Show: THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER Date: July 10, 2018 Guest: David Rothkopf; Frank Figliuzzi; Jonathan Chait; Ilyse Hogue; Elliot Williams; Vince Warren
KATY TUR, MSNBC HOST: That is all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow with more MTP DAILY.
In the meantime, THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER starts right now.
Good evening, Ari.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Katy. You know, it seems to me that your love for the world cup could eliminate all of our bantering if it were an all year long type of thing.
TUR: Maybe I`ll keep doing it.
MELBER: You look so happy. I feel more guilty about trying to create the awkward toss that has become my --
TUR: You know, I had the most awkward -- like severely deeply uncomfortable toss with Peter Alexander at the top of the show which makes our tosses look like a walk in the park.
MELBER: Well, you know what they call that? It`s made out of turtle meet, it`s an awkward turtle sandwich if you have awkward on both ends of the broadcast.
TUR: Am I doing that right?
MELBER: Good to seeing you as always.
TUR: See you later.
MELBER: We turn now [from the goofy to the serious with breaking news.
I can report that just moments ago Paul Manafort`s lawyers say they are, and I`m quoting basically, their arguments, worried about Paul Manafort`s current safety behind bars, a serious thing for any lawyer to file. The context is that earlier today, a judge was ordering Manafort to be moved to a new jail as he awaits his much-anticipated trial which that itself might seem like a win for Manafort`s team, his lawyers have been arguing the current jail was too far away for their preparations. But now, they have apparently change their minds.
Here it is. Moments ago, Manafort`s lawyers asked the judge to let him to stay where he is saying moving could risks his safety. Quote "concerns about his safety."
Also today, guilty Trump aide Michael Flynn back in court. This is the first time since he was in court long ago in December to plead guilty in the first place. His lawyer telling the judge that Flynn is cooperating and is eager to move on to the sentencing phase. No sign though of what will transpire.
All of that is the backdrop, the legal wrangling, of these different Trump aides, one guilty, one in denials maintaining his innocence with someone else breaking their silence who is key to Mueller`s investigation. A Russian who is admitting setting up that now infamous meeting at Trump tower. Russian pop star Emin Agalarov who has been linked to Trump confirming in a new interview with "Vise News" (ph) that it was his father, a Russian oligarch who asked him to organized this meeting between Trump Jr. and that infamous Kremlin-link lawyer. But they denied knowing who is really behind all of it and laughed off accusations that there was any attempt to influence the U.S. election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMIN AGALAROV, RUSSIAN POP STAR: I have been accused of influencing the -- this is going to sound very strange. Influencing the American election. Me, this guy here from Azerbaijan living in Moscow. Because I know personally Mr. Donald Trump who is the current President of the United States for those who are not familiar with him. Just because he appeared in one of my videos and I hosted with him miss universe in 2013 from Moscow.
Apparently during those three days we rigged the American election and helped him become President of the United States. So it is quite strange, you know, these accusations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: He may be a little more lawyerly than he looks because what was just said is not, of course, precisely the accusation. And what`s strange is the meeting that was orchestrated at Trump tower. On that, he is not saying much although there is, of course, some attempt here to come out of the woodwork. Because in a new interview with ABC, he won`t explain why an aide to his father`s business attended the Trump tower meeting. Also would not comment on the substance of the meeting which is pretty important, but notes something that everyone has been tracking here in the United States, he asserts that he has not spoken to Mueller.
I`m joined now by former Watergate special prosecutor Nick Ackerman, David Rothkopf who is visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Frank Figliuzzi, a former assistant FBI director for counter intel.
Several topics to get to within some of the developing news tonight.
But Nick, let`s begin with what Paul Manafort`s lawyers are doing.
NICK ACKERMAN, FORMER WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: Yes. It is hard to say. I mean, they really wanted to get him closer to the courthouse just because it`s a major pain in the neck to have to travel all that distance. Once you get to a prison you have to go through a whole security procedure. You have to be loud into the prison. You go through several different doors and lock behind you. And then you got to wait for your client to show up. It is not an easy thing to prepare for trial on a defendant who is incarcerated.
MELBER: When they say concerns about his safety, what do we make of that?
ACKERMAN: Well, it is not just safety. They said it was also because he didn`t want to get used to a new place. So for him, you don`t know it was f it was concerns about his safety or he just didn`t want to go to a new hotel that he wasn`t used to. I mean, you really can`t tell from that. I mean, if I were the judge and looking at this, I would say the guy just wasn`t want to move and he is comfortable where he is right now. And he really doesn`t care if his lawyers have to travel and go through all that grief to get through him to prepare.
