MELBER: But against other people if they withheld incriminating emails.

NUNBERG: Here`s what I would say, Ari, is Roger Stone is like a surrogate - he is like my father.

MELBER: You feel loyal to him.

NUNBERG: And I`m not going to go in there for them to set up a case against Roger. Roger did not do anything. Roger and I were treated like crap by Donald Trump, OK. The fact that I was fired for Facebook posts which are fine, racially insensitive. Do you that I would have cost us a vote?

MELBER: Well. And you and I spoke about that. And you actually apologized for that --.

NUNBERG: I apologized, sure.

MELBER: So I know that.


NUNBERG: And then Corey, and then Trump was ready to let Corey fire Roger.

MELBER: And those are old campaign scores and an investigation of the campaign.

NUNBERG: Hope Hicks. Hope Hicks, giving Corey`s girlfriend, his Paramour.

MELBER: Let`s stay on track --.

NUNBERG: You think I contacted her?

MELBER: Let`s stay on track on what --.

NUNBERG: Yes, sir.

MELBER: The probe is looking at. Because I think you have gotten attention of a lot of people tonight as a mentioned.

NUNBERG: Yes, sir.

MELBER: The probe is looking at whether people are complying. You have seen, if I`m reading you right, that that case is reading on what you are saying is an inference that they are out to get you or Roger. But you don`t really know that. Because if you guys comply and didn`t do anything wrong, you don`t think Bob Mueller from what you said last week is going to make up a case against you.

NUNBERG: I don`t think he is making up a case. But I think that this request is too wide. It`s not fair. It`s not fair.

MELBER: Let me play for you what you said about these investigators on this show.

NUNBERG: OK, fine. And I said they are very professional.

MELBER: Let`s take a look at that.


MELBER: Let`s take a look at that.


NUNBERG: This was like a white shoe law firm. Going in. OK. I sat in there. They asked me questions. They had charts out. They had specific things they t wanted to know. They had follow-ups. It was almost like flowcharts. It wasn`t a waste of taxpayer money to have me in there. It wasn`t a waste of time for me either. And I`m happy to have cooperated.


MELBER: Is that still your view?

NUNBERG: That`s my view.

MELBER: Because if it is your views, then it wouldn`t be too broad. It would be that they are like a law firm being diligent. And I`m asking you.

NUNBERG: No. And my point is that I was so honest, I cooperated. I didn`t say call me in to the grand jury when they first contacted me. And after that, after sitting there for so many hours, after paying the money for a lawyer I can get something like this? And I can, Ari, I have to earn a living.


NUNBERG: You know, I know Bob Mueller. I know that whole team, and they are right. And they probably have something on Trump. Trump did something pretty bad, if I understood them.

MELBER: What do they have?

NUNBERG: I don`t know. I have no idea. But they have something.

MELBER: Do you think they are more interested in Trump related to the criminal hacking when we know there are stolen emails or the social media?

NUNBERG: I think they are interested in something with his business.

MELBER: With his business.


MELBER: Did they ask you about the way he ran his business?

NUNBERG: Yes, they asked me about his business. By the way, I have no idea what he did. And he may not have done anything. And I could be wrong.

MELBER: Look. You felt they were asking more about potential crimes related to the Trump organization than related to the Trump campaign?

NUNBERG: That`s what I thought, yes.

MELBER: That is what your interpretation?

NUNBERG: That was.

MELBER: Let me ask you this. Do you think that these investigators are escalating against you for a reason? Base you did say something that`s true. And you know, there are people out there that are wondering what you are doing. There are people as I mentioned that are worried. Are you doing something that is adverse to your interests, wait. And there are people saying, OK, does he have a point. What you just said is true that an interview is more cooperative. And you did that cooperation. And now they are bringing you before the grand jury. Do you have any reason to know why they are appearing to escalate against you in that way?

NUNBERG: Our strategy was not to ask why they wanted me at the grand jury. Once again, as I was told, I am not a target.


NUNBERG: I am not a subject of the investigation, which would, if true -- but they wanted something I said to them in that interview, they want it at the grand jury.

MELBER: Do you think they wanted it to put on record for testimonial purposes to use against somebody later?

NUNBERG: Yes, of course.

MELBER: When you say of course, well, everyone is trying --.


MELBER: You might be amid of where some people are. So you think they want you in a grand jury room --.

NUNBERG: And you are a lawyer, too. You understand lawyer works, right? And each grand juries, they build --.

MELBER: They want you in that grand jury room to build a case against someone else.


MELBER: And that person is?

NUNBERG: I don`t know.

MELBER: You don`t know.

NUNBERG: And if it`s Roger, I`m not going to testify against Roger. Roger did not do anything. Roger was treated terribly by Donald Trump.

MELBER: And he is one of Donald Trump`s oldest advisers.

NUNBERG: Yes. But Trump is the most the dishonest person you will ever going to meet.

