Summary
Judge in Georgia ordering Senator Lindsey Graham to comply with subpoena while former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani staying quiet after grand jury testimony. Trump claimed a standing order to declassify documents seized at Mar-a-Lago but former White House staff denying such order existed. Emmy Award-winning T.V. producer Michael Hirschorn joins Ari Melber to talk about what Donald Trump complains about the valid search but surrenders to reality in court.
Transcript
JOHN HEILEMANN, MSNBC HOST: Thank you for hanging out with me for the last couple of weeks. It has been a wild ride. And we brought it to a close today with some very dystopian discussions about domestic political violence and the possibility of nuclear catastrophe on the European continent, but I will end this Friday on two positive notes. The first, unequivocable positive, Nicolle Wallace back in this chair on Monday. And the other positive note, Ari Melber, "THE BEAT," starting right now.
Hey, Ari. I`m going to get a drink.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Hey, John. You deserve it. Have a great weekend.
Welcome to THE BEAT. I`m Ari Melber. Let me tell you tonight, we have actually a top lawyer on who declined a request to represent Trump as he faces these escalating probes. That should be interesting.
We have a report on how top Republican Ron DeSantis just lost a free speech case. And by the end of this hour, THE BEAT will go full happy days. Henry Winkler, our special guest tonight on "Fallback Friday."
Our top story right now is the escalation in the probe in Georgia where Rudy Giuliani is targeted for indicted officially, and the D.A. has just won a standoff with Trump ally Lindsey Graham, He had been resisting a lawful subpoena to testify. A judge is now telling him just comply, ordering testimony, which the D.A. says will be crucial because of what Graham knows. And he will not be allowed to delay the revelation of relevant witnesses.
Now Georgia is something of an epicenter of more than one of those plots we`ve been covering for you that you see here. On the left you have some of the plots that were technically legal like filing lawsuits or the beginning of the electors scandal which turned into something that might be illegal. But Georgia has several of those red arrows, overthrowing votes, trying to install fraudulent electors.
So the probe is eyeing a whole range of witnesses, and that includes lawyers who might not be as well-known as Giuliani, including Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis, who was actively lying about Trump`s loss even after the votes were in and counted. We asked her what was the point of that seemingly public relations effort at the time when she appeared on THE BEAT in November 2020.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNA ELLIS, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN LAWYER: Our strategy is to make sure that we continue to challenge all of these false and fraudulent results.
MELBER: What is the point of all of this?
ELLIS: Well, the point of this, of course, is to get to fair and accurate results because the election was stolen and President Trump won by a landslide.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That was late November. And what wasn`t public then is how the efforts went beyond those false public claims, which is putting heat on these figures. Now a judge ordering Ellis to testify, which means the grand jury will get this extensive information or it will get interesting examples of people pleading the Fifth. You have this roster from Ellis to Graham to the probe target Giuliani. And he has changed his whole media strategy after what really seemed like years of nonstop appearances and interviews and other advocacy in public for Trump.
He was just making those disclosures about NDAs on Hannity and doing those bizarre press conferences and briefing different states about what he thought about the election. Well, now Giuliani is avoiding most press. He won`t even say yes or no to whether he pled the Fifth this week. Instead offering a more careful and lawyered response to the AP that he satisfied his obligation under subpoena.
Well, OK. It is true, he did satisfy the obligation, facing the grand jury. He did not duck the request like Lindsey Graham who blew through a deadline or defied entirely like Steve Bannon who was recently convicted for exactly that. When you take it together in Georgia, it`s really striking. There were months of the January 6th hearings in Washington, which cover all of this, all those arrows I just showed you.
Georgia has some of them, not all of them. But the ones that it has according to many legal experts are the ones most likely to lead to actual indictments, which is something that the January 6th Committee has no power to do under our system of government and something that the DOJ at the federal level has not shown yet a keen interest in doing, indicting people like Giuliani. Indeed he is a target in Georgia.
We have not reported, we have no information to suggest that he would yet be a federal target. So what is going on here? I want to bring in first former federal prosecutor, former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance.
Welcome. Your thoughts first on what does seem to be a lot of escalation in Georgia.
JOYCE VANCE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: There is a lot of escalation in Georgia, and Ari, I think something that`s worth pointing out is that all of these former Trump cronies, former lawyers who are trying to avoid the grand jury don`t have a good argument because the way our criminal justice system works is that when prosecutors are trying to get to the truth of the matter, and they have questions, they are permitted to send subpoenas to people who won`t voluntarily provide information to them.
[18:05:15]
And if they believe those people have relevant information, they are obligated to comply with the subpoena and show up and testify. So this is just more of Trump world`s effort to place all of themselves above the law. I think the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals where, for instance, Senator Graham`s efforts to avoid testifying currently are sitting, I think that the 11th Circuit is going to deliver a resounding retort and tell them that they, too, are obligated like other citizens to comply with subpoenas.
MELBER: Really interesting. And when you think about what they want to know from Lindsey Graham, it`s really, what did you do, and why would that be so hard to tell, especially grand juries who happens to be private. I understand, and public officials may argue that what they say if it`s reported out in public, and affect their career in other ways, non-legal, but in this instance, it`s going into a private room to tell the truth about what he did. Why is he fighting so hard to hide that, I think is an open question.
I want you to stay with me as we bring in Gene Robinson who`s standing by and look at these claims that have been demolished because Trump had said in regard to the intelligence in the search that there was some sort of standing order to declassify documents. Well, there`s reporting, 18 Trump officials say he is lying or his team is lying, that it`s, quote, "BS, ridiculous, ludicrous."
John Kelly went on the record, we talk about sometimes how folks are always blind quotes, he said on the record, nothing approaching an order that foolish was ever given. Mick Mulvaney says nope, and here`s John Bolton.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: There was no standing order. I was not briefed on anything like that. When I started as National Security adviser, I never heard of it. Never saw it in operation. Never knew anything about it. The president never said anything to me during 17 months there. I just think it`s a complete fiction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: The feds are questioning Trump staff from the National Security Operation about that as a kind of a defense that seems to be just evaporating in real time. And for that story, we want to add to our conversation the Pulitzer Prize winning "Washington Post" columnist Gene Robinson.
Good to see you, sir. We wanted to bring --
EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST: Good to see you.
MELBER: Good to see you. I want to bring you in on this part because there`s this whole legal question around the search. We`ve covered a lot of that. We have more on that. National security is always a huge deal. The president has powers here that are different from everyone else in government. And what you see here seems to be a clash between what the president at the time, Trump did, what he took with him, whether that was illegal, the DOJ says it was, whether or not they want to charge anyone for it.
So they got it back under a judge warrant. And then the actual way this policy was being executed, which appears to be according to a bunch of fairly conservative national security experts, that they wouldn`t allow that, they didn`t do it and they`re basically calling him a liar.
ROBINSON: Yes. I think he is lying. You know, that`s basically what`s happening. I think we can take the testimony of these former officials at face value. And there was never any such standing order, which would be absurd on its face. But there was never any such standing order that anybody was told about. And so I think maybe former President Trump is arguing that, well if he -- or had that order in his head somehow he has this metaphysical power, perhaps retroactively to say that I ordered it to declassified because I`m the president and I can do that or could do that or could have done that.
It`s ridiculous. And I`m happy that it`s been roundly denied by the people who really are -- who would have to know if there were such a policy.
MELBER: Yes. I hadn`t heard of anything like it. And of all the areas that you wouldn`t want to just be a kind of secret mental reclassification, I would think national security nuclear secrets would be high on that list. I could think of other examples if the president says that in his mind he wants to change the menu for the White House that night and the chef and him have to kind of have some mentalism about that, that`s just going to be lower stakes than this.
Then there`s the real pressure on the Trump Organization -- and I want to get both of you on this. So this is other news here going into the weekend. But Trump Org CFO Weisselberg pleading guilty late this week to those tax fraud charges. He agrees he will testify against the Trump Org. "New York Times" reporting that Weisselberg`s only bottom line was he wasn`t going to betray Trump and the Trump Org had pled guilty.
The judge offered to impose a shorter sentence on Weisselberg. They didn`t get there so he`s going to get up to five months in Rikers but could get less for good behavior. But it is a very real punishment. One former prosecutor says that Trump Org`s destruction as a viable entity could happen if they are convicted at trial.
[18:10:07]
Another who served as a lead counsel in the impeachment says this would be a, quote, "death blow."
And so, Joyce, we`re looking at something that`s somewhat arcane area of the law. People say, you know, corporations are not people. But sometimes under the law, they can be put on trial. And the death blow is the idea of the corporation as an entity. So bad for Trump Org. And I would note that the D.A. here, Joyce, had already sort of signaled they weren`t going after Donald Trump? That it wasn`t a formal declination but that had become clear. So I think that there`s criticism around that if people think they should have.
But as a legal matter, Joyce, it would seem that they`re no longer pursuing Trump. So they feel they got Weisselberg`s cooperation for the case they are pursuing, this trial, which could come in October. Your thoughts.
VANCE: Well, they have Weisselberg who apparently will testify in that trial if he is asked to. But it`s awfully hard to walk that tightrope between the organization and Trump who was running the organization until 2017 successfully. You know, what do you do if on cross examination a lawyer for the organization tries to clear the former president from responsibility and asks Weisselberg or says to Weisselberg, as one does on cross examination with leading questions, well, Mr. Trump, didn`t know anything about any of this, did he?
And Weisselberg is then faced with whether or not he maintains his loyalty to Trump at the risk of committing perjury. It seems like at many different points in this trial that`s a real risk that Weisselberg would run.
And Ari, I want to push back just a little bit on one thing that you said.
MELBER: Please.
VANCE: Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg said that he was not going to proceed with the case against Mr. Trump at that point in time. But also when he issued his statement, he said if additional evidence came to light, that he could reconsider that decision. That`s as you know standard fare for prosecutors, right. If you bring me great new evidence, I`ll reconsider the case. Well, this could be the point where something like that develops.
But as you say, the most likely sanction, the most powerful sanction here is New York`s Blue Sky Laws which ultimately could be a powerful tool in the hands of New York attorney Tish James. The attorney general`s office has already shut down Trump`s charitable organization for violating New York law. This sort of a trial might expose claims that could lead to that sort of action against the organization as well.
MELBER: Yes. Which is significant. I appreciate your nuance there. It was also a former prosecutor who had worked under this D.A.`s office Mark Pomeranz who basically went public and said they felt that the conclusion they were given was, we`re not going after Trump, at least as you say at that junction.
Gene, you are known for truth. It`s something we like about you. I think it`s something MSNBC viewers like about you. So I`m going to ask you the straightforward simple question about the truth here, which is I get that everyone is exhausted. I get that the lines have moved. It seems to me, though, that if the former President Bush or former President Obama had a large company that they were involved in and a top official pled guilty as a felon to stealing and making other people pay more in taxes and basically have to pay more than their fair share because these millionaires think they are better than everyone and were stealing, and then the Obama or Bush company was going to be on trial and maybe be run out of business legally, seems to me that`d be a big story. And yet there are some people at least in your town and other places say, it`s Trump, it`s not a big deal.
ROBINSON: Well, you know, so much Trump, so little time. You know? It`s not as if there`s no other legal jeopardy surrounding the former president right now. And this is not as dramatic as the search of Mar-a-Lago. So -- but your point is absolutely right. This would be a huge story. This is a family -- mom and pop store company. Right? I mean, we talk about the Trump Organization, it`s like a corporation. It`s not. It`s Donald Trump and Weisselberg and few other people.
You know, Michael Cohen off in a closet and Don Jr. and Eric and Ivanka. I mean, that was it in this cluttered office in Trump Tower. That was the company. And so you can`t -- I don`t see how you can go after the company without implicating Donald Trump. I don`t see how that`s possible, number one. And number two, you lawyers can answer this question better than I, but when do they get to like all the tax fraud stuff, all the questions about him, you know, inflating the value of his properties when he was applying for loans and dealing with financial institutions, and then, you know, deflating the value of properties when it was time to pay taxes?
[18:15:00]
When is there a reckoning for that? Is that the New York civil case? Or is that happening in Manhattan as well?
MELBER: Right.
ROBINSON: Or where is that?
MELBER: Yes. You heard it here. Gene Robinson wants a reckoning. We might work up a whole segment on it.
Really appreciate both of you, with kicking us off here as we go into Friday. I wish you both a great weekend. Joyce and Gene, thank you.
ROBINSON: You too.
MELBER: We have our shortest break, which is just one minute. When we come let me talk about Donald Trump`s struggle for lawyers. I have, as a special interview tonight, live the lawyer who passed on the request to represent Trump. We`re back in a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: Donald Trump has several legal problems right now. And he`s had his home searched, the first former president to ever face that level of criminal scrutiny. So there`s a lot of problems and a lot of different jurisdictions. He needs good lawyers. And yet as "The Washington Post" and other outlets have reported, many are saying no, they don`t believe they can represent him because of the way he is, the way he acts and the way he doesn`t pay his bills. Some say he is virtually impossible to represent.
Indeed, this is a big story. There`s many examples. But we are thrilled to tell you, as we always go to the sources when we can, we have exactly one of the seasoned, respected lawyers who simply turned down a request to represent Trump. A little more context, the former OAN host Christina Bobb is now on the legal team. She was at Mar-a-Lago to observe. Now Trump has wanted to make a public spectacle of complaints about all this but very little from his lawyers on actually challenging the search.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: I`m wondering, are you not concerned that because you didn`t join any of these motions for, again, the full release of this affidavit that you are then waiving possible objections to the way redactions are being done by the Justice Department later on?
CHRISTINA BOBB, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we maintain that we haven`t waived our right. And that still is maintained. You know, we need to wait and see.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Well, is that a job that our next guest wants? Apparently not. He turned down exactly answering those kinds of questions, which can be difficult if you represent Trump. But he says in public, this was unconstitutional, but then in court they don`t even so much as lift a finger.
So let`s get into it. We have a former Watergate prosecutor and former assistant U.S. attorney, Jon Sale. He represented Mr. Giuliani in the congressional probe regarding Ukraine. And he has confirmed, without disclosing any client confidences, that he passed on the request to represent Donald Trump here.
Welcome to THE BEAT, sir.
JON SALE, FORMER WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: Thank you. Nice to be with you.
MELBER: Yes, sir. Why did you pass?
SALE: Well, without violating any confidences, it`s really -- I can only speak to my own experience. And my own experience was, it was a legal discussion. I made it clear I was not going to participate in the political agenda. The political agenda has to coexist with the legal. I understand that. But you`re talking about the former president. But I was going to strictly be a lawyer. And we talked about legal issues.
And I thought some of these legal issues were extraordinarily interesting and complex. And -- but when I had a little time to reflect about it, this is not as sexy, exciting answer, that I think it`s a full-time job. The government has a team of attorneys. This is the only case they have. And I would have had to take a leave of absence, basically, from my law practice, from my law firm. So I just was not in a position to do it.
But I got to say to be perfectly candid, when I sort of said if I would have done it, I would have not participated in the political aspect. Within a day or two, I would have broken that rule. So I would have, and I would like to do it now. I would have spoken out as strongly as I can against the rhetoric and the threats and the anti-Semitism and the defunding the FBI and the threats to the judge.
[18:20:02]
And I don`t think that serves the former president, serves him well, and I think that every responsible person, lawyer, should denounce that.
MELBER: You say every responsible person. Do you think Donald Trump should use what is a considerable following here to tell people to stop menacing the FBI, to tell his MAGA allies as you`ve mentioned to stop using hate, anti-Semitism and racism against people who are just public official doing their job?
SALE: Well, I don`t mean to duck your question, but I`m only going to speak for myself, and I find it more than reprehensible. And I would have no part of it.
MELBER: Understood. You said that your answers thus far might not be sexy or exciting. That`s fine, sir, as long as they are true. And the journalistic --
SALE: They`re true. No. No.
MELBER: That`s fine.
SALE: And if I did the representation, I would have done it honestly and ethically. And -- but I don`t know about any of the lawyers. They did not express any dissatisfaction with the present legal team. Now I don`t know if they are dissatisfied or not but that they just didn`t go there with me. They just wanted to build a team.
MELBER: I want to ask another --
SALE: And I just was not in a position to do it.
MELBER: Yes. And I want to ask another question, I want to be respectful. We are both members of the bar.
SALE: Right.
MELBER: And I`m a journalist who wants to be respectful. So I`m not intending to demean any particular lawyer. But there`s levels to this. And a president facing a big -- the big type of cases that he has needs certain levels. You are at a different higher level than some of the individuals that we have seen come out, just in terms of experience, seasoned, federal prosecutorial experience, et cetera.
Do you see any gradations here in who Trump and his advisers are reaching out for in certain places? Because we have observed for the benefit of your response that they have heavy hitters in Georgia more so than in, say, Florida right now.
SALE: Well, without disparaging anybody, of course they need somebody with serious federal criminal experience. And I mean, there are some issues that I spotted right away, which I would have done. I don`t know what the present lawyers know. So I`m not criticizing them. But for example, with the documents, neither side, neither the government nor the Trump side, knows what`s there. And they are using a filter team.
The government, in order to review these documents, for privilege, various privileges, attorney-client, executive privilege.
MELBER: Right.
SALE: The deliberative process privilege. Well, I would immediately have gone to court and asked for the appointment of a special master. I would not trust the government to be doing that.
MELBER: Let me just slow you down and then you can continue. But you`re making an interesting legal point, which, again, the law, as you emphasized earlier, is different from one`s political or personal feelings about the various players involved.
You are saying that given your experience in this field, you think the right adept legal move would have been to try to get the court a judge to force more independence on that situation? I mean, the average person and the average search complaint isn`t just going to get a special master. But you think based on your experience, a judge might look kindly on that given these issues and you think basically if I`m simplifying they missed that opportunity?
SALE: I think that`s what I would have done. But it`s not my original idea. It`s happened several times in the Southern District of New York, including in the Giuliani case and in other cases. And it`s worked very well. And that`s one of the things I would have done.
You know, I think next Thursday there`s going to be a media frenzy. And they`re going to be very disappointed because all that`s going to happen is, there are going to be proposed redactions. I think they`re going to redact virtually everything. The judge is going to decide. And if the government isn`t satisfied with it, they`re going to have a stay and it`s going to be reviewed by the district court. So I don`t think we`re going to see anything next Thursday.
MELBER: Yes. Let me ask you one more thing that`s come up a lot.
SALE: Sure.
MELBER: And I hear it actually from viewers. Donald Trump has skipped out on a lot of bills. There`s evidence of that. There`s documentation to that and there`s past lawyers who have filed supporting evidence on that. When you looked at a case like this, did you take that as a given that had you taken the case, he might not pay the bills?
SALE: In my -- I can only speak to my experience. They did not expect that I would work for nothing. And I was satisfied with the assurances --
MELBER: Well, sir, now I have to give you the follow-up.
SALE: OK.
MELBER: I`m not saying they said you would work for nothing. I`m saying, that in the past, Donald Trump has not paid all the bills. Is that something that you factored into your decision?
SALE: I was comfortable that I would be paid.
MELBER: So you think he basically pays some people and not others? That`s just how it works.
SALE: No, I don`t know that. I mean, all I knew is --
MELBER: Well, you know, hold on. Now I got to really lawyer you. You know what I`m talking about. He definitely --
SALE: Of course.
MELBER: -- has stiffed certain people. But yes, you`re right, that there are some high level people that sometimes do get paid. And we`re on the outside reporting on it. He might say, well, Mr. Sale, if we got him, you know, he`s a heavy hitter, we don`t want to mess him, we got to pay him. Did you feel -- did you have some assurance that somehow you were in the non-deadbeat group?
SALE: Well, I wouldn`t necessarily adopt your word. But yes, I had assurances that I`d be paid.
MELBER: Interesting.
SALE: And I was very comfortable with that.
MELBER: Last question. Do you have any view of Drew Findling who`s handling it in Georgia? We`ve reported on him and he`s got a lot of experience.
SALE: I only know what I`ve read about him. So I have no personal experience with him.
[18:25:05]
MELBER: Well, Mr. Sale, you are right out of central casting as a serious attorney. And I appreciate you spending time with us.
SALE: Thank you for having me.
MELBER: Absolutely, sir. Hope to have you back.
SALE: Thank you.
MELBER: We`re going to fit in a break. When we get back, free speech, a big issue down in Florida. A lot of talk about cancel culture. Well, Ron DeSantis is the one losing the free speech case. A judge finding violations of the First Amendment. That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: "Stranger Things" is a popular dystopian, