Summary
The Senate confirms Ketanji Brown Jackson to be the next Supreme Court justice. Why is a Trump prosecutor speaking out after other prosecutors resigned? Barack Obama warns about how weaponized and toxic misinformation is affecting the country`s safety, security and democracy. Amazon pushes back on unionization drives. The current state of the war in Ukraine is updated.
Transcript
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER starts right now.
Hi, Ari.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Hi, Nicolle. Thank you so much.
And welcome to a special edition of THE BEAT, because we are covering truly historic news, not historic in the way that word is sometimes used in politics or Washington, but literally historic, as in, when the history of America is written, today will be a day in the history books.
I bet you know why, because of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. I say justice because she is now, as of this broadcast and as of this vote today, the first black woman confirmed to the United States Supreme Court in American history.
The voters historic. The vote is also, as it turns out, bipartisan, which President Biden had hoped, three Republicans indeed crossing the aisle to confirm her. Vice President Harris was presiding, which, as you know, is what happens sometimes when there are historic or big days in the Senate.
Emotion palpable.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The question and occurs on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson of the District of Columbia to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 47. And this nomination is confirmed.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: You can hear the genuine applause there.
This was not a nail-biter. The White House had the votes, and they knew it. Judge Jackson, judge until justice, was watching the vote with the president in the White House Roosevelt Room, also pictures for history released today. Those are some of what we were able to get from the White House.
You can see them holding hands and embracing as those results came in by the minute. The two of them will deliver remarks tomorrow, along with Vice President Harris, who also has broken a barrier in that post. It is an opportunity to celebrate something that is, yes, a win for the president, for the administration. That`s always the case when you win a big vote on a nominee.
But it`s also in very clear terms -- and I say this with the best of my ability as an observer of news and history -- a big deal for America regardless of which party you might affiliate with, if you do affiliate with one, because this was a barrier broken, long overdue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Today is an historic day.
SEN. RAPHAEL WARNOCK (D-GA): I rise today to express my joy.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): This is a wonderful day, a Joyous day, an inspiring day.
LEAHY: No one, no one can argue that Judge Jackson is not objectively qualified to be confirmed.
WARNOCK: She embodies the arc of our history.
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): We are beginning to write another chapter in our nation`s quest for equal justice under the law. And that chapter begins with three letters, KBJ.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Senator Durbin, who ran the process as Judiciary chair there, trying to get in on the nicknaming. Of course, ultimately, in America, it is the Internet, and not the senators, who decide who gets a cool nickname on the Supreme Court.
Now, that`s the upside. The downside, we all watched. And if you followed it, there were a range of attacks, some substantive and policy-based, and many not, many hostile, toxic, misleading or lying, pushed by some Senate Republicans.
Senator Rand Paul made senators wait for about 10 minutes today in a final delay, technically unable to enter the chamber because he was not actually wearing a tie. And they have those rules in the Senate.
Now, after the vote, while the Democrats were cheering, Republicans made a show of walking out of the room. Only Mitt Romney, who voted to confirm, remained in the chamber among his party. And against the background of that vitriol, Judge Jackson will soon take up the official post when she replaces someone she wants clerked for. She will take the bench formally later this summer, because, under the calendar that`s been worked out, Justice Breyer has the plan to officially step down then.
She will join a court that has been, for its entire history, predominantly, basically, white and male, until very, very recently. And it is that identity, that discrimination of the justices on the court that plays into decisions that just about everyone says were wrong nowadays, like upholding slavery, like declining to recognize black people as full American citizens.
Those are the kinds of cases that I should mention Republican nominees say were wrong. But one of the arguments of diversity it in all aspects of life, including judges, who wield so much power, is that you get better decisions for the entire populace when the entire populace is represented.
[18:05:10]
It`s also a court that once upheld segregation. After 108 white male justices, only five of whom have been women in this recent era, and just two black justices, now Ketanji Brown Jackson this final glass ceiling of sorts.
