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

Meet new U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson. TRANSCRIPT: 7/25/19, The Beat w/ Ari Melber.

Guests: Bill Kristol, Leah Wright Rigueur, Matt Miller, Jennifer Taub,David Corn, Victoria DeFrancesco Soto, Niall Stanage

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST:  That`s all for tonight, we`ll back tomorrow with more MEET THE PRESS DAILY.  It`s the "THE BEAT" with Ari Melber that begins right this second.

Good evening, Ari.

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Chuck. Thank you very much. Tonight, we are one day out from these Mueller hearings and in the middle of several big stories right now.

Now we have a special report on some of the moments from the Mueller hearing that you may not have actually seen, that`s later this hour.

Also, a top Democrat now alleging that the Trump administration`s immigration policy has reached the point of kidnapping. Shocking video emerging.


Meanwhile, Washington is, of course, still consumed with this Mueller fallout, tonight there`s new reporting on an effort by the Trump administration to do something while everyone may be a little distracted. That`s cut food assistance for up to 3 million low-income people. For a lot of folks this is a life and death story. We`re going to cover it. That`s later tonight on THE BEAT.

But we begin with this fallout from Bob Mueller`s testimony. Democrats are now eyeing a key witness, pushing new subpoenas and also turning to Trump`s finances. While the Mueller hearings did belong, of course, to the Chairs of Intel and Judiciary.

Today, it`s the Democrat in charge of formal Oversight of the Administration, Elijah Cummings, who`s taking the lead, authorizing new subpoenas to Trump world figures like Steve Bannon and former NSA Adviser K.T. McFarland, plus current officials like Mick Mulvaney, family members Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump.

And these aren`t just demands for say work e-mail or formal government records, which tend to be carefully written. This is also a request for those people`s personal communications. That might sound broad, even to some harsh.

But, remember, several of these people, including Donald Trump`s family members in office, have already been caught using personal accounts to avoid potential accountability. Democrats noting the hypocrisy given these same people`s focus on Hillary Clinton`s infamous personal e-mail account.

Now having deployed a subpoena to make yesterday`s Mueller hearing happen, Chairman Nadler says he is about to enforce the subpoena against the witness that Mueller cited most, former White House Counsel Don McGahn.


REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): The very next step either tomorrow or Friday is we`re going into court to enforce - to ask for the grand jury material, and to enforce the subpoena against Mr. McGahn.


MELBER: Mr. McGahn is key because he is more than a witness - more than a witness to me, if you will, if you remember that one. Because in all seriousness, Mr. McGahn at this point in the Mueller report as written, and yesterday as testified, was Mr. Trump`s would-be co-conspirator.

This was the aid that was ordered by Donald Trump to fire Bob Mueller. His refusal to do that is part of why his name appears in the Mueller report over 500 times. So Democrats clearly have a united plan here on tactics, and it makes some sense.

Of course, you want to get McGahn up there. Of course, you want to hear him in his own words explain what he did. You can now stack that against what Mueller described and confirmed he did yesterday.

Where the Democrats appeared still different tonight, is not having one single endgame or plan for whether or not to impeach.


REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CA): Many of us have come forward, indicating that we want to see an impeachment inquiry started.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I`m keeping an open mind, but I have yet to be fully persuaded.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He has laid out a roadmap for how we can hold the President accountable, and the only way to do that is through the impeachment process.


MELBER: And that brings us to a final point about all this Mueller fallout tonight in Washington. You know, the headlines of the judgments, they came as fast as Bob Mueller spoke. This is 2019, no one waits until the end of the whole day to report on such huge developments.

And the early headlines were especially tough on Mueller`s first answers about obstruction in that morning hearing. And there`s no doubt Bob Mueller did duck many of the questions, and he did refuse to join any attempted recruitment on to call it, you know, "team impeachment".

But if you watch this show, you know none of that was actually a surprise. We have been reporting on how; One, Mueller was legally a hostile witness. He resisted the Democrats for months. And two, even as a willing witness in the past when he would face Congress, which he did many times, he was even then unyielding, and yes, often evasive.

Now while the public was a key audience for Mueller, so the perception in those headlines can matter, the most pivotal decision makers on the ultimate question of what to do about potential obstruction are inside the Congress, inside that building, inside the institution that Mueller was facing.

People like Speaker Pelosi who`s still against impeachment at this point and Senators who would ultimately rule on any potential impeachment. Now one of them, Senator Markey, came out to the floor today to announce his conclusion post Mueller.