MELBER: Frank, Nick maybe using the words comfortable in hotel loosely. Given my familiarity with federal detention facilities, they are not easy especially if you are not accustomed to them. But what do you think Paul Manafort`s lawyers are doing here and why this kind of wrangling typically in a high profile case you try to minimize pre-trial motions that could be misinterpreted and focus on getting your client ready.
FRANK FIGLIUZZI, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE: Something is not right with this picture, Ari. So it`s totally understandable that they want proximity to their lawyers. They would want proximity to D.C. So I get that motion. That makes sense to me.
This late -- this last-minute development that now somehow Alexandria is not going to be sufficient and may be because of its safety doesn`t ring true and here`s why. Some of the most notorious Washington, D.C. area subjects, detainees, including Robert Hanson, notorious spy, FBI executive, were housed there temporarily and they did OK. You can segregate people appropriately.
So this sounds to be more, as Nick is saying, is some kind of Manafort issue or court where he just doesn`t want to be moved right now. And some of us may be spin where we are seeing the, you know, a public that wants to let the public think he is some kind of beleaguered victim that gets moved around and is somehow endangered.
MELBER: And this goes, Nick, to the two chess pieces that are seem to me to be very important on the board. What happens to Paul Manafort`s trial? Does it put extra pressure on him? And what happens in, if course, Michael Cohen`s situation as he continues to speak out and say that maybe he won`t be so loyal to Donald Trump anymore.
The way they put it again when sometimes people watch they say why is there more news about Paul Manafort? Well, because of what Paul Manafort is doing. I just want to in fairness read to exactly what he says.
In light of Manafort`s continuing detention and after further reflection, his lawyers say issues of distance and inconvenience must yield to concerns about his safety and more importantly, the challenges he will face, as you put it Nick, in adjusting to a new place of confinement and the changing circumstance of detention two weeks before trial.
Put this in the broader context of what we are going to see if the trial starts on time and the kind of case they have against him which I understand it has a lot of paper evidence that`s bad for him.
ACKERMAN: That`s right. I mean, this time I think the trial is going to move ahead. He has another motion to try and change the venue to another location in Virginia because there are many Democrats supposedly in the district where he is going to be tried in Alexandria.
The fact of the matter is, that will all be taken care of during the jury voir dire (ph) when they pick the jury, you question the jurors. Mueller has already submitted to the judge a pretty extensive questionnaire that will really be able to ferret out anybody who cannot be fair and impartial. They ask all kinds of questions that the jurors will be able to write down their answers to.
So I think what you are going to see is this trial is going ahead. In truth and reality, the lawyers probably do not need that much time with Manafort anymore. It is a document case. I mean, there is now cross- examination of witnesses. You can`t cross-examine a document. The document speaks for itself. And they are just going to be putting into evidence one document after another. In terms of any kind of real defense here, the defense, the lawyers, they have relied on lawyers, they have got a mind for the lawyers.
MELBER: And before I go to David on foreign policy, you don`t think they will put Paul Manafort on the stand, do you?
ACKERMAN: I would never think that he would take the stand. They would just then take all of the documents again and put them under his face and say did you sign this? Did you sign this? If he doesn`t admit it then he is going to look like a total fool. And if he does admit it, he is going to look like a fool, too, because he is guilty.
MELBER: David, I come to you with another character in this international tour of mystery, the Agalarovs are not household names in America. Although, there is international entertainment quality to it all.
DAVID ROTHKOPF, VISITING SCHOLAR, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: Have you heard this guy sing?
MELBER: You know, I like music. I haven`t heard his work that much.
ROTHKOPF: No. If you had, you would know why he wasn`t a household name.
MELBER: Well, there you go. A little shade. A little rolling stone side of it.
Walk us to what`s importantly here and the way he seems to be, to put it bluntly, playing dumb.
ROTHKOPF: Well, I`m not sure he is playing dumb but, you know, I think that, you know, he has to admit his role. He admitted to (INAUDIBLE) and then went on to deny, you know, any of the substance.
I think he is sort of laughing off the idea that he was trying to manipulate the election is in itself laughable. Of course, he wasn`t. The Russian government was doing it. The Russian government asked his father to set up the meeting. It was part of a pattern of efforts that the Russian government has undertaken in order to manipulate the election. He is a bit part in this. He is kind of a spear carrier in this. And he will disappear into the midst. But you know, we are so hungry these days for any bit of information that moves us a little closer to understanding what the Russian timeline was. What the Russians were that we sort of grab on to it.
MELBER: Hungry and thirsty.