And we have seen how she`s inspired so many. Vice President Harris discussed this important first and reflected on today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Let us all, I think, rejoice in who we are as a nation that we achieved, long overdue, but we achieved this important milestone.
I think it makes a very important statement about who we aspire to be, who we are, and who we believe ourselves to be. It`s a statement about -- that, on our highest court in the land, we want to make sure that there`s going to be full representation and the finest and brightest and the best, and that`s what`s happened today.
I`m very proud.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Pride from the vice president.
And as we think about the significance here, we are joined by former SDNY civil prosecutor Maya Wiley, who also recently ran for mayor of New York, and former Illinois Senator and U.S. Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun. Ambassador Braun was the first black woman elected to the United States Senate. And she was there to participate in the confirmation of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, if you roll the clock back to `93.
We`re looking at some of that there.
Welcome to both of you.
FMR. SEN. CAROL MOSELEY BRAUN (D-IL): Thank you. Thank you so much for having me.
MELBER: Absolutely.
Ambassador, I emphasize history, because it`s true, it`s certified, it`s verified.
As someone who`s lived through some of this and led some of this, just your thoughts on this historic day?
BRAUN: Well, it is historic for exactly the reasons that you have mentioned.
Of the 115 Supreme Court justices since 1789, we have never had a black woman before. And the value of that, of course, is that she brings to the court a set of experiences and a set of -- and understandings and perspectives that the court would be missing otherwise, has not had really since Thurgood Marshall sat on the court.
So I am over-the-moon happy and proud and proud of her. She`s comported herself with such dignity and such grace, she was able to withstand some ridiculous criticism, as far as I`m concerned. And I`m a lawyer too, by the way.
But some of the criticism that she got was just absurd. And, frankly, the idea that the black community would present the best that it has, and then have the Republicans turn around and choose really to ignore that and to denigrate that is just shocking.
And so I hope -- I hope those guys who walked off the floor of the Senate today, I hope they walked off in some shame and understand that what they have just done is basically chosen to take a -- take the roll call and make a hood for themselves. I mean, it`s a Klan kind of move.
It was horrible what they did. And that you had three Republicans who had the dignity and the grace and the sense to stand up for what was right was, I think, important.
MELBER: Maya?
MAYA WILEY, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: I just want to say, I couldn`t agree more with Senator Moseley Braun, who herself did something that Ketanji Brown Jackson did today, which was send a message to little girls of all races, but in particular to little girls who are black, that they actually can sit on the Supreme Court one day.
That matters, because the reality is, we know -- and we know this from research -- that when children see role models achieve, they achieve more and better. So the fact that we have only had 70 black women serve on the federal bench, that we had the first black woman to serve on a bench as late as 1939, but had a long break -- that was not the federal court. That was that was New York family court, by Mayor Fiorello La Guardia.
That it`s been 60 years since the first black woman argued a case in the Supreme Court, and that was the first black woman to become a federal judge, that we have waited this long, despite qualified black women, to see this day happen, but it matters so much.
And I just want to add one other thing, because it is disgraceful. We have a counterimage of a president who is a white man holding the hand of a black woman on a camera, showing the nation something that is so critical for us to see, which is that we can stand together and hold hands in the context of our division.
And yet we have the Republicans who denigrated the very house they serve or by turning their backs in a process that saw themselves agreeing that she was qualified, just disagreeing with who they thought she was in terms of legal philosophy.
[18:10:12]
That is disgraceful. It should be called disgraceful. But I am just so proud that we have that image, that image of Joe Biden, President Joe Biden, holding Ketanji Brown Jackson`s hands as she becomes justice, because that`s how we`re going to advance in this country, in this nation.
MELBER: Yes.
And we have just had those images back up. And they are striking. They are, in their very nature, literally unusual, given everything we have already laid out, and a very deliberate choice to share that with the nation, and even amidst everything else that`s going on and that the White House is balancing.
Ambassador, to the point my raised about leadership and where it comes from, most of Congress is made of lawyers. We can talk about whether that`s the right mix or not. As three lawyers here on the panel, I like both of you, but I know a lot of annoying lawyers, to be honest. And I can be annoying.