SEN. ED MARKEY (D-MA): It is time for the House of Representatives to begin a formal impeachment proceeding against President Trump, understanding the gravity of this moment in our nation`s history. I stand here today, because I believe we have reached the moment where we must stand up for the survival of our democracy.


MELBER: We`ve got a lot of great guests tonight. In a few minutes I`m going to bring on the lawyers, but it`s not time for them yet. I`m beginning with the big picture with Bill Kristol, conservative journalist, a former Republican White House official and Director of the group Defending Democracy Together; and Professor Leah Wright Rigueur, an Associate Professor at Harvard`s Kennedy School of Government. Good to see you both.



MELBER: Professor I`d begin with you. As I mentioned, before we bring in the lawyers - you know, lawyers, guns and money, as we say. Now that we`ve had a day plus to process, given your view your perch there at the Kennedy School, what was important to you about what we learned yesterday and how do you contrast that against what the Democrats themselves pitched as a made-for-TV event that wasn`t always - at least in every moment made for TV?

RIGUEUR: Sure. Well, Ari, as historians sometimes we think fast, sometimes it takes us a long time, so sometimes we rhyme slow. And I have to say in this case, there are two different outcomes, right?

So in the immediate, one of the things that we can look at is say that these hearings didn`t necessarily live up to a lot of the hype. There were no explosives, there were no fireworks - that kind of thing. There were no big sound bites.

MELBER: You are not saying--

RIGUEUR: But at the same time, in the longer--

MELBER: You`re not saying don`t believe the hype, are you?

RIGUEUR: But actually - but actually, I think, in the broader picture, in the longer picture, right, if we slow down a little bit, pump the brakes, we might actually see that there was a lot revealed in the testimony. So, essentially, Bob Mueller came in and said here are the facts.

The facts line up with what we`ve been saying for a long time. What the press has been saying, what investigative reports have been saying about questions around the nature of obstruction, about blocking information about real serious accusations and disregard for the rule of law.

And that is what the American public really needs remember, really needs to think about, and that`s what perhaps Congress should be helping the American public think through and really wrestle with, especially on accountability for President Trump.


KRISTOL: Yes. I mean, I think, when the Mueller - the key decision was made after the Mueller report came down. We knew what we needed to know that, in my opinion, to move to a formal impeachment inquiry. Speaker Pelosi disagreed. She had reasons and they were both public spirited, I think, as well as political tactics and she may be right. I don`t know.

But having made that decision, I think it`s going to be honestly hard to argue that we`ve learned new things that we didn`t know from the report, that a few additional details would make much difference.

Either he did enough obstructing of justice to deserve to be impeached based on what we know in the report or he didn`t. I suspect impeachment is not going to happen now, honestly. But, I think this is very important, there`s a ton of oversight that is very, very important to - that is due and important to publicize to the American public, how the Trump administration is running the government of the United States.

I mean, that is a huge issue. If he`s not going to be impeached and convicted, what are the ways you judge an incumbent president is the Border Patrol under him being encouraged to hold American citizens for three weeks without letting them to have due process of law. Are the parts of the government, the graft, the corruption everything else.

So I think they should not give up on other aspects of oversight and accountability. But I do think that this is the key moment was when the Speaker decided - and again, she may be right in this decision.

But I think when she said no impeachment inquiry, it all becomes kind of dotting an "I" here and crossing "T" there and hoping that some witness are going to say something we don`t all right already, no. But in my opinion we knew what we needed to know when we saw the report.

MELBER: Right. And you`ve been very clear about that and critical of what you`ve outlined as Trump`s abuse of power. I think it was two pieces what you said, to build on your point, Bill. It was, one, the Speaker drawing that line in public. And then it was, two, the President acting in a manner that the House rebuked him for racism, which triggered a vote on impeachment before Mueller even sat down.

And knowing that the majority - I mean, this is a metric now, 60 percent of the Democratic caucus didn`t see Trump as impeachable last week. So yesterday became not - almost a neutral ground even within the Democratic caucus. But a question of what Mueller was going to do.

And that bring us Bill to the Bob Mueller that the country saw yesterday. I want to read from the New York Times analysis about what it was and what it wasn`t for your view.

"Mueller came across as neither the avenging angel of resistance fan- fiction or the rabid partisan of a Republican portraiture. He was no myth. He was just a man cautious, maybe a bit hard-of-hearing, leery of over- speaking and overstepping, bound to the proprieties of another time." Bill do you agree?