ROTHKOPF: Yes. Well, you know, I think that the reality is he`s going to fade back into the background pretty soon and we are going to get on the Manafort trial which is going to reveal a great deal. And then we are going to get to the next phases of the Mueller investigation.
MELBER: I also wonder what it would be like, this is more of a psychological question but given your familiarity with that part of the world, we have read accounts that Russia and other countries use intermediaries cut outs and assets, and there`s a term unwitting asset, right, to get things done. I guess you could have imagine that certain people end up in that situation and then afterwards there sort of hearing about themselves and they don`t know what to believe in that information and they don`t know what to believe. Were they an unwitting asset or not?
ROTHKOPF: Well, I think that is right. And I think that what we have seen, and all the evidence points to it with regard to the meddling in the U.S. election is that the Russians were doing everything in their power to put their thumb on the scale of the elections. They were channels money to Trump through the NRA, through other areas. They were using cyber. They were using information warfare. They were using trolls. They were setting up these meetings. They were reaching out through WikiLeaks. They were reaching out through pressure from oligarchs whether it`s Deripaska with Manafort or others. They were trying to put their people in place.
Every place they could get their, you know, sort of claws into this, they tried to get their claws into it. It was comprehensive. It is not to say that it was all coordinated. You know, they didn`t know what was going to work and what wasn`t going to work.
MELBER: Right. They were throwing a lot at the wall.
With that in mind, Frank, also take a listen to his discussion about one of the more salacious and completely unverified parts of the dossier in this new interview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AGALAROV: Mr. Trump came to Moscow with 87 most beautiful ladies in the world of that year. Ms. Brazil, Ms. Argentina, Ms. USA, Ms. Great Britain, Ms. Blah, blah, blah. And even if I were to be even think that, I would never even offer it because I can never live up to the high level of the most amazing and beautiful women surrounding us constantly. I think any, you know, really successful people are interested in buying sex.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Right.
FIGLIUZZI: So, look, we just talked about cutouts and co-optees (ph) and bit players. And this young man is having his 15 minutes of fame, but he wouldn`t know what happened that night at that hotel room or whether the bodyguard of Trump was approached and this offer was made or not. And we just can`t believe him nor can we expect that he would know everything the Russian intelligence service is doing.
What I took out of this interview, by the way, of this young man was further confirmation where he says that the Trump campaign approached the Russians needing help to get the Russian American vote and that`s when they got hooked up with VK (ph), this Russian social media entity. That was an interesting statement. This business of I don`t know anything about prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton Moscow, that means nothing.
MELBER: Yes. And briefly, what does that even mean that you want a foreign country`s help to get the foreign or immigrant nationals in this country to vote for you? It`s weird.
FIGLIUZZI: So I wonder if he need help with Italian-Americans or Polish- American for that matter and why the focus on Russian-Americans and why he asked this young man, let`s make sure to invite Putin to the Miss Universe pageant. Something not right with this picture. Why the focus on Russians? We will figure that out and that`s what Mueller is working on.
MELBER: Right. I mean, it is almost -- it`s the kind of defense that`s so dumb you feel dumb disproving it but to extend your logic there are many Hispanic-American people in the United States with links to Mexico that vote that was not the same operation to get help from the Mexican government to say the least.
Frank Figliuzzi, David Rothkopf and Nick Ackerman, my thanks to all of you for your expertise.
Coming up, many new fears about what Trump will do in this private meeting with Putin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Putin. Frankly Putin may be the easiest of them all. Who would think? Who would think?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: And Democrats demanding Trump`s new Supreme Court pick recuse himself from any issues that arise out of Mueller`s Russia probe. That`s their big argument today.
And new outrage over Trump`s advice to migrant kids as he misses a key court-ordered deadline to reunite them with their parents.
I`m Ari Melber and you are watching THE BEAT on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: Today Donald Trump leads on a foreign trip that includes a NATO summit, meetings in London and his sit down with Vladimir Putin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you say Vladimir Putin a friend or foe?
TRUMP: I really can`t say right now, as far as I`m concerned, a competitor. So I have NATO, I have the U.K. which is in what turmoil and I have Putin. Frankly, Putin may be the easiest of them all, who would think? Who would think?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Others are not as sure about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), MINORITY LEADER: And I`m worried the word on the President`s lips would be da, yes, to anything that Putin says so I don`t think he should be alone with him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Trump aligning with Putin on key foreign policy issues these days. They criticized NATO, calling for Russia to be readmitted to the G-7, and then of course, the ongoing debates over sanctions. Meanwhile, saying Crimea is part of Russia because most people there speak Russian.
Trump also called members of his own administration reportedly stupid for trying to prevent a Putin phone call and Trump, of course, we know often praises Putin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I respect Putin. He is a strong leader I can tell you that.