So whether there`s too many lawyers or not is kind of an open question. But who gets to go to the top law schools is often the first feeder, the first weeding out of them who gets to go on to be in a position in these -- in leadership, in the Congress, in the courts, the people who are exercising long-term power, or, in the case of this new justice, permanent power, because it`s a tenure-type position.
And so, with that in mind, Ambassador, this is what Reuters has from a law deans of these schools, law school deans, African-American deans, saying they see this as prompting a greater number of diverse students and black women in particular to pursue. Law degree racial diversity among law students lags behind the U.S. population.
Your thoughts on that, as Maya raised it, Ambassador?
BRAUN: I think it`s a very important point.
And the fact is -- and to make the point about the Supreme Court, had it not been Thurgood Marshall and the Warren court, my entire life path would have been different. I would not have been able to marry my husband. I would not have been able to sit on the front of the bus. I would not have been able to be served in restaurants.
I would not have been able to go to law school. That court made it -- opened up doors and made my life path possible. And this court now will have the perspectives of a black woman on it.
And that`s going to make a positive difference in the lives of millions and millions of Americans, not just black women, but also little white boys looking at that situation, saying, well, I have got to be better. I have got to be the best I can be, because my competition has now expanded to the entire population.
(LAUGHTER)
MELBER: Yes.
No, and, I mean, you`re calling out cases, Loving v. Virginia and other cases, that, but for those changes, we wouldn`t have this freedom. And you could think about that as we roll through today and we have these debates that are going on in different states about whether people`s identity or other aspects of how they want to live and love is going to hold them back or affect their free speech or, as DeSantis wants it to be, allow everyone to sue them, which is just a form of intimidation.
So, all of that is very important.
I did want to get to where Republicans are going, Maya, because Mitch McConnell reacted to all of this by making it clear that, if he gets power back, he will not commit in anyway -- talking about precedent, or how America used to be, he won`t commit to the rules that have generally governed, but what may lean into further trying to swipe, steal or block Supreme Court nominations in the future.
Take a look at this exchange.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: If Republicans take the Senate in November, can you make a commitment for the American public here today that you will at least hold hearings on President Biden`s nominee?
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Most hypotheticals, I don`t answer.
And I think that whole question puts the cart before the horse.
QUESTION: Are you suggesting that you developing an argument for not holding hearings on a Supreme Court nominee if it`s not an election year?
MCCONNELL: I`m suggesting that I`m not going to answer your question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Maya?
WILEY: I used the word disgraceful. I`m going to use the word disgraceful again, because our constitutional order is that courts are, in fact, the third branch of government.
And the reason it`s a lifetime appointment is in order to ensure that those who sit there are immune from the politics. But that also means not that the processes is without all politics, because, of course, every sitting president wants to make their imprint on the court.
But the way it`s supposed to work, and it worked with Clarence Thomas, is, you get a hearing and you get the opportunity to go up for a vote. That simply was denied Merrick Garland. We should remember that he was a centrist, that he was something -- someone that Republicans said that they would support if Obama brought -- then-President Obama brought his name before them.
[18:15:20]
And yet it was Senator McConnell who refused to even allow a hearing. And that is a broken constitutional system, rather than upholding the constitutional structure of the very founding fathers that now a Lindsey Graham says, we want only justices who will do exactly what the founding fathers said or exactly what they thought in those olden days, when people like Ambassador Moseley Braun and I would not be sitting here on television with you.
That those people should actually be able to say we just will not allow you to have a process and slap the founding fathers themselves. That`s disgraceful. And that`s (AUDIO GAP) to democracy, and it`s just pure partisan politics at a disturbing level.
MELBER: Yes, I want to thank both of you.
I think this has been a good conversation, even as we dealt with some of the bad stuff.
Ambassador and Senator Braun, thank you so much. Good to see you again.
Maya comes back later in the program.
BRAUN: Thank you.
MELBER: Thank you to both of you.
Let me tell folks what`s coming up, an unusual announcement today -- this is not something we usually get -- from the top prosecutor in the Trump criminal probe. Why is he speaking out after other prosecutors resigned? I`m going to tell you. We`re going to get into that and this new push for Trump to also be found in contempt for disobeying a judge`s order.
Then, speaking of presidents, Barack Obama back out again and warning about how weaponized and toxic misinformation is affecting our safety, our security and, yes, our democracy.
We also have been reporting on how Amazon is dealing with that unionization drive, apparently banning words, like even being able to mention union or pay raise among employees when they talk online. We will explain and get into it with a very special guest, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, tonight.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:21:35]
MELBER: Donald Trump has been losing some aspects of a case in New York, and now the attorney general, Letitia James, asking a judge to hold him in civil contempt.
It`s a new move that ratchets up pressure on the former president to comply with this subpoena for documents and evidence in the investigation into the Trump Organization finances. Now, the motion cites a -- quote -- "failure to comply" with this lawful subpoena and thus seeks civil contempt. That`s basically money, not jail, so 10K a day for every day until infinity until he complies.
James also says Trump has basically been evading the probe and says no one is above the law. There`s also news on the criminal probe into Trump in New York that I mentioned. We`re going to get into that in a moment, again, civil and criminal, two very different paths.
But amidst both of those investigations, there`s also the January 6 congressional probe, NBC News learning that the committee is considering calling Trump to testify. And the president keeps fixating on this, speaking out to "The Washington Post" in a lengthy interview, where he tries to blame Pelosi and others for the violence that he unleashed at the Capitol by sending all of the people from his rally to go march on the Capitol, where they breached it.
He also stands by incendiary and false rhetoric about the election and the false -- quote -- "idea" that he could be reinstated as president at some point during Biden`s term, which is false.
As for the seven-hour gap in the White House phone logs, Trump denies the use of burner phones and says he doesn`t remember getting very many calls. He also says in the interview, what`s the difference if he talked to people or not?
The Justice Department is looking into classified documents that may have been taken from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, which reminds a lot of people of the Clinton e-mail issues, except this time committed by Trump with a lot more -- now, there`s a lot of developments to get to.
Renato Mariotti, a former prosecutor himself, is here when we`re back in one minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: I`m joined now by former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.
Welcome back, sir.
RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Thanks. Great to be here, Ari.
MELBER: What do you see here in this standoff with the New York attorney general, where Trump is, of course, hitting a tone people are familiar with. Even when he loses a legal motion or battle over evidence, he just doesn`t comply.
MARIOTTI: Yes, I have to say, it`s one thing to have a disagreement about the scope of an order. It`s one thing to I fight around the edges about particular documents, particular pieces of discovery.
[18:25:06]
But when the deadline comes and goes, you don`t comply at all, you don`t do anything to try to move towards compliance, you got to expect that the other side is going to try to seek some relief from the court.
So I`m not surprised that she`s making this move. And I think he -- that Trump`s lawyers are either being put in a tough position by him, or they are totally off the rails, because they are -- I think they are going to face a very angry judge.
MELBER: And then what?
MARIOTTI: And then I suspect that the judge is going to impose some sort of penalty in order to get compliance of that subpoena. I would be very surprised if nothing happens regarding this, because he hasn`t complied at all. The deadline just came and went and nothing happened.
MELBER: Yes.
So I mentioned that`s the civil side. Then there was this really surprised news in the criminal side probe, which had been reportedly paused.
So, Renato stays. Let me update everyone on this.
It`s an unusual -- basically, an unusual set of announcements that came out from the relatively new Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg. He`s discussing the questions about whether this Trump criminal probe is continuing. And he says it is, but the law requires secrecy during an investigation.
Now, it`s unusual for a DA to put out a statement at all like this if there`s an open probe that`s going on. It seems and feels a bit like a rebuttal to the fact that as we and others reported, "The New York Times" had this story in great depth, he had prosecutors who were not only on the Trump case, but recommending moving forward with a criminal indictment of Donald Trump, where the president would be -- former president would be put on trial in New York, and, if he lost, would go to jail, that kind of criminal trial.