KRISTOL: Yes. I think so. And I think your point is - which I had really thought about that premature of the vote that was forced last week, forcing the Democrats to go on record when the speaker hadn`t encouraged it 60 percent against it.

Can you honestly say if you voted against impeachment last week you`ve learned something now that would change your mind? Could you - it`s unlikely you`re going to be able to say much in a month or two.

I would add one point, the Trump administration has been ruthless in claiming falsely, I think, various - for claims of executive privilege and ignoring subpoenas and stalling and running out the clock. And you know they`re going to continue doing that. So I`m doubtful that we`re going to have an "aha moment" on impeachment over the next few months.

MELBER: Stay with me as promised. The panel stays. But I bring on the lawyers. A former DOJ official Matt Miller will join me in a moment. He told the New York Times in this new piece quote "Mueller has never cared a wit about public appearances or how he came off in the media, because he`s always subscribed to the DOJ rule that you speak through your words and actions in court".

Matt Miller is here along with Law School Professor Jennifer Taub from Vermont. Matt explain.

MATT MILLER, FORMER CHIEF SPOKESMAN FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: You know, I think a lot of people were expecting Bob Mueller to come in yesterday and deliver kind of the final knockout punch for Donald Trump. To take the words of his report and show up as a kind of witness, you know who would be kind of like Jim Comey has been in his public appearances.

And people who knew Bob Mueller, I think, would always tell you that wasn`t true. And I think if you if you didn`t know that already the fact that he looked for guidance from the Department of Justice before going in. The fact that he kind of gave them the opportunity to rein in his testimony, was a pretty clear sign that that`s what we were going to get.

Now look that the piece - the quote you read from "The Times" in a minute ago, he was a man kind of hewing to traditions from another time, I think, is also accurate. There was a time when that`s what you would like to see the Department of Justice do. And if he had been speaking about an investigation into someone who the department could charge with a crime, I think that`s would have been the appropriate way to handle it.

Of course, as we all know, the Department of Justice doesn`t believe the President can be charged. I would have liked to seen him come in and be a little more open about what he found about the President. Be a little more willing to talk about the results of his investigation, because the President is different from everyone else.

MELBER: Did you want him to be more Comey-esch (ph)?

MILLER: You know it`s funny. I`ve long thought that if Bob Mueller had been the Director of the FBI in 2016 instead of Jim Comey, we`d have had a different outcome. Donald Trump wouldn`t be President and had Jim Comey been the special counsel. I think we`d have had a different outcome there as well.

MELBER: You know Matt that`s a riddle only a news junkie or a nerd could love. But I think people understand what you`re saying, given how much attention their actions have gotten.

Jennifer take a listen to something else that was so important. That was clearly Bob Mueller`s passion, the Russian meddling, the new normal, putting America on notice.




MELBER: Jennifer?

JENNIFER TAUB, VERMONT LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR: Yes, this was one of the most chilling moments I thought in yesterday`s testimony. And Ari, to quote Killer Mike, Robert Mueller is not an actor. He`s not just another talking head telling lies on a teleprompter. This is a truth teller and we shouldn`t focus so much on the messenger, but the message here.

And what he`s letting us know is that Russia committed many crimes and was quite successful. Russia committed a crime when they hacked into the Democratic National Committee computer systems. They committed a crime when they spread disinformation via social media. They committed a crime when they hacked into the state election infrastructure.

In addition to that, in Mueller`s own words, Donald Trump and his campaign gave a boost to those activities and they also built their entire messaging campaign around some of these leaks of stolen information. And here we are, and they`re still doing it, and Donald Trump isn`t focused on any of the criminality here. Instead, he still is calling this a witch- hunt. He`s still calling this a hoax. And he`s still welcoming interference from Russian and other governments. So here we are - and that is what you really should be a paying attention to right now.

MELBER: Professor Taub, I didn`t know you were going to reach for Killer Mike. I think that`s from the song "Reagan". Well, Bill Kristol, I think, Killer Mike also says if "We don`t have a farm, then we don`t have wheat, what are the kids gonna eat". Do you have any Killer Mike quotes for us Bill?

KRISTOL: Well I do like to, why not. I impressed that all of guys - I`m deferring on Killer Mike to the law professors and as well, of course, as to you, Ari. I think--

MELBER: Well, one more question. Do you know who Killer Mike endorsed in the last presidential campaign?

KRISTOL: I do not. I do not.

MELBER: Anybody know? Bernie Sanders.

MILLER: Bernie.

TAUB: Bernie.

MELBER: Yes, Bernie.