I would say because Putin is a nicer person that I am.
BILL O`REILLY, FORMER FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Putin is a killer.
TRUMP: A lot of killers. Why, you think our country is so innocent?
It would be great if we could get along with Russia just so you understand that. It`s not terrible, it`s good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: This is a story Donald Trump has been fuelling in his decades- worth of personal, financial and now political links to Russia have come out piecemeal which is part of the evidence in a very provocative but somewhat hypothetical at times article by John Chait in "New York" magazine. This one making waves where Chait writes it would be dangerous not to consider the possibility that the summit is less a negotiation between two heads of state than a meeting between a Russian intelligence asset and his handler.
Joining me now on THE BEAT is the author of this article, John Chait. Thanks for coming on the show.
JONATHAN CHAIT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Thanks for having me.
MELBER: There is much that has been discussed about this, the Trump/Russia relationship and intrigue, writing about that is a little bit like writing about God. You are working with territory that has been covered by other writers. But you made a lot of ways here and you have done something provocative. What are you really saying through this article? And what are you hoping to engender?
CHAIT: Well, what I`m trying to address is I think a few problems with the way we have been thinking about this issue for the last two years. One is that the story has all come out piecemeal, bit by bit. So even when a bombshell comes it just drops into this hot news environment and everyone freaks out for a day, for a night and then we are on to the next thing. And a lot of these stories just get forgotten. So one, they tied all together.
Number two, it seems to me that we are suffering all along from the same myopic problem of assuming that the truth lies one step ahead of where we are and we have taken a lot of steps so far. So maybe we should stop assuming that and try to, if we take it all together and think where might it go, not necessarily where will it go. Let`s stop focusing on what is the most likely scenario and think about what if it goes farther than we think? It`s worth sometimes considering risks of outcomes that aren`t the most likely outcome because as I mention the piece before the election, you knew that there was about an 80 percent chance that Clinton would win according to people who sort of crunched the numbers. And everyone treated that 20 percent chance of Trump winning like it was zero. And that was not the way to approach it. So in that spirit I`m trying to piece it all together and think what if this really goes far based on the evidence what would that look like?
MELBER: And what does the worst-case scenario look like in your view?
CHAIT: The worst-case scenario would be that Trump has been deeply compromised by Russia either through blackmail or through financial leverage or through both. It might go back to the 1990s when he couldn`t lend from other sources and needed Russian money. It might even go back as far as 1987. I wouldn`t bet that way but that`s possible because in 1987 that`s when he visited Moscow and came back and really started talking for the first time about how America`s allies are a bunch of dead weight and why are they taking our money. And why are we protecting them?
MELBER: If there`s hard evidence of that, how many people in the world do you think know it?
CHAIT: Not many. And you know, there is this Mueller investigation and it is probably going to find out a lot. But it might not find that out. But it`s still worth exploring whether that is what is actually at the bottom of all this.
But you are right. If that`s the case, it`s probably locked up in Moscow and is probably going to stay that way.
MELBER: Right. And the way you write it is alarming although there are caveats and careful notes in the piece, but it does raise profound questions that go well before 2016. I thought that was a contribution you made. We have had a lot of discussion meddling. You were looking much farther back at the way Donald Trump rolls so to speak.
Jonathan Chait, thank you for joining us.
CHAIT: Thank you, Ari.
MELBER: Up ahead on THE BEAT, we are now days away from the Trump baby blimp taking flight. London`s mayor taking on critics here in the United States.
Also, Trump missing today`s deadline to do something very important, reunite those kids ripped away from their parents by his policies.
But first, Democrats now on offense and they have a new argument for why Donald Trump`s Supreme Court pick announced last night should not be confirmed. What they are saying when we are back in 60 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: The other top story tonight, how Democrats are waging war on Trump`s high court pick. Issues like abortion and health care have already mobilized a lot of concern on the left. But now, the Democrats` opening punch goes farther than policy, alleging Donald Trump may have made this pick with corrupt intent, building a kind of a wall to defend himself against further problems or even prosecution in the Mueller probe.
Now, before we go any further, let`s be clear even for a President who piece been credibly accused of meddling in open criminal investigations, this new charge from Democrats is serious. It requires evidence to be taken seriously. But it also shows the unusual era we are living in right now and clearly the intensity of many Democrats` opposition to this nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh who is making his way to Capitol Hill today for meetings working on the nomination, all amidst reports that millions will be spent on this fight.
Now, Kavanaugh is known for scholarly and strongly conservative opinions including sometimes breaking with his own colleagues to stake out positions that are seen as conservative and pro-life. But what is interesting tonight is Democrats not only are looking at his ideology, but to his alleged partisanship.