And this DA, according to these prosecutors, paused the case and disagreed and declined to indict Trump. There was the discussion that he -- quote -- "halted an effort to seek an indictment." That`s how it was put.
So that`s why it`s pretty interesting that, all of a sudden, Alvin Bragg, who has been on this program as well, has a new interview out today where he says, not so fast.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALVIN BRAGG, MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We are every day following up on new evidence that we have we have secured.
And investigations are not linear, right? So we are following the leads in front of us. And that`s what we`re doing. We`re doing that right now. And that`s the -- what we`re saying in our statement today. That investigation is very much ongoing.
QUESTION: So you`re still interviewing witnesses?
BRAGG: We are as -- our as our statement today says, we are interviewing witnesses reviewing documents, following up on evidence that has not previously been analyzed and looked at or secured by the office.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Renato, what is going on here?
MARIOTTI: Wow, that`s a really good question, Ari.
On its face, I would love to believe that, because Alvin Bragg has a fantastic reputation, that -- of course, that things are moving full speed ahead. What I have been hearing is the opposite. And there`s been some outside indicators that things are winding down there.
And I really got to tell you, I hope this statement is not disingenuous on his part, because it would be not only a disservice to the public, but I think it would be unethical for the DA to suggest that this is going forward full steam, when this case is actually winding down, when witnesses are no longer being interviewed, when work is not being done by people in the office, when evidence is being returned.
If that is really what is going on here, the DA should just come out and say that they`re winding down their investigation. So I really hope that he is being forthright and candid here.
MELBER: Very interesting the way you put it, Renato, and you know this space well. And some investigations come with heat and pushback.
But you seem to be implying that it is more likely that the case really is winding down, because the processes that we know about, like a grand jury impaneled to take evidence and interviews, is winding down. The prosecutors who have quite a reputation said that. That`s why they resigned. They said they were told he`s not going to indict, which, again, whether that is the right call or not people can debate, and they have more evidence than the public.
But that`s why they say they resigned. "The New York Times" had a lengthy piece with sourcing and talking to the DA himself about it. And so you`re suggesting that this could look like, in your view, potentially spin and damage control to buy time for the criticism, and not actually be 100 percent true.
And you`re saying, in that case, it would be unethical. I want to let you expound on that.
Let me play a little bit more from, again, this new and unusual interview from the DA talking about the Trump criminal probe. Here`s another part of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRAGG: I thought there were more avenues, more work to be done, more things that we could follow up on. And that`s what our team that is in place is doing each and every day.
As the district attorney for Manhattan, as the one who`s got to make the charging decision, I have decided to look at additional avenues, and doing that side by side with a team of career prosecutors, folks who have been steeped in state law practice, people who have worked in the Manhattan district attorney`s office, in some cases for decades.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[18:30:15]
MELBER: What does it mean when he says, "I have decided to look at additional avenues"?
MARIOTTI: What that tells me is that he`s decided that they don`t have enough evidence now, so he`s chasing down leads, trying to see if something else pops up.
And I guess -- I want to make clear, Ari, it`s always -- it can be technically correct, if a case is open on the books, to say that something`s ongoing. But the question is, what work is actually being done? Are you just waiting for something to fall out of the sky? Are you just sort of following up on some loose ends, tying up some loose ends? Or are you going full force in an investigation?
And the I think his statement could -- if it, in fact, is the case that this is winding down, his statement, in my opinion, gives the misleading impression that they`re going full force.
MELBER: Are you saying that he risked becoming a kind of a Comey, a James Comey of New York, if he`s trying to have too many ways in public about a high-profile case, and, if it`s a declination, then just leave it at that?
MARIOTTI: I have to say, I think it`s -- to me, it`s even more concerning, because at least Comey would come out and say what he thought was the truth at that moment in time.
In my opinion, a candor by a prosecutor is extraordinarily important. We should never be doubting. We shouldn`t be on national television doubting or trying to dissect what a prosecutor means.
MELBER: Really interesting to hear you say all that.
And I think viewers know, not only do we rely on you for your expertise, but you are not someone who is known as somehow anti or biased against the New York DA`s office or Mr. Bragg, I think you`re giving it straight, but you`re raising matters of concern.
And, again, it`s incumbent upon people in public life who take these oath to deal with that. So we`re asking the questions.
Renato, thanks for being here.
MARIOTTI: Thank you.
MELBER: A lot of news here that we have been covering across America. We turn now to an update on the war and the backlash against the Russian invasion of Ukraine that continues, Congress voting to suspend normal trade relations officially, also banning Russian oil and natural gas, the U.N. formally suspending Russia from the Human Rights Council.
You may wonder why they were on such a council in the first place. And all this comes as more evidence comes in. German intelligence says it now has recordings that it says are of Russian soldiers discussing the shooting of civilians. Again, that`s a potential war crime.
A new interview today has Putin`s spokesman admitting Russian losses, but denying those recent reports and evidence of the atrocities against civilians.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DMITRY PESKOV, KREMLIN PRESS SECRETARY: We have significant losses of troops. And it`s a huge tragedy for us.
Those dead bodies there were not victim of Russian military personnel. We`re living in -- during days of fakes, fakes and lies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: There have been setbacks all around, but the Russian setbacks has U.S. and Western intelligence eying a scenario where Russia narrows objectives to try to just focus on the eastern part of the country you see there, with one resident forced to evacuate under threat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TAMARA TREHLIB, EVACUEE: I never thought I would have to leave. I went through the war when I was a child at the age of 3. And now I just want to die in peace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs also testified today, discussing how this Ukraine standoff will continue to be a long and hard battle.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: What does winning look like?
I think winning is Ukraine remains a free and independent nation that it`s been since 1991 with their territorial integrity intact. That`s going to be very difficult. That`s going to be a long slog. This is not an easy fight that they`re involved in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That is the update on the war, and we will keep reporting on everything we`re learning.
When we come back: Barack Obama addressing the disinformation that`s weaponized against our democracy.
And reports of Bezos hitting back after his own workers have that stunning union vote win. Paul Krugman is here on all that and more.
That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:38:38]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Rebuilding America with union labor is smart for business and the American public.
Unions provide, in one word, democracy in the workplace. By the way, Amazon, here we come.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: President Biden speaking at a labor convention. And that was just days after the Amazon warehouse had workers celebrate the first ever unionization in the U.S., the first labor union at Amazon. It`s a David- vs.-Goliath story, workers fighting the billionaire Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos.
Now there`s news that, well, the company is fighting back. There`s a report that, on internal Amazon documents, they have a messaging app that employees can use, but it would block employees from even using words like union or pay raise or anything that`s seen as a critique of the company internally, according to reporting by The Intercept.
Amazon tells "The Guardian" it would only screen words that it deems offensive or harassing.
I`m joined now by Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist and columnist for "The New York Times."
Welcome back.
PAUL KRUGMAN, COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Hi there.
MELBER: What is the significance of these workers unionizing at Amazon?
KRUGMAN: Well, if we`re going to have a rebirth of the -- of unionization in America -- and unions are what made America once upon a time a middle- class country. And it was the loss of unions that did so much to turn us into the extremely unequal nation we are now.
[18:40:02]
Amazon is exactly the kind of company where unions should be able to really make a lot of progress. And the fact that the union has finally one won, despite all of the tactics that Amazon continues to use to try and suppress them, that`s at least potentially a very, very big deal.
MELBER: Yes.
We heard from the organizer Christian Smalls, who led this. Here`s a little bit of what he said when we spoke to him here on THE BEAT.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIAN SMALLS, AMAZON LABOR UNION PRESIDENT: I used to tell my new hires, if you have a gym membership, you have to cancel it, because you`re doing 10 to 12 hours of calisthenics. Your break is only 30 minutes. You`re being tracked for every single second that you`re not scanning an item.
We`re so disconnected from society. All we know is Amazon. And when customers support this company, they got to understand, our voices matter too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: I`m curious, Professor, what you think about that part of big tech that we don`t always really face. We hear a lot about the knowledge economy and working from home and what people can do in informational sectors.
But big tech companies like Amazon are still built on what that person who was involved in it says is really tough, back-breaking labor.
KRUGMAN: Yes, Amazon, in a way, thrives on an illusion. It looks like a "Star Trek" replicator or something, right? You click a button, and what you want appears. And it doesn`t look as if there`s any human toil involved.
But the reality is, the ability of Amazon to deliver stuff to you in a day or two in a major metropolitan area depends upon having this vast network of fulfillment centers close to places like Staten Island to serve metro New York, which employ a million workers now. I mean, Amazon is -- it looks like this cyberspace Web site.
But it really is -- it`s a massive labor force. And it`s a labor force that`s really, really badly treated. It`s a labor force that is policed, has very little personal freedom, is paid low wages. It`s exactly the kind of company where you ought to have a union and where the usual argument, well, we can`t have unionization because how can we compete internationally, well you can`t replace a fulfillment center on Staten Island with one in China, right?
MELBER: Yes.
KRUGMAN: So, this is exactly the kind of company that can and should unionize.
But it has, up until now, been extremely successful at basically browbeating workers into not supporting unions. And so it`s a big deal that, this time, the workers won.
MELBER: Yes. No, and you put it very clearly. And that`s really interesting thinking about it like that.
I want to turn to the prices that everyone`s paying for all kinds of stuff, the inflation. You know, Professor, you win Nobel Prizes and accolades sometimes for really spending years thinking about stuff that most of us probably never think about at all.
Now here`s an area where your expertise is something that everyone`s thinking about and feeling. And it`s not fair, the way some of this macroeconomic stuff works, because, as you know, and you have given a lot of your work to focusing on these problems, it hurts working people a lot more than really rich people when we see these price surges. It`s wiping out salary increases and other things.
Here`s what AOC had to say about her view of what companies are doing amidst the inflation. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): When four companies control almost 60 percent of an industry, the normal supply-demand curve doesn`t really set the price, does it?
All of these things that our prices are fair and price hikes are just the result of just completely natural, competitive environment, that starts to fall away when the U.S. economy transforms into an oligopoly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: My question for you is economic and not political.
How much of this is about economic forces, and how much of it is, as some critics have alleged, about companies taking advantage of these conditions to stick it to consumers all the more?
KRUGMAN: Well, look, most of the inflation is economic forces.
Global oil prices are up. Wheat prices are up. There are supply chain problems. The -- and the economy is running very hot. It`s like a car engine that`s running way above the red line on RPM. So all of that is not what AOC is talking about.
But -- and you should know that a lots of my colleagues in economics very much hate it when people like me say this, but I think there is in fact something to what she`s saying.
I mean, in an environment when you have a lot of inflation for these other reasons, companies that have the ability to set prices -- companies have always been greedy, but they tend to be restrained by the outrage factor. If a company just suddenly slaps on a 20 percent price increase for no obvious reason, people get mad.
[18:45:03]
But if prices are going up on lots of things, then the company may feel, hey, we can get away with this without getting a customer backlash, without getting a political backlash.
And that -- I think it`s actually silly not to think that isn`t part -- it`s only part. It wouldn`t be possible if all this other stuff wasn`t going on -- but that that`s part of why we`re seeing so much inflation.
MELBER: Interesting.
Some people may not know this, but whenever you agree to do an interview, you say you always want to talk about Mitch McConnell for a few minutes of the interview, just because you`re so interested in him personally.
KRUGMAN: All right. That`s new to me too. That`s OK.
(LAUGHTER)
MELBER: I`m kidding. So folks know, Paul doesn`t have any conditions.
But we are living in these extraordinary times where the level -- the level of extremism and both political and policy hijacking is quite acute. And so he was asked some questions here that I want to share, just how he puts it, when it comes to whether there`s any morality left in his leadership of the Republican Party in the Senate. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Where do you draw your moral red lives?
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Moral red lines, where do you draw them?
MCCONNELL: I`m perfectly comfortable with the way I conducted my political career.
QUESTION: You said Donald Trump`s actions preceding the January 6 insurrection were a -- quote -- "disgraceful dereliction of duty."
How do you go from saying that to two weeks later saying you would absolutely support Donald Trump, positions which is...
(CROSSTALK)
MCCONNELL: No, not at all inconsistent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Not at all inconsistent, and yet, Professor, this was someone who let it be known that he thought Donald Trump in the days after the 6th committed convictable offenses in an attempted coup, and now is in reverse in public.
What do you make of all this?
KRUGMAN: Well, Mitch McConnell -- I mean, Mitch McConnell is not Steve Bannon. I don`t think that he is personally an ethno-nationalist or anything.
What he is, is somebody who is willing to sacrifice everything, to sacrifice all the principles of democracy, all the principles of a fair play in order to have lower taxes on rich people, basically.
The amazing thing about Mitch McConnell is that he`s somebody who has -- I`m probably going to get in trouble -- he sold his soul for the sake of a tax cut. And it`s the most amazing thing, that he does not at some point look in the mirror and say, my God, what have I done?
Aren`t there things that, if trump -- unfortunate word -- aren`t there things that trump the questions of conservative economic policy? But in McConnell`s behavior, the answer is no. Nothing matters, except getting the -- pushing the country towards a more unequal distribution of income, pushing our economic policy to the right.
MELBER: Wow.
Yes. Well, and, as you say, that`s a distinct -- it`s a really distinct contrast to people who have some set of beliefs, whatever they may be. But, in a way, it makes it all the more dangerous, because of who he`s dealing with and what he`s willing to do.
Paul Krugman, as always, good to hear from you, sir. Thank you.
KRUGMAN: Thank you.
MELBER: Appreciate it.
Coming up, we will turn to President Obama and why he`s warning about misinformation across the country.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:52:50]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have got a supply issue and we have got a demand issue for toxic information.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That`s former President Obama discussing the spread of misinformation and how it affects everyone in our country.
He was in Chicago last night. And he discussed how this has grown since his time in office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: If you asked me what I`m most concerned about when I think back to the -- towards the end of my presidency, and that is the degree to which information, disinformation, misinformation was being weaponized.
And we saw it, but I think I underestimated the degree to which democracies were as vulnerable to it as they were, including ours.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Obama, of course, headed the most important, powerful democracy in the world.
And he faced those issues firsthand, like the false birther theories that were ultimately debunked from the White House. He also predicted then that those kinds of lies would, left unchecked, continue to interfere with the healthy functioning of our democracy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: We`re not going to be able to do it if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts. We`re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That was 2011. And he was responding directly to Donald Trump, who then was dismissed as a ridiculous carnival barker who was pushing the birther theory, but not someone who would ultimately become president, let alone lead the rally that paved the way to an insurrection.
Seventy-one percent of Republicans now say that they basically think the Biden victory was somehow illegitimate.
There are many ways to fight this kind of false misinformation as it takes hold on people who five, 10 years ago would have never thought that they would be just functioning and living their lives based on lies.
And when you think back to that now infamous roasting of Donald Trump that same year, at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, Obama also fought some of the lies with grace and humor.
[18:55:08]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: No one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than the Donald.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: And that`s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like, did we fake the moon landing?
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: What really happened in Roswell?
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: And where are Biggie and Tupac?
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: The big story today is the confirmation of Judge Jackson.
Do you remember where you were today when you heard the news or how you felt? You can let me know online @AriMelber. What did you think or feel when this history was made? @AriMelber on any social media or AriMelber.com. As always, we like to hear from you and know what you think.
That does it for THE BEAT.
"THE REIDOUT WITH JOY REID" Reid now.