MELBER: I`m going to let Bill make up his own point, because sometimes it`s like we`ve lost control of the monster we`ve created, but Bill and then back to Professor Rigueur.

KRISTOL: No just the point about election security is very good. I believe Senator McConnell blocked the consideration of election security legislation today. He said the Democrats weren`t serious. I don`t know if the Democratic bill is perfect or good.

But fine, bring something to the floor and amend it. Let`s have a debate about it. Kind of an important issue here, where they did interfere, they are interfering and it`s not at all clear that the U.S. government is doing what it should be doing to protect our election in 2020. And I think that`s the kind of issue where Democrats really legitimately should be just doing a lot to highlight this.

Both what the administration is not doing, but especially the fact that the Republican Senate is - it`s one thing to not agree with the particular piece of legislation. They want to spend the money differently, you have different guidelines for the states, whatever. It`s another thing to not even have a debate about it.

MELBER: Yes, we`ve got that headline up. Professor Rigueur?

RIGUEUR: Yes. So two quick things. One, I think one of the things that the hearings reinforce is how woefully unprepared the United States is for the 2020 election, particularly around election security and kind of involvement - foreign involvement or foreign interference. So it`s the first thing.

The second thing is, at a certain point in time, all of this talk around corruption, around obstruction, around criminal activity, around grift, around misbehavior, misdeeds - at a certain point Democrats are actually going to have to do something about it, particularly as voters want something done about it.

MELBER: Right.

RIGUEUR: So it`s not enough to simply around the symbolism, but at some point voters are going to want something. They`re going to want to see tangible action. I mean, NAACP just voted to impeach the Trump.

So what will the - what are the Democrats going to do about it and are they going to be on the same page? That`s a really important thing to think about going forward.

MELBER: And for our legal experts, before we go, for Jennifer and then Matt, what legally changed yesterday, if anything?

TAUB: I think what - the most important thing that changed yesterday is something that my friend Jed Shugerman has brought out in a piece that he wrote and also on Twitter which is this.

"Mueller let us know that the OLC - the Office of Legal Counsel Opinion doesn`t address the problem of tolling (ph) the Statutes of Limitations." I realize I know a little bit in the weeds. So what I want to say, specifically is, for example the Statute of Limitations on charging the President after he leaves office for let`s say obstruction is five years.

And should President win re-election, then that`s going to run out and he would then be immune from being held accountable for--

MELBER: You`re assuming no more crimes afterward?

TAUB: Just using that. I`m not actually assuming that - but, right, even assuming that. And so there`s a problem there and because Mueller wouldn`t even say that he believed Trump had committed a crime, there`s no way to even make these allegations now that we can be sure we can make them, unless they`re done through the constitutional process of impeachment.

MELBER: Right.

TAUB: And that`s why I think it`s so important for the House to simply begin impeachment proceedings, so that there`s a possibility of saying this obstruction is a high-crime or misdemeanor.


MILLER: You know, there`s a related issue to the one the professor brought up, and it relates to Bill Barr closing the obstruction investigation after Mueller submitted his report. You know, Mueller said in that hearing yesterday, as he did in the report.

That one of the reasons you investigate the President for a crime even if you can indict him, is because he might be able to be charged after he leaves office, if the Statute of Limitations hasn`t run. So in this scenario - it`s a scenario where he loses re-election.

Well that would - it be one thing if that investigation had just been kind of left open. Well what Bill Barr did is come and close the investigation. So what that means is, should there be a Democratic President and Democratic Attorney General, they have to make the affirmative decision to go back in reopen it and investigate, that`s a big, big thing to ask a brand new administration.

MELBER: And what you`re saying is actually exactly what Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow told me last night on the evening of the Mueller hearings. They view the issue is closed. They`re not worried about post-presidential indictment, because Barr moved the goalpost. So someone would have to not just look at it, they`d have to undo that.

Bill, Leah, Jennifer and Matt, thank you so much, very interesting stuff. When we come back David Corn is going to be here later in this show on what was the most important revelations on the evidence against Trump.

Also, this viral video, showing immigration agents smashing a window to arrest a father with his young kids in the car.


HOYT: It`s going to be fine Zeke.

ZEKE: No it`s not, I`m scared. I don`t want them to take him.

HOYT: It`s OK.

ZEKE: I just want to see dad again.


MELBER: And later a new administration plan to take away food support from 3 million people.

And later the show a special look at what some are calling Britain`s own Trump. I`m Ari Melber, you`re watching THE BEAT on MSNBC.


MELBER: You know every Member of Congress who questioned Bob Mueller yesterday had plenty of time to prep and think and write their remarks. But "The Daily Show" just showed how one House Republican Devin Nunes was apparently, seems like, cribbing some of his lines from a special source.




MELBER: Who is quoting who? Well, the seven hours of Mueller hearings were detailed and there are many takeaways. Some have gotten attention for good reason, Mueller fact-checking Trump to testify that he didn`t clear him of obstruction. Mueller noting the President generally mislead investigators, sounds like potential perjury to some. And he also rebuked Donald Trump as unpatriotic for inviting Russian help.

But there were also other moments that got less initial attention - some a little bit under the radar, some so intricate they were hard for even the Members of Congress to process in real time in that room.

So it is worth digging into some of these key moments. We`re going to do exactly that. Plus report a new claim from a Mueller insider when we`re back in just 30 seconds.


MELBER: I`m back with Mother Jones`, David Corn to dig into this. David, I was sitting in the back of that hearing room. At times it was slow and at times it was complex, which means it`s actually worth pulling out some of the big moments. Take a look at this one with Congressman Jeffries.




MELBER: Is he on to something there?

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Well he is. He was reciting from Mueller`s own report, which gave us about 10 instances of varying degrees of possible charges of obstruction of justice. Some were stronger. There are different elements as Hakeem Jeffries just went through. And he picked one that really was like three for three, right? There are several of those in the report.

And he leads to the question, "Well, why didn`t you indict?" And we know why, because Justice Department said I couldn`t. But under any definition that a prosecutor would use, that`s an indictable crime that the person should be charged with.

MELBER: Then you have the fact that under the law, it is legal to lie to most people.

CORN: Yes.

MELBER: You can lie to your friends, you can lie to the - you can lie to the ice cream counter person, you lie to your barista. It is illegal to lie to the government, which is why this moment stood out?




MELBER: David?

CORN: Here you have a Republican - former FBI Director saying that generally the President of United States is not truthful, is not credible. And has any Republican, any elected Republican or Republican leader said anything about that? Well the answer is no.

We have "The Washington Post" with over 10,000 documented cases of the President either lying and making a false statement. It just seems that on this particular issue, the cult of Trump has just thrown up their hands and say, "We don`t care".

But that is the type of thing that, if perhaps presented - I think appropriately with maybe a little bit of pizzazz, is something that might resonate with voters out there who don`t watch cable news every day, but watch that.

MELBER: And then you have, what you just alluded to earlier, on whether you can indict a President after they leave office. Take a look.




MELBER: No one`s ever heard Bob Mueller say that under oath in public at the conclusion of investigating Donald Trump. With the report sitting there the talks about conserving and preserving evidence for later potential prosecution.  That`s pretty newsworthy and so we want to add to it with our own reporting here at THE BEAT because on Mueller night we had the president`s lawyer Jay Sekulow on.  I asked him directly about that.  Take a look at his response.


JAY SEKULOW, LAWYER OF DONALD TRUMP:  With regard to future prosecutions, let`s not forget that the Department of Justice concluded there was no obstructive intent.  So I don`t buy any of that.  I`m not concerned about that.  I think this was a very good -- if this was the Democratic Party`s best case to put power today, as many of your friends have said, they did not move the needle.  This was a good day for the president.


MELBER:  What do you think of his answer?

DAVID CORN, WASHINGTON BUREAU CORRESPONDENT, MOTHER JONES:  Well, you know what the Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan said right, Ari, the pump don`t --

MELBER:  I know some.

CORN:  The pump don`t work because the vandals took the handle.  And we don`t have a Justice Department that I think isn`t a fair arbiter.  We -- you know, we can go on and on about Bill Barr`s letters and pronouncements in which he mischaracterized and miscontextualized Mueller`s report.

It`s too bad there was such a long time framed seems long between one that happened when Mueller got to speak for his own report as he did yesterday.  And what is a Trump lawyer going to say?  But we don`t care.  We don`t care.  We don`t care.

I mean, the report is -- you know, you`ve had many lawyers on the show said again and again and again this is unprecedented to produce this much evidence that gets to the issue of the president committing a crime.

But also to the bigger issue that Mueller spoke to unfortunately in the afternoon after much of the day was set in stone in which he talked to -- in which Adam Schiff got him to talk about in Schiff`s word, Trump`s disloyalty to the country, how he went along and encouraged and benefited from an attack on the United States from a foreign adversary.

That`s what we really should still be talking about.  But it`s hard to do that in a political context when Trump and the Republicans keep guests lighting the world and the nation by saying none of that stuff happened.  It doesn`t matter.  And the real issue is why the FBI began an investigation.

MELBER:  You brought up Dylan.  You know what Dylan applies to the beginning of that Mueller hearing?

CORN:  You tell me.

MELBER:  One more cup of coffee before I go.

CORN:  To the valley below.

MELBER:  To the valley below because it seemed like as the hours went on, Mueller either got caffeinated or got warmed up like anyone.  Sometimes you need a little time and you need an extra cup.

CORN:  Well, he also could have sung, this is the story of crossfire hurricane.

MELBER:  Wow.  Hurricane though being a great Dylan song about a false accusation.  I don`t think you would associate hurricane other than pun, that incredible pun with Donald Trump.

CORN:  Well, I would say that what the Republicans are trying to do is to prevent justice from being done.

MELBER:  And that wasn`t a dad joke, that was just you bringing it home.

CORN:  Yes, bringing it back home as Dylan would say.

MELBER:  I guess we have to stop.  I know some -- I could feel -- I can`t hear it but I can feel a thousand remotes changing channels.  I`m kidding.  I love you, David.

CORN:  I don`t want to do that.

MELBER:  No, I love you, David.  I love your references and I love your long-time knowledge of this story.  Our viewers will remember, you were on this case during 2016.  You were reporting things out where people said is this even important, is this real.  You were ahead of this story which is why we come back to you.  What a story it`s been.

CORN:  Yes.  And it shouldn`t go away.  There`s still -- there`s still a lot here that the public needs to process.

MELBER:  David Corn, thank you.

CORN:  Thank you, sir.

MELBER:  We have a lot more to process in this show including some other topics.  This viral video with immigration agents smashing in a car window as this suspect`s children are forced to watch.  And later, is the U.K. going full Donald?  We`ll explain.


MELBER:  New troubles for the Trump administration`s immigration agenda.  This is coming out of the courts, plus, pressure in Congress and some reaction around the country.  Let me show it all you.  First, a federal judge just blocked Trump`s highly controversial attempt to try to restrict most asylum claims from Central American migrants.  The judge says it`s arbitrary and capricious and that means it won`t be enforced right now.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the Judiciary and Appropriations Committee grilling border officials about recent government watchdog findings about those poor conditions we`ve been reporting on, some children denied access to basics like showers and even hot food.

Meanwhile, Judiciary Chair Nadler pressing a top border official about Trump`s child separation policy.


REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY):  Mother and father informed and the kids -- I mean, how was it supposed to happen?  The mother and father is informed that at some point today your kid is going to be taken away in the middle of the night someone comes and snatches the kid.  I`d take it that`s not what was supposed to happen.  What is supposed to happen?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  So we would inform the mother or father of the charges and the reason and provide them the time to say goodbye to the child.

NADLER:  Charges and the reason and the time in advance.


NADLER:  How far in advance?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  It`s going to vary depending upon the situation.

NADLER:  Vary from what, hours, minutes, seconds?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I don`t know what specific one you`re talking to --

NADLER:  What`s the minimum time?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  We don`t have a minimum time.

NADLER:  So it could be ten minutes?



MELBER:  Nadler then dug in and what he is now calling the Trump administration`s policy of "literal kidnapping."


NADLER:  After was determined that the adult was being deported was the child supposed to be returned to the parent before the deportation or the - - or the parent is suddenly in some foreign country and the child is here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  It`s probably a better question for HHS.

NADLER:  Who did the deportation?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  We would do the deportation.

NADLER:  You would do the deportation while the child was in a different city in the United States?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  We don`t do the reunification is my point, sir.

NADLER:  But you would do the deportation before the reunification without any knowledge of whether the parents are being reunified?


NADLER:  So, in other words, you`re kidnapping the child?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I`m not kidnapping the child.  We follow the guidelines that are out.

NADLER:  Deporting a parent without their child is literal kidnapping.


MELBER:  That is the kind of oversight we`re seeing on these important issues.  Remember, the Trump administration has claimed they don`t do family separation anymore, the truth more complex.  Meanwhile, there are videos that have emerged first on social media and then are spreading to news organizations going viral showing the toil the deportation arrests can have on families.

Now, I`m going to warn you as we do with this kind of thing that what you`re about to see may be very hard to watch but it`s also important to bear witness to.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Well, he told us that he had a warrant for Flor`s arrest, and I asked him to prove it to me and he says -- he says, I don`t have to show you anything.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Cove your face, cover your eyes, OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Are going to get out or no?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  You`re not able to do that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Flor, don`t.  Flor, Flor, don`t.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Unlock the door.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Can I say goodbye to my other child?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  No, you`ve -- you know, right now we`re being extremely nice to you, but what you just put us through, what we had to go through, you`re lucky I`m letting you talk to her right now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  It`s going to be fine, Zeke. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  No, it`s not.  I`m scared.  I don`t want them to take him.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I just want to see dad again.


MELBER:  These videos are spreading and they`re driving a conversation activism about this precisely because people are asking, is that what immigration enforcement should look like.  Has it always looked like that?  Are these deliberate choices that start in Washington from the Trump administration and then are carried out this way?

Now, we want to show you one other thing before I bring in my expert, and that is other people responding.  Here`s some video that was posted Monday showing neighbors and activist in Nashville linking arms in a human train around a van to protect a man and his son from potential arrest by ICE agents.

Now, I want to bring on Professor Victoria DeFrancesco Soto from the University of Texas, an expert in these issues.  Your response.

VICTORIA DEFRANCESCO SOTO, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS:  Despicable and disgusting what we saw in your previous video.  What has been triggered with the Trump immigration policy especially these very rigorous ICE enforcements is fear and panic and the type of fear and panic that we saw in that video.

However, the silver lining that we saw a bit of in that second video re is that the community is standing up.  So even though you are undocumented in this country, you do have rights.  In order to be taken away by ICE, they have to show you a warrant signed by the judge.

If you open the door, then they can take you, but if you keep your door closed and they don`t have a warrant or you`re still in your car, they can`t take you away.  And what we`ve seen is it`s spread like wildfire educational workshops, the Know Your Rights Campaign (INAUDIBLE) where immigrants and immigrant advocates are helping people know what to do in a situation that they may face.

So this has been the fact.  Interestingly enough, we`ve seen government officials showing immigrants and immigrant advocates how to push up against the government.  So infamously the new governor of Chicago Lori Lightfoot was passing out Know Your Rights cards throughout Chicago.

We`ve seen a lot of the Democratic candidates putting on their Web sites the Know Your Rights.  So I think that this is very important but we can`t forget that at the end of the day, if you were an immigrant, you live in constant fear, in constant agony, because you feel that you are literally someone with the target on their back and that`s not going to change until we see Donald Trump out of the White House.

MELBER:  You put it very well.  And the other thing I want to ask you is you reference the duality we saw there and in the stories, we just told and there`s also a larger duality between the humanitarian heartbreak of this when you see the impact on so many people, and then the fact that not minimizing or dismissing that at all.  In other ways, the system does still push back against what Trump is trying to turn this enforcement into.

I want to give two examples for your analysis.  One is straight forward, a person who was unlawfully detained so the people were supposed to follow the law end up violating it.  Francisco Galicia telling border agents that he was a citizen, giving them what he`s supposed to do, State I.D., Texas Social Security Card, Federal, wallet-size birth certificate, but that didn`t prevent 23 days of detention, losing 26 pounds because of what they say with the denial a basic food that he needed.

And so, on the one hand, people criticizing this, on the other hand, it is precisely because there`s a system with checks balances and judges that that person gets out, that they don`t sit there for a year, and in the asylum case that I mentioned in the introduction, controversial rule.  People heard a lot about it when Trump uncorked it recently.  Now as of today it stopped again because judges are intervening.  Walk us through those dynamics.

DEFRANCESCO SOTO:  So in thinking through the segment, Ari, I pulled back and I put on kind of my political philosophy hat on and it really is democracy, small D, at its best.  It`s pluralism.  So if one part of the government is not functioning or is violating people`s rights, in this case, the executive branch, you`re seeing other branches come in, the courts pushing back.

In Congress, we see the House of Representatives and also the people pushing back.  So I think it is the struggle for folks, immigrants in the immigrant community.  It is an uphill struggle.  But at the same time, I do find some consolation in that we have this checks-and-balances working.

The question is again the 2020.  That is going to be decisive in what happens whether those checks and balances are strengthened by say the Senate being taken to the Democratic side or the White House.

But I think what is core, the core element and all of this is the people because the people aren`t just spreading the know your rights campaigns, they`re the ones who ultimately have to vote.  So I think this is where we need to keep our focus on is on the grassroots.

MELBER:  Professor DeFrancesco Soto, we learn a lot from you.  We`ll be coming back to you.  Thank you for joining me tonight.


MELBER:  Now, beyond the Mueller News, Donald Trump is pushing other rules we`re going to get to.  And also Trumpism spreading across the pond, that`s what some see in Boris Johnson, a Trump ally ascended.


MELBER:  You know, Critics of Donald Trump often talk about his first term as a kind of nightmare that will end and things will go back to normal again, what everyone thinks of this unusual presidency.  That view actually imagines Trump as sort of special or a driver of everything rather than a symptom of broader challenges.

But think about it, this nationalism, alleged populism, xenophobia empowering Trump are rising in many different countries along with diminishing standards for who should even hold high office.  Consider that one of the nation`s closest to the U.S., England, just picked this unusual fellow to be Prime Minister.  They thought so absurd he himself dismissed it.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Is there a possibility you could become Prime Minister?

BORIS JOHNSON, PRIME MINISTER, UNITED KINGDOM:  I think that that is vanishing.  I mean, about as much chance of being a reincarnated isn`t all --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  You think the hair is holding you back?


MELBER:  Well, the hair is not holding him back.  Boris Johnson taking over as U.K. Prime Minister and many note his Trumpian echoes.  Some of it is about style like look at this, the hair.  Some of it is about being controversial, both of these leaders lambasted by their own dedicated British blimps.

But it`s also about an emerging political project with appeals to populism that meet a kind of ghost celebrity.  Johnson wasn`t taken very seriously in the U.S. but he built a big following especially recently riding the Brexit wave.

He also, we must note, did a lot of race-baiting.  He recently invoked Birtherism to impugn Obama`s foreign policy as part Kenyan.  And now some Brits are feeling like many Americans did as Donald Trump took on the trappings of the presidency as they witnessed this today Johnson addressing the Parliament.

I`m joined now by White House Columnist for the Hill Niall Stanage.  Good to see you.


MELBER:  Just for full context, let`s take in a little bit of Boris over the years.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  It was all going well, and then not so well, and then really badly.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  And this is the best part -- this is the best part.  He pulled down the volunteer with him.

JOHNSON:  It`s going well.  It`s very, very well organized.  What they do - - get me a ladder.


MELBER:  Sir, I ask you, what is happening?

STANAGE:  Well, I mean, when you`re negotiating a complicated issue like trying to go through with Brexit, what other man would you choose than the sort of man indulged in those kinds of antics.  But look, there is a serious point here, Ari, and you alluded to it in your introduction.

Boris Johnson like the pre-presidency Donald Trump has been dismissed as a kind of buffoon.  And sometimes I think the buffoonery or the perceived buffoonery distract from the belligerents here.  Johnson has said a lot of nasty things, a lot of racist things, some homophobic things.

He has seized upon a kind of sentimental old England image much in the same way or in at least in a parallel way to how President Trump plays back to a supposedly golden era in the United States.

MELBER:  And you mentioned that and it`s a bit like Brexit was Trumpian as policy.  It wasn`t taken very seriously.  It is -- it is happening apparently.  Here was Boris Johnson on that again, an appeal to working- class people but many have criticized this is will it really be in their interest long-term. Take a look.


People who bet against Britain are going to lose their shirts, because we`re going restore trust in our democracy.  And we`re going fulfill the repeated promises of parliament to the people and come out of the E.U. on October 31st, no ifs or buts.

MELBER:  Niall?

STANAGE:  Well, I mean, Boris Johnson is a bad person to be talking about trust.  This is a person in common with the president has shown a disdain for truth in his political career, and sometimes a disdain for basic indecency.

Now he does have in common with Trump an anti-elite kind of image.  In Johnson`s case, it`s just as peculiar coming from a background that includes Eaton College, the most elite private school in Britain and Oxford University, as much as it is Donald Trump acting as a man of the people having resided in a gold tower for quite a few years.  But Johnson has seized on this anti-elite sentiment to his own benefit.

MELBER:  Niall Stanage, you break it down clearly and concisely.  Thanks for joining me tonight.

STANAGE:  Thanks, Ari.

MELBER:  We wanted to get that international story in and we`ll be back with one more thing.


MELBER:  One more thing on a story we`ve been reporting on tonight.  Senators Mazie Hirono and Tim Kaine tomorrow are going to discuss their visit to a very controversial immigrant detention center in El Paso, and they`re going to do it on THE BEAT.  So stay tuned for that at 6:00 Eastern tomorrow.

But don`t go anywhere right now, "HARDBALL" is up next.