MELBER: You know, if you do comply with this and you go in a grand jury room, you know you have to go in there alone without a lawyer.

NUNBERG: The issue isn`t about me going in there. I have no problem telling them what I said in there. The issue is, is I don`t think this is fair. This is over, this is -- the idea that I -- Carter Page, Corey Lewandowski and Hope Hicks? I mean, Corey Lewandowski and Hope Hicks colluded to get Roger and me, fired, OK. Carter Page? I never met the guy in my life. Never met him.

MELBER: Do you think Carter Page has criminal exposure?

NUNBERG: I think Carter Page colluded with the Russians. And I told you that before. I told you that privately. I think he colluded with the Russians.

MELBER: And how many people do you think he told he was doing that with on the campaign?

NUNBERG: I don`t know. I don`t think he told a lot of people because I don`t think he had a lot of power in the campaign. I don`t think he had a lot of --.

MELBER: There has been a lot of talk about how Mueller has not done anything in an indictment level regarding collusion. Do you think what you just said, your allegation that Carter Page colluded with the Russians? So you think Mueller has that from multiple witnesses?

NUNBERG: I have no idea. I have no idea. And I wouldn`t --

MELBER: Does he have that from you?

NUNBERG: No. I never spoke to him.

MELBER: Sam Nunberg, thank you for being here.

I have another update. You are welcome to stay at the table and you are welcome to continue to participate.


MELBER: I want to give viewers a little more context on what is a big development.

Until today, think about it like this. Every single person who has spoken publicly about this Mueller probe who has been involved has at least publicly said they will cooperate.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you going to talk to Mueller?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I`m looking forward to it, actually.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very, to explain to the special counsel, you know, whatever, whatever responses are required.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We will continue to cooperate with bob Mueller in his investigation. We will continue to cooperate and comply.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m more than happy to be transparent about it and I`m more than happy to cooperate with everyone.


MELBER: And yet today as we just saw, a different tack.

I want to turn to attorney Maya Wiley, who is a former council to the mayor of New York City and a talented and knowledgeable legal analyst for us. And you were also at this table with Mr. Nunberg who is still with us the last time he was here, and he spoke about what was again for viewers following this, the FBI interview, that is not the grand jury box, that is an FBI interview. Now what you just heard from him, your analysis?

MAYA WILEY, FORMER COUNCIL TO NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Well, I`m really quite flabbergasted at the statement that, Sam, you don`t believe that there is anything that you would share that would implicate Roger Stone in a crime, and yet you would not actually come forward in a grand jury and then give, repeat the statements you have made already directly to federal prosecutors in front of a grand jury. It`s rather astounding. I certainly, the way I have seen the subpoena, it is a reasonable subpoena. It does not sound like a huge, random fishing expedition.

MELBER: Mr. Nunberg used the word, broad. Is you viewed that it is very broad or that it seems targeted?

WILEY: It seems pretty targeted to people who are directly implicated in the investigation already by many things. If there are emails that do not exist, they can`t be turned over and they can`t be burdensome to produce them.

MELBER: Let me ask this and Mr. Nunberg who has taken time to be on the show before which I appreciate. He said many things, some of them shocking. Some of them may have been based on conjecture. He did say one thing that I mentioned earlier that struck me as very reasonable and something I have heard from a range of people caught up in the situation, which is if I cooperated and I didn`t do anything wrong, and I have been told I`m not the target, and I`m spending all this money, why is it getting more pressure on me? Why the heat? What did you think of his concern there that might be animating how he is feeling?

WILEY: I think it`s a very human response to being a witness in an investigation. It`s stressful. It is time-consuming. There`s no question that in the process of trying to get to the truth, which, remember, it is the grand jury that will decide whether or not to indict. So that the grand jury can hear the evidence that the prosecutors have heard in order to understand the facts and circumstances that are being brought to them.

So to sort of suggest that talking to the prosecutors is sufficient in the context of an empaneled grand jury is sort of saying, let`s have justice with eyes not just closed but gagged and completely unable to engage in an investigatory process.

NUNBERG: And this is where I will disagree with you respectfully, is that I felt they were very biased against Roger when I was in there. I felt that they are going after Roger. I felt, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates did illegal things. And they couldn`t pay the taxes. I don`t know why they don`t want to pay the taxes and they worked for Russian oligarchs.

Roger didn`t work for Russian oligarchs. They went after -- they asked me things in other words, once again, they were just like, I just mentioned earlier, ma`am, is that they asked me things like was this some grand plot by Roger and me to get fired. And then I would work for Ted Cruz, and then we would collude with the Russians. That`s ridiculous.

WILEY: So Sam sat here last week on Wednesday that this was an extremely professional and highly-skilled team. So the notion that they were asking questions, first of all, does not mean that they were suggesting, that there was answer that would be true or false, right? Only that there were things that they were going to pursue. The fact that they asked them in and of themselves has nothing to do with what they will ultimately decide to take to the grand jury.

NUNBERG: I believe they are biased against Roger.

WILEY: But, if we had a justice system that said witnesses could decide the guilt or innocence of any particular individual and therefore not cooperate and make that legally permissible, essentially, we would not have any system at all.

MELBER: Can you speak to that structural point that Ms. Wiley raises? Because what she is saying is -- wait, wait. I just want to be clear. You know you get time.

NUNBERG: Yes, I do.

MELBER: What she is saying is that you may have, put it in the best light possible, you may have a good faith, honest belief in your position and the innocence of your very dear friend, and I think I knew what was fair who is watching, can related to that. It sounds like you care a lot about someone and you think they are in the right.

NUNBERG: He is my mentor and like a father to me.

MELBER: Yes. And I think if anyone`s fair and honest and thinks about the person that in their life it is in that role, they could understand the feeling you have. And yet Maya Wiley is saying something that is broader than that, which is, you have, as I mentioned earlier in the interview, you have an obligation under federal law to comply because it`s not your call or my call or Maya`s call. It is the call of justice, which we have prosecutors charged and forced to adjudicate. What do you say to her point that it`s not your call?

NUNBERG: I say, well, you are right. And it may not be my call, but here`s what I also say. Why do they not indict Podesta? Podesta`s brother?

MELBER: Probably has according to the reports significant foreign lobbying exposure here.

NUNBERG: correct.


NUNBERG: He worked for Manafort.

MELBER: I can`t pre-judge it.


MELBER: Because it is not over.

NUNBERG: Because -- here`s what I would say. And here is where we can agree to disagree. I always find that with these investigations, whether it was scooter Libby, whether they didn`t charge Hillary Clinton, that there`s always a reason that the Democrats don`t get tried and the Republicans do. Now you`re going to laugh at me.

WILEY: I`m going to definitely laugh.

NUNBERG: You are going to laugh at me.

WILEY: Yes, I am.

NUNBERG: But you explain to me why she didn`t get indicted. She hid her emails.

MELBER: I`m going to use moderator`s privilege and say you are trying to change the topic.

NUNBERG: No, I`m not.


The statute is so broad.

MELBER: The reason you are here is, you seem to be taking a position that is befuddling and really affecting a lot of people, and people are wondering, is it the right decision for you and is it the right decision under law.

NUNBERG: And here is - by the way, once again, Roger is my mentor. Roger is like a father to me. I don`t care. They can take down Donald Trump. Take him down. If Donald Trump did something, take him down.

MELBER: So you are saying you would protect Roger but not Trump.

WILEY: I`m not going to go into a grand jury for them to set up a case against Roger, whatever case it is, which could be ridiculous.

WILEY: If it`s ridiculous, there`s no reason for you not to go and help him by sharing what you know. The suggestion and the -- what you`re essentially projecting to me, as an attorney.


WILEY: Is that you are actually protecting him because there is something to protect.

NUNBERG: There`s nothing --

WILEY: So you would do more service to your mentor by demonstrating that he has nothing to fear if, as you say there`s nothing in the emails, you, as far as you know have never seen or heard any contact between him, WikiLeaks, Russians --

NUNBERG: Here`s the problem. The statutes, they take the statutes, as you know as a U.S. attorney, and they`re so broad, they can find a way to just charge --

MELBER: So you are worried, just to be clear, you are worried they could make a case against Roger Stone.

NUNBERG: I`m worried that they are trying to make a case against Roger. That they are maneuvering.

MELBER: And what would that case be built on?

NUNBERG: I have no idea. I have no idea. But it`s ridiculous.

MELBER: Would it relate to WikiLeaks? Would it relate to WikiLeaks?

NUNBERG: It could treat WikiLeaks. And here is the other thing. What I would tell you once again, and I have been very honest here. I was fired, Roger quit. We were treated like crap by Donald Trump. We had -- Roger could have done whatever he wanted. And I had a fight with Roger about this. I was happy to see Trump lose during the summer.

MELBER: Do you think the President saw your last interview on this show?

NUNBERG: He did. And you know what? I don`t care.

MELBER: You know that he did.

NUNBERG: No -- yes, yes.

MELBER: What do you want to say to him tonight?

NUNBERG: I don`t care. You know, I don`t care what he thinks. You know, I don`t care. Once again, I worked for him from 2011 to 2015 in mid `15. He had separate sets of rules for Roger and me. When he hired Corey Lewandowski who he thought left the Kochs to go work for Trump, which he decided. And Corey was fired. And that is a fact. And Corey can come on your show and dispute it. He deiced that we were trash. And then, as I have told you, he treated Michael Cohn very badly.

MELBER: Are you worried about Michael in? Yes.

NUNBERG: Michael, I don`t know --

MELBER: I`m going to bring in a federal prosecutor who also has expertise on this. But let me ask you this question. Does your lawyer think what you are doing now tonight is a good idea?

NUNBERG: I have no idea. I think he may drop me. I don`t know. I know my father (INAUDIBLE).

WILEY: I think your father wants you home for thanksgiving and I hope you will testify.

NUNBERG: Isn`t this ridiculous?

WILEY: No. It is not ridiculous, Sam.

NUNBERG: If this November?

WILEY: It is so not ridiculous.

NUNBERG: November 1, 2015. I talk to Roger 15 times a day from November 1.

WILEY: Well, talking to them and email are two different things. So they could subpoena your phone records as well.

NUNBERG: They are going to welcome to.

WILEY: But my point is if you have email exchanges with him during the period that is under investigation, with people who have clearly been implicated in some way, that doesn`t mean they have committed a crime, but clearly have been implicated in transactions that relate to whether there was a violation of federal law here, then it is a completely reasonable request to ask for those e-mails.

NUNBERG: From November 1, 2015.

NUNBERG: It was the period of the campaign in which there were -- all you have to do is go back to the timeline.

NUNBERG: To the present - by the way, to the present.

WILEY: Yes. That`s common.

MELBER: Let me do this. As promised, hang with me, I want to bring in a former federal prosecutor, Barbara McQuade.

I guess I will begin with a point that Sam raised. Have you ever seen anything quite like this?

BARBARA MCQUADE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: No, I haven`t. Typically, people comply with grand jury subpoenas. You know, there are two bases that a witness can use to object to a grand jury subpoena. One is if they have some sort of privilege like a fifth amendment privilege against self- incrimination, attorney-client spousal privilege or the like or if they believe that the request is unduly burdensome. And the remedy there is to file a motion to quash with the court and ask the court to narrow the scope. If that is granted, then a prosecutor might say we will you for fewer documents if this unduly burdensome.

But other than those circumstances, if a witness refuses, then I do think they face contempt of court and possible jail.

MELBER: And contempt of court as Mr. Nunberg and I were discussing earlier can bring jail.

NUNBERG: I`m not going to jail, come on, Ari. Do I look like I`m going to jail?

MELBER: Let me put it to the federal prosecutor. And you are still here, so you are part of the discussion.

But Barbara, if we take Mr. Nunberg`s argument in the best possible light, as a legal argument, it would be something that you just referred to, which is maybe this is an overbroad request and it should be narrowed. Now typically as I think we all know, and as viewers will know because this does feel so unusual. Typically, that would be a private set of negotiations through lawyers and not played out in public. And from what we know about the Mueller probe that is not the preference of the investigators.

So your view of that aspect of this, Barbara, and what they may or may not or legally could do with a witness who is divulging so much?

MCQUADE: Yes, I mean, the first step would be for a lawyer to communicate with the prosecutor and ask if the scope of the subpoena could be narrowed. If that is refused then to file a motion to quash. But short of that, I think that a judge could very well hold a witness in contempt. And I would think in a case like this where a witness is so publicly defying the subpoena power of the special prosecutor, I would believe that a prosecutor would feel a very strong desire to file charges, to file a motion for contempt, because you have to think about the deterrent effect that that might have on other witnesses out there, not just in this case but in every case going on across the country.

MELBER: So Barbara, another follow-up on that to you and then Mr. Nunberg your response if you want.

But Barbara, what you are saying is under the law, we are not here to predict, but you are saying under the law, based on what`s happening on Mr. Nunberg`s own account that there was one grand jury subpoena documentary deadline that he has passed out today. And the other is testimonial that isn`t going in, that he vows to defy, you are saying they would in their legal rights to file a contempt proceeding at what point?

MCQUADE: Well, I do. You know, again, I think lawyers typically try to work things out. If a witness says I don`t have enough time to go through the email you have requested, you can ask for an extension of time for those things. So there can be an attempt to work things out. I would imagine there would be request, is he really defying our subpoena because I`ve heard a lot of reasons. I`ve heard unreasonable, I`ve also heard, I don`t want to incriminate my mentor, Roger Stone, which would not be an appropriate exercise of the Fifth Amendment right which is about self- incrimination not against incriminating other

So I would want to clearly define what is the basis for your objection, do you just need a little more time or are you truly defying the subpoena? And if it`s the latter, I do think a motion for contempt of court would be appropriate. And you ask about if have you ever seen like this? The one example that comes to mind is Susan McDougal who refused to testify for the Special Counsel in the investigation of Bill Clinton. She was held in contempt and was jailed for 18 months for that contempt.

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: So Sam, your reaction to hearing that laid out here by a federal prosecutor and your reaction to I think the implication of what Ms. McQuade just said which was -- and I`m going to put this -- again, I`m trying to be fair by trying to be accurate.


MELBER: What I`m about to say sounds bad but I`m going to say it to you. The implication of what she is analyzing there under the law is the way you are speaking out and you`ve spoken out several times today, this is not the first time you`ve spoken out today, the way you`re speaking out, she said is actually potentially hurting, undermining the type of case you might make for why you shouldn`t have to testify, because you`re putting forth the idea that you might not want to testify to protect someone else`s conduct.

NUNBERG: Well, I`m not protecting Roger`s conduct. What I would say is, they went after Paul Manafort, they went after Gates. Now, Paul Manafort and Gates, I`ve never spoken to -- I met Paul once at a Yankee ALCS. They went after him from the very beginning for activities earlier than the campaign. If they`re trying to build a case against Roger, I`m not going to be part of it. I`m not. Roger didn`t do anything. Roger didn`t do anything except get treated like crap by Donald Trump, the President.

MELBER: You keep saying you don`t think there will be a consequence. What if the consequence for that is going to jail, Sam?

NUNBERG: They`re not going to send me to jail. You know what, Mr. Mueller, if he wants to send me to jail, he can send me to jail and then I`ll laugh about it, and I`ll make a bigger spectacle than I am on your T.V. show right now.

MELBER: Well, sir, I don`t know what they`re going to do. I don`t know that and I can`t prejudge it.

NUNBERG: I know you can`t. yes.

MELBER: But Ms. McQuade, Barbara, if you would speak to Sam`s point, he`s saying that`s not going to happen. You just outlined again a different case, not a prediction but a different case where the refusal to testify did result in a lengthy time in jail.

MCQUADE: Yes, I don`t want to give Mr. Nunberg legal advice. He should -- certainly should consult with his own lawyer about what he should do in this case, but if his information and his evidence is that Roger Stone did nothing wrong, he should tell that to the grand jury. The grand jury wants to find out the truth. If he`s got information truthfully that can exonerate any of these people, that information is valuable to the grand jury as well.

NUNBERG: Ma`am, how many times do I have to go to the grand jury? What if they want me again? What if -- how many times do I have to go to the grand jury?



WILEY: If the grand jury wanted you again, it would be because there`s additional information forthcoming during the investigation that they did not have the opportunity to ask you about. So I think this is what`s incredibly important here. Sam, you got immunity, so you certainly don`t have any reason not to testify, right? As you told us all today.


WILEY: Not only that, not only that, it actually makes it appear that Roger Stone has something to hide because you will not go testify.

NUNBERG: He has nothing to hide.

WILEY: Well, then go testify.

NUNBERG: You know what? I`ll tell you what, OK, so I don`t mind about testifying. I`m not going to sit there for 80 hours for this document request. I have real work to do. I have to earn a living. I don`t think this is fair. I don`t think it`s fair to ask me, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates -- once again, like I told you, Corey Lewandowski, Hope Hicks, do you think I was talking to Corey and Hope Hicks, I mean, while they were having their affair after they screwed over Roger and me? Give me a break. Carter Page, I never met him.

MELBER: So let me ask you --

NUNBERG: Donald -- by the way, look at this. Donald J. Trump.

MELBER: Donald Trump is number three on the list that you`re releasing.

NUNBERG: That`s -- I think that that`s a problem when they ask that, too. Now, now, I would turn over anything. But --

MELBER: No, you wouldn`t. The whole point, the reason you`re here right now, the reason we`re talking about all this is you`re saying you won`t turn over things. That`s the problem, Sam.

NUNBERG: I`m saying I`m not going to spend 80 hours going over e-mails with Steve Bannon and Roger Stone because my --

MELBER: Let me ask --

NUNBERG: Ari, Ari, Roger and me and Steve, we communicated like 50 times a day.

MELBER: Right, let me -- and we talked about that. This is my final -- my final question.

NUNBERG: Yes, sir.

MELBER: I appreciate you sharing with us your thinking. It is certainly newsworthy. This is the final question to you.

NUNBERG: Yes, sir.

MELBER: And again, I say this, forget the law, forget the journalism, forget that we`re in a T.V. studio.


MELBER: Is it possible as someone listens to you and you talk so much about all of these people and you`ve been through something with them and you feel that you`ve been through something that`s been unfair, is it possible that in the heat ever this you`re having a very strong reaction based on the strong feelings you have and that over time you might come around to a different view of this, is it possible that this is coming in the heat of the moment?

NUNBERG: I think that -- I think that in our discussion and what you said, I would have no problem going to the grand jury, but I once again don`t want to spend 80 hours going over e-mail.

WILEY: You`d rather spend possibly a year in jail than 80 hours going through e-mails?

NUNBERG: I`m not going to -- I`m not going to jail. You think I`m going to jail?

MELBER: Sam Nunberg, Maya Wiley, Barbara McQuade, thank you for --

NUNBERG: If Mueller wants to send me to jail, that is a joke.

MELBER: Sam, you`ve been on the show before you came on a day when you`ve certainly made some news and we appreciate your time. And for those watching, we appreciate you sharing your perspective. What we`re going to do is fit in the first break of the show. It`s a short break and when we come back, I have Evelyn Farkas, Katty Kay, and some other analysts. Again, my thanks to all the panelists. THE BEAT will be right back.



NUNBERG: Because they`re trying to set up a perjury case against Roger Stone and I`m not going to have it. Roger is my mentor. Roger is like family to me, and I`m not going to do it. I`m not going to do it. And Roger did not talk -- Roger may have lied about it, but Roger did not talk --

MELBER: Let me -- are you`re basing that view that they`re going to Rogers--


MELBER: -- by trying to use you to get to Rogers based on a theory or based on the questions they asked you?

NUNBERG: Based on the questions they asked me. I have no idea in advance what they wanted for the grand jury, but what they did tell me was I wasn`t going to be a subject or target and I was going to get the same kind of immunity. But they wanted something. Now Ari, let me just say something - -

MELBER: They offered you immunity?



MELBER: Well, the Trump aide Sam Nunberg saying moments ago he was offered immunity in the Russia Special Counsel probe. I`m joined now by Katty Kay, the Anchor for BBC World News America, Evelyn Farkas who was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia issues as well as Wall Street Journal Reporter Shelby Holliday. Evelyn, I`ll start with you thinking about the wider dynamics given the Russia probe and what we keep learning from witnesses. Most don`t speak on T.V. like this, although many have --


MELBER: Carter has with Chris Hayes, my colleague, but also, it is not only that Sam Nunberg is speaking in the way he speaks, it is that he is revealing in whatever his way, what these prosecutors are being looking at, if he is -- if he is to be believed that Roger Stone figures in to a degree that he believes that`s why they wanted to the bring him in to the grand jury on Friday, to lay down potential evidence, what does that say to you?

FARKAS: First of all it says to me that this goes back at least to 2015 if not before, because he`s asking for all those e-mails going back to 2015. And by that way, it`s unclear to me because I didn`t get to see the subpoena how -- where does it end? So does it go all the way to the present day, where he`s you know, e-mailing with Roger Stone reacting to the Mueller investigation itself because that would be very interesting? But I think what it tells us is, frankly speaking, I mean, there`s --

MELBER: It goes to the present.

FARKAS: Yes, OK, so again, then in real time we will see Roger Stone reacting and others, Steve Bannon reacting, to the whole list of people reacting to the Mueller investigation itself. And if could I just make a comment about his very daring, you know, initial statement that he`s not going to turn over these documents and that he doesn`t think he`ll be brought to jail, Robert Mueller has a lot more going on than worrying about Sam Nunberg. And he will use Sam Nunberg as an example if he needs to and have no compunction about calling the guy out and putting him in jail if he`s in contempt of court.

MELBER: Shelby, take a listen to another part of this interview.


NUNBERG: I`m not going to answer something so wide as this. This is so ridiculous. I`m not going to give them every e-mail I had with Steve Bannon and Roger Stone. I communicate with them every day.


MELBER: He`s in daily communication he says, with those two key players. Roger Stone being one that he says didn`t do anything wrong but needs to "protect."

SHELBY HOLLIDAY, REPORTER, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Right. I think it`s interesting that he`s pointing out those two people because if you look at the subpoena, there are ten people on the list. Mueller wants to have his communications with, he continues to talk about Roger Stone and Steve Bannon. We know that Roger Stone is really important because he could sit at the crux of this investigation into coordination with Russia. Roger Stone`s communications with WikiLeaks. We`ve heard Julian Assange`s name dropped today. So that is a very important figure. I also think it`s interesting that Steve Bannon, he`s making such a big deal about Steve Bannon. Because all along Steve Bannon has said, you know, I came onto the campaign after the convention. I had nothing to do with the Trump Tower meeting, nothing do with the platform change and Ukraine. And that may very well be true, but it is very interesting that there`s some worry about the communications of Steve Bannon and Sam Nunberg. And we also know that Mueller has a lot of these communications. I mean, Sam told you very plainly that Mueller already has, based on the charts he was showing and the information that he had, Mueller`s got a lot. It almost seems like a P.R. campaign really to protect Roger Stone is what this all feels like. Mueller can certainly get Sam Nunberg`s communications even if Sam Nunberg defies the subpoena. Mueller has a way to get it.

MELBER: Has a way to get it, and Katty Kay, as Sam Nunberg himself said, has it. I mean, one of the fascinating parts of this, for viewers who watch and say OK, is there a part of this that seems very elaborate, dramatic or spectacle, which may be the case. And that can often be the case in -- with political communicators. We`re also learning very important new things about the timeline, about who is being targeted, and I don`t mean targeted as a --as a criminal target, but I mean, who`s being looked at, those ten names, and then him saying who he`s in touch with, and then him saying, Katty that he believes Bob Mueller already has their private communications based on the questioning he just went through. Your view down in Washington about how Mueller`s investigators are assessing Sam Nunberg`s public comments tonight.

KATTY KAY, ANCHOR, BBC WORLD NEWS: Well, first of all, I think I`ve never said this to a fellow host before, but congratulations. That was an extraordinary piece of television and I`m very envious. I`ve never been handed a grand jury, a federal (INAUDIBLE) subpoena on the set before. That was extraordinary from start to finish, his state of mind. The fact that he thinks he can possibly defy the Special Counsel. How on earth does he think that? And they already have his communications and can get them anyway. At the end of the interview, I thought it was quite telling, he almost seemed to turn a little bit. I don`t know if you heard that, Ari, but he seemed to be suggesting that he would actually be prepared to go and testify if it didn`t take up too much of his time, but he would actually go before the grand jury on Friday. Maybe he was coming to a realization of serious his position is. There is no way that Bob Mueller is going to let somebody get away with this kind of dare that he won`t be arrested if he does defy the Special Counsel because he has a ton of other people that he needs to interview, and he wouldn`t want that to be a possible model for them. So I got the sense at the very end of that that he was starting to think actually this could be a lot more serious than he came into that interview thinking. There just seemed to me to be a switch at the end of that interview.

MELBER: Yes, and I`ve seen him as a person go back and forth. And again, my effort is to be clear about the facts and to be respectful in the context of what he is still saying, which is potentially choosing to violate federal launch which is a biggie. I will tell you as he was offset and we were still on the record, he just said as he said to me before, well, what do you think they`re going to do? And so, there`s that aspect of him as well. Katty, take a listen to that other key moment from the interview, here.


NUNBERG: They know that I didn`t collude, and we did not collude with Russia. That`s not fair to me.

MELBER: Well, the short -- the short -- let me -- let me try to be fair. The short answer for me is I don`t know because I`m not inside the probe but let me put it this way to you. Are you aware that they may already have all of that --

NUNBERG: I think they do. They definitely --- they definitely had -- they definitely had Roger Stone`s e-mails.

MELBER: And so, one of the ways --

NUNBERG: They asked me questions about Roger Stone`s e-mail -- they asked me questions about Roger and me that they would only have had Roger`s e- mails.

MELBER: The questions they asked you in your previous interview suggest they were already reading your private communications with Roger Stone?

NUNBERG: Yes, sir.

MELBER: Shelby, you`re view of that.

HOLLIDAY: Well, I think what Katty actually brought up is a really interesting point because I`ve been e-mailing with law professors today, and they said, you know, he very well could be intending to comply with the subpoena but he wants to do this whole P.R. stunt first. And there could be implications for that but it very much seems like for whatever reason, whatever the motive, he`s out there to clear Roger Stone`s name and I can`t figure out any reason why he would doing this.

MELBER: And he was quite direct that anyone watching who doesn`t know the whole back story would understand there`s a serious link between these two men.

FARKAS: Yes, there were two points he really wanted to make. One was that Roger Stone is his mentor and friend and he will not sell him down the river. The second was that there are too many e-mails for him to look at, except that in some cases, he doesn`t e-mail with some of the people. So he seemed to be worried about money and about Roger Stone. He may actually take the fall and try go to jail Susan McDougal style, who knows.

MELBER: Right, and Katty Kay, the other thing that we didn`t get to yet with 30 seconds is he said his view based on the questioning was that the probe is look more at the Trump organization than at the campaign.

KAY: Yes, but I don`t know if he knows that. I think, he was fairly hedgy about what he actually was had taken away from his session with Mueller and I wasn`t clear that was -- he`s speaking on very solid ground there about what he knows about what they know or what they`re looking for.

MELBER: Right, and that`s a good dose of context as well, skepticism. Katty Kay, Evelyn Farkas, and Shelby Holliday, part of our special coverage of this unusual interview, thank you very much. What we`re doing next is a brand-new segment launching for the very first time on this day, this Monday on THE BEAT. Stay tuned.


MELBER: It`s Monday on THE BEAT and now we are doing something new for Mondays. We want to take a moment to look at who is real and looking ahead at what is going to get real, and at what we should can keep our eye on sometimes if we can because it matters. This is "THE REAL LIST." Wow. And we have cool guests for "THE REAL LIST." Liz Plank from Vox Media and Baratunde Thurston, the Comedian and New York Times best-selling Author. And listen, we got our own music.


LIZ PLANK, CORRESPONDENT, VOX: I like it. It`s like faster. It`s a little faster. I like it.

THURSTON: Is it faster or like a little slower?

MELBER: Faster than what?

THURSTON: The other one.

PLANK: The old list, the old song.

THURSTON: Yes, the other thing we used to come on.



MELBER: This is a totally different --

PLANK: Sorry. We weren`t supposed to talk about it.

THURSTON: We have to act like it doesn`t exist.

MELBER: This is -- hold on, hold on. This is Monday. This is not a second "FALLBACK FRIDAY." "THE REAL LIST" is its own new thing.

PLANK: OK. I`m sorry. I`m confused. There`s a lot of weird thing happening today. I don`t know if you`d notice.

THURSTON: Yes, we`re all a little confused about what just happened.

MELBER: A lot just happened. A lot just happened but this is "THE REAL LIST" on Mondays and it`s a chance to look at -- we hope things are actually important. Baratunde, who`s on your "REAL LIST"?

THURSTON: The top of my "REAL LIST" is Comedian and Oscar superstar Tiffany Haddish. She keeps it real. She is super open and non-diva like and the way she and Maya Rudolph held the stage last night was pure magic. You`ve got to see it.


MAYA RUDOLPH, AMERICAN ACTRESS: A few years ago, people were saying that Oscars were so White. And since then some real progress has been made.

TIFFANY HADDISH, AMERICAN COMEDIAN: But we -- when we came out together, we know some of you were thinking are the Oscars too black now?


THURSTON: Tiffany is amazing. She wore the same dress. She promised that she was going do that. She acknowledged she spent $4,000 and wearing this on every award show ever. And this idea of kind of like the racial agreement and backlash, even on something like the Oscars, I think she playfully acknowledged white people still have power. It`s OK. Like, you`ve got to headsets. You`ve got the Director`s chair for the most part. Most of the producing spots are still run by white folks, especially rich white dudes. So even using that opportunity to poke a little fun but also be super real about where the real power in Hollywood actually lies.

MELBER: Right. And what you`re talking about is that she did in this very understandable way, but it`s about the backlash to the backlash.

THURSTON: Absolutely.

MELBER: I`m not even going to bring up black history month and what people say about that sometimes.

THURSTON: Right. Why do we have a--

MELBER: Yes, I`m not even doing that. And by the way, the music is faster.

PLANK: OK. I`m ready. OK.

MELBER: Do we have it? No, we don`t have it ready.

PLANK: I always have it in my head when I wake up in the morning.

THURSTON: Always. It`s in my heart actually.

PLANK: Yes, it is. Me too, actually, my head and my heart.

MELBER: Who`s on your list?

PLANK: My list, I mean, you. You are at the top for that interview. That was extraordinary. And after you is Collete DeVito, this woman that I recently got the pleasure and honor to meet. She is a young woman who lives in Boston. She has downs syndrome and has her own cookie business. Yes, she is a bad ass female. I love female entrepreneurs but she has to be one of my favorite ones. She -- I covered her story on the United States of Women and it basically helped me combine all of my favorite things which is ladies, cookies and eating on the job. I ate so many cookies. They are so good. You can order them online and support a woman who also wants to hire other people with disabilities because it`s very hard to find a job if you have a disability. In fact, it is totally illegal to pay people with disabilities less than the minimum wage in the United States because of a legal loophole in the law. And so she is really making a difference.

MELBER: I love you bring -- it`s perfect. I love -- no, I`m serious. I love you bringing that and having us all think about that. You have a group of people I know on your list as well?

THURSTON: You had a couple of groups. I`m not sure which ones you referred to.

MELBER: I`m thinking of the teachers.

THURSTON: I`m going to West Virginia, to the teachers of West Virginia who have stood tall for better wages, for less crappy health care premiums and for being treated with a sense of respect by the public servants who don`t consider themselves to be that. So the solidarity that the teachers of West Virginia have shown with other workers, the fact that even on their strike, they`re providing school lunches and daycare to their students that are in their care and they`re calling out the hypocrisy of their governor who owes a million dollars in back taxes and wants to talk about being responsible with the money in the state.

MELBER: And that`s important and that`s one of the stories that is "local" but it`s not. It has national implications. I`ll do mine real quick. Everyone saw I think by now Frances McDormand at the Oscars. All I`m going to say is contract law, everybody. What? I know riders would be so important but she did something amazing for all the obvious reasons that we saw, and it was courageous but it also took to it the details and the follow-through. And that`s on my "REAL LIST" because you have to follow through. You have to make it real. She did that in a very real way. Inclusion Riders, shout out to Inclusion Riders, OK. Law school up in here.

THURSTON: Google searches for Inclusion Riders spiked so hard last night.

MELBER: I was going to say, Baratunde, you don`t know -- you don`t know how nerdy it gets here but you kind of --

THURSTON: I think I do. I`ve been around a couple of times.

MELBER: Liz and Baratunde, thank you both. We will be right back.


MELBER: Quite a way to start the week. Former Trump Aide Sam Nunberg, here he is leaving our MSNBC studio. He`s walking out after that interview. He is now I can tell you the top trending story in the country on Twitter. He also made some news saying he won`t comply with the subpoena.


NUNBERG: They`re not going to send me to jail. You know what, Mr. Mueller, if he wants to send me to jail, he can send me to jail and then I`ll -- and then I`ll laugh about it, and I`ll make a bigger spectacle than I am on your T.V. show right now.


MELBER: We will stay on the story. That does it --