The line of attack is that his views may just shift based on what the Republican Party wants. Democrats say Kavanaugh was a slashing partisan prosecutor when he worked for controversial independent council Ken Starr investigating Bill Clinton. That was an entire probe, of course, built on a premise that a President can be investigated while in office and which featured Kavanaugh saying he was opposed to giving the President any break.
But after that case led to the impeachment of a, yes, Democratic President, Kavanaugh moved on to a position well welcomed by Trump allies today writing Presidents should generally be exempt while in office from criminal investigations and testifying along similar lines.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAVANAUGH: Impeachment and then conviction take into account more than just facts. It wasn`t just a simple question of whether there was a violation of law committed but there are considerations for the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That is all the kind of ammunition Democrats are seizing on right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHUMER: The thing the President is most obsessed with is the Mueller investigation and Kavanaugh is the strongest against such an investigation.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He thinks Congress should pass specific legislation to insulate the President from either criminal or civil processes while in office.
SEN. CORY BOOKER (D), NEW JERSEY: This seems to be of all the people the most self-serving person he could choose in order to protect himself from this criminal investigation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: A Senate Democrat and former prosecutor himself Richard Blumenthal will join me in just a moment on all this.
But first, I want to bring in attorney Vince Warren who runs the center for constitutional rights, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams and Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL, pro-choice America which works with Planned Parenthood.
Let me start with you. Is this the right tack?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: There`s a lot of reasons to go after this nominee potentially. And what -- given the length of his paper trail and given all that might be found when the Democrats actually take a look at it, you know, certainly they should take a look at his partisan background.
Every partisan fight over potentially the last 10 or 20 years, if you notice he has been a bit player or a player to it. So potentially, that could be Bush versus Gore. That could be -- questions over interrogation and detention and all of these are going to show up in his record. So certainly, it behooves the Democrats in the senate to take a close look at his record and really see what they can find.
MELBER: As a lawyer I can`t help but observe you didn`t answer the question. Is this attack that he is a rank partisan Republican the right place to start, yes or no?
WILLIAMS: It is a place to start.
MELBER: It is a place to start.
Moving on. Vince, same question for you and I know there are certain issues that your organizations works on. And I should mention full disclosure many years ago I worked there at center for constitutional rights. But is this the right place to start?
VINCE WARREN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: I think it is the right place to start. And there are couple of reasons for this.
Number one is that when Donald Trump says that he is going to appoint somebody that is going to get to Roe versus Wade and Obamacare we should believe him. We also know enough about this President to be able to intuit that his game plan at least is to appoint someone who is going to give him a personally good outcome. I think that is something that we can, you know, take to the bank.
The next question of whether Kavanaugh is going to flip and mold himself based on those (INAUDIBLE) is slightly harder question. But based on his record, I see nothing in his record in that would show to me, at least, that he would not expand presidential power to the benefit of this president. That he would not move forward a lot of the issues that Donald Trump thinks are really important.
And as such, I think the President has essentially nominated his own savior.
MELBER: His own savior.
And Elise, I want to get your views, and we have had you on the show, of course, to talk about women`s rights in this context and we will get to that. But first, taka a listen to Chuck Schumer again, out here the person making this argument and leading on this idea that it`s a kind of corrupt choice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHUMER: He said the President shouldn`t be investigated. He`s gone so far as to say a President if he declares a law unconstitutional doesn`t have to obey it. How is he going to react if Mueller needs a subpoena, if Mueller need some other action? He is probably the most extreme and it wouldn`t surprise me if that was very important to Donald Trump, knowing Donald Trump, and I have no proof, do you think he didn`t inquire about this either directly or indirectly knowing Donald Trump?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Elise?
ILYSE HOGUE, PRESIDENT OF NARAL, PRO-CHOICE AMERICA WHICH WORKS WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Yes. I mean, look. I think if Donald Trump`s obsession with self-preservation and Mike Pence`s obsession with controlling women had a love child that would be Brett Kavanaugh. We have literally seen Mike Pence right before I went on this show doubling down on his desire to gut Roe versus Wade criminalize abortion. At the same time we know this president will do everything he can to avoid investigation and as Senator Schumer said expand his powers. I think these are complementary arguments. People care about an independent judiciary. They also care about women`s capacity to have personal freedoms and freedom over our future. These aren`t actually left positions, these are very mainstream American positions.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Right that`s certainly the case especially if the Democrats sort of have a multi-prong attack and explain what it means to overturn Roe throughout the land. Vince, obviously all serious legal issues are adjudicated on the view and that`s where you`ll find Alan Dershowitz but although he has been very supportive of things that helped the White House, he himself what was not warm on this pick. Take a look at Alan Dershowitz on The View.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: I wouldn`t have nominated Kavanaugh. It wouldn`t have been my choice.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why?
DERSHOWITZ: He might have to recuse himself based on what he is previously written.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That is subtraction for this recusal argument and it could be the Supreme Court that ultimately has the final word if Mueller pushes it on whether this president has to go to the grand jury.
VINCENT WARREN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: It might be. It might also be the first thing that Alan Dershowitz and I have ever agreed on in the history of jurisprudence. But I think it is important piece particularly around his -- Kavanaugh has loved, his passionate love for expanding presidential power particularly the presidential power of the president that he is employed by or that he`s been nominated.
MELBER: Right, I mean you`re speaking to the point. There`s the power theories and you have those big debates. It`s -- the court has held that for example in the war-making power that the drone power is not easy to question regardless of who`s president. The Democrats are singling out that Kavanaugh didn`t seem to feel as strongly about this when Bill Clinton was president.
WARREN: No that`s definitely true but I think we also have to expand it out to look at what presidential power does. So in the context of Guantanamo detainees and torture actually Judge Kavanagh was a Judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals that dismissed a case that we had that the Center for Constitutional Rights with over 200 victims of torture in Abu Ghraib prison. This is a this is a man who looks clearly at what he sees as the rules that are the most open and available to the President to be able to establish that kind of presidential power really without regard of the human beings that it`s that it affects.
MELBER: And the flip side though is that this is a respected scholarly jurist who doesn`t have any problem with his professional acumen, his ABA rating, anything like that.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS: OK, fine but the President of the United States promised that he was going to nominate a justice that would overturn Roe v Wade, that would be hostile to administrative law generally, that would roll back all kinds of rights that are -- that are near and dear to many Americans and many of us here, right?
HOGUE: Yes, Ari, I think we really need to dispense with the credentials argument as well as like he`s a good carpool dad and a good soccer coach. Everything is on the line with this domination. It`s about his ideology. It`s about his willingness to break with his circuit court on crucial issues of constitutional rights, rights to abortion and other rights as well, rights to contraception and it`s about whether he`s going to be a rubber stamp for this president. So the baseline arguments are relevant and we need all of the senators to push hard on the substance.
MELBER: On that and then I`ll go back to Elliot. On that Ilyse, speak to his more I would say overruled ultimately views on say an immigrant who wanted to exercise the right to abortion which a lot of people felt was a sign. If he would go that far in an appeals court, imagine him with life tenure on the Supreme Court. What`s your analysis of that?
HOGUE: Absolutely. I mean, he not only parted from his circuit court but he wrote a very strongly worded dissent in arguing that a woman should be detained against her will after a court had ordered her release to terminated an unwanted pregnancy, a young undocumented woman. He also argued in a different dissent that you know, the religious accommodation for contraception coverage in the ACA was not sufficient even though all it meant was that people had to sign a form. Those are ideological positions. They run afoul of what most American people want. I mean, look, Kaiser Family Foundation had a poll out just two weeks ago that showed that 73 percent of self-identified independents want Roe vs. Wade upheld. These Senators have to think very, very carefully about what they`re doing in this moment.
MELBER: So panel hang with me, I want to now bring it as promised Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut who serves on the Judiciary Committee. Senator, thank you for joining us. If you`ve been listening to the spirited debate here, I will say on behalf of the panel we have very talented lawyers but if you ever watch Sesame Street when they say one of these things is different than all the others you have a vote none of us do. Walk us through how you`re exercising your vote and how you get to a majority to block this nominee if as your colleagues have said that`s the goal.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT), SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: First I`m privileged to join this highly talented team of lawyers. I was a law clerk on the United States Supreme Court for Harry Blackmun, the year after he wrote the majority opinion in Roe v Wade. I`ve argued cases before the United States Supreme Court, four of them. I really regard this institution with reverence as well as respect. And what Donald Trump is doing talk about partisan is outsourcing and delegating this decision to right-wing fringe groups that are implementing, screening, and vetting this nominee for the Trump litmus test automatically overturn Roe v Wade, cut back healthcare rights, disregard voting rights, civil rights. This Court will be shaped for decades. What are we doing to stop this nomination? Well, of course, first like good lawyers on the Judiciary Committee we`re doing a ton of research and of course what we`ve discovered is that this nominee is in favor of giving the president power to fire the special counsel who is investigating him, that he is in favor of vast expansion of presidential power when most Americans today want Donald Trump to be checked and bridled because he`s out of control personally as well as in terms of authority. And of course, he has favored holding the Consumer Finance Protection Board unconstitutional he doesn`t like what it does protecting consumer but he thinks the president ought to have control over it. So these kinds of knowledge and facts are very, very relevant and what we`re going to do is make the case to the American people that he is not the right nominee, right-wing fringe, the product of a corrupt process and a president who has made himself the puppet of these groups. And look at how relevant these issues are right now. Rudy Giuliani on Sunday said the president ought to continue to have pardon power. Who will determine whether President Trump can pardon himself or his cronies? The swing vote, this nominee. Who will determine whether he has to comply with a subpoena from the special counsel? This nominee. And he must absolutely must recuse himself. That is a bare minimum that my colleagues should insist on him doing.
MELBER: So when you when you say make the case the American people. We, Chuck Schumer, say that is that, is that basically an outside-in strategy that you say that`s the American people and you get enough pressure on people like Collins or Murkowski to come back around? I mean, walk us through for viewers who are saying OK, I hear the Democrats have woken up but it feels to some people we`ve heard the argument years late and what is the strategy to get to 51 -- to 51 votes here?
BLUMENTHAL: The strategy is to take this case to the American people just as we did on the Affordable Care Act when really nobody gave us a chance of fending off the Trump attack on health care. Here we have the same issues where Donald Trump has named someone who will be the key vote on eliminating many of the protections under the Affordable Care Act including the protection for millions of Americans who suffer from pre-existing conditions will take us back to the darkest days in this country when abortion was criminalized, women were prosecuted, women died, women were designed -- denied access to contraception and the morning-after pill. These kinds of facts will arouse and enrage the American people just as they did on health care and that`s the case we`re going to make. And the same tools, the same means are necessary to give the American people voice and to persuade our colleagues they`re going to have to answer to history. This vote will be remembered long after everything else is forgotten including the next election.
MELBER: I think that is certainly true at least according to the tenure of most members of the court. Senator Blumenthal, thank you for joining us. My thanks to Vince Warren, Elliot Williams, and Ilyse Hogue. Up ahead Donald Trump missing a key deadline as literally, toddlers wait for reuniting with their parents. We`re going to hear from one of those moms. And also this coming in, during our hour Michael Cohen`s new lawyer speaking out with a message that may make the White House very nervous.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELER: Breaking news. Michael Cohen`s new lawyer Lanny Davis the longtime Clinton ally is now speaking out in his first on-camera interview and he says his client has made a "declaration of independence from Donald Trump" adding this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LANNY DAVIS, LAWYER OF MICHAEL COHEN: There`s a reason that he said at the very end of the interview with Mr. Stephanopoulos that he took these contrary positions to Mr. Trump who he had previously said he would take a bullet for, a comment that I don`t believe he would -- he would say today. And the reason he said is I will not be a punching bag as part of somebody else`s defense strategy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: I have Nick Akerman on the news. As the saying goes, here we go.
NICK AKERMAN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, here we go. I mean, this is not good news for Donald Trump. And if in fact Michael Cohen you know, answers into a deal with Mueller`s office and actually has evidence relating to the Russian conspiracy, relating to the election campaign, he is going to be a very powerful witness mainly because he is somebody that can be corroborated by the millions of documents that they`ve already seized in that search warrant.
MELBER: What if it has nothing to do with alleged Russian collusion and it`s just Michael Cohen saying five or ten years ago I helped my client do something bad, may be illegal, there`s a thing called the crime-fraud exception to our privilege and I`m going to tell Mueller about it. What does that do? What is that on the scale?
AKERMAN: Probably not much because if it`s five years, ten years, you`re passed the statute of limitations. I think where he really has information is did he go on that trip to Prague, what is he dealing with the Russians. He is the person that came up with the plan for the Ukraine which was a key piece of what I think Flynn is going to testify to about dropping the sanctions on Russia.
MELBER: And if he did go to Prague or do anything hinky abroad with regard to the election, he knows it and Donald Trump probably knows.
AKERMAN: And he knows it and his lawyers all know it because they all went through this charade of looking at his records to determine whether there was anything covered by the attorney-client privilege so they know exactly what Michael Cohen can say and can`t say.
MELBER: Now do you think that Lanny is taking a few pages out of Michael Avenatti`s book? Are we seeing an evolution and T.V. lawyer in here?
AKERMAN: I don`t think so. I mean, he hasn`t really done that much. He`s made a few statements. I mean, Michael Avenatti was constantly on every single show he could get on was constantly doing kind of showman types of activities showing up at Judge Kimba Wood`s courtroom to make statements even though he really didn`t have standing there. I don`t think that`s happening here. I think for whatever reason Michael Colin wants it to be known that he is done with Trump, that he is open to cooperating and I think he knows -- and he wouldn`t be doing that unless he knows that he`s got information that Mueller would be interested in and he knows that he can corroborate it with information that`s in those records.
MELBER: And that`s the substantive side of this. One a Donald Trump`s most loyal people, his lawyer putting this message out through Lanny Davis tonight. The lighter side is Avenatti has its fans and you risk being roasted on the Internet you know, for your views.
AKERMAN: It won`t be the first time.
MELBER: Nick Akerman, thank you for covering the breaking legal news with us. Up ahead, the Trump administration not meeting this court order deadline to reunite kids they separated from their parents, an important story we`re going to bring you. And later a programming note about the Trump baby blimp flying over London this week.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: A failure for Trump in sessions missing today`s court-ordered deadline to reunite children under five with their parents, this, of course, a result of Trump Administration policies. We can tell you tonight 102 young children were waiting to be reunified by today. The Trump Administration only meeting that mark for 38 families. Here a father and son reunited in Michigan today and one mom asking why fixing this problem appears so much harder for Trump than creating it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (SPEAKING SPANISH)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: A great question from someone affected by all this on the policy side. Here`s a former Republican Reagan official discussing Trump`s incompetence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The sheer level of incompetence of this administration in dealing with this issue -- there`s just such callous indifference. They are not treating these people as carefully as airlines treat dogs whom you ship overseas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: I`m joined by Alicia Menendez Hosts the Latina, the Latina podcast and a Contributing Editor at Bustled. Where are we going from here?
ALICIA MENENDEZ, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, BUSTLE: You know, a big part of this story is about these children that this does not instill confidence that the more than 2000 or over five are going to be reunited with their parents in a timely manner. But there`s a second piece to this conversation, Ari, which is that even once they have the capacity to reunite these children and their parents, they`re facing the parents a pretty impossible choice which is they can either be in indefinite detention with their children, they can stay in detention themselves and allow their children to be released to a sponsor or they can be deported. So there are impossible choices being faced b these parents even once the reunification process is complete.
MELBER: Right. The only silver lining is that the courts are now overseeing something that to quote a Reagan aide was so incompetent that it needed this kind of supervision. It never as a policy matter had to be this way. As for the President, take a look at what at this point in time about what this is all about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have a solution. Tell people not to come to our country illegally. That`s the solution. Don`t come to our country illegally. Come like other people do. Come legally.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: So that answers an acknowledgment of the fact that this policy was intended to deter future migrants. That these families have suffered as a message to send to other people not to come to the United States. Now, what this does not acknowledge is the fact that most of these people many of these people came as asylum seekers escaping violence in their home country and at the same time that we are having this conversation about family reunification, we`re also having a conversation about how the Trump administration wants to change the rules on asylum so that fewer people can seek legal immigration.
MELBER: Creating two points. One, the statement admits something bad for him that this was the goal. And two, some of those people may be coming here quote legally in the sense that they could justifiably be asylum seeker.
MENENDEZ: And three, he does not take responsibility for the failures of government to meet this deadline and instead puts it on the migrants who came here trying to find safety for their families.
MELBER: Alicia Menendez, an important story I know you`re staying on it, we will as well. Thank you for being here. Up ahead a totally different note that one we wanted to get into the hour. The Mayor of London defending the choice to let the Trump baby blimp fly.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: Now we -- before we go tonight, I want to share a programming note about a story that we`ve been covering here on THE BEAT, the Trump baby blimp. And tomorrow an organizer for that effort will join us here on THE BEAT. The context is that the Trump baby blimp is set to take flight in London and now the city`s mayor is defending the decision to let protesters fly this giant Trump baby over London this week during Trump`s visit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you personally approve this blimp of the President United States in a topless, in a nappy to fly at parliament. Did you personally approve it?
SADIQ KHAN, MAYOR, LONDON: No, but I support the GLA and the decision they took. And my point about anybody whether it`s President Trump or any world leader, anybody is just because they might find it objectionable to be ridiculed, we cartel our right to --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Of course, there`s nothing unusual about a baby being topless. The mayor also says this wasn`t a personal decision and even if he`s exchanged barbs with President Trump. And the Trump baby blimp will fly on Friday and a top organizer will be joining us. This is a person who`s helped getting the Trump baby blimp off the ground. That`s tomorrow on THE BEAT, you may or may not want to miss it. And that does it for our show, we are back tomorrow at 6 p.m. as I mentioned as always but "HARDBALL" with Chris Matthews is up next.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2018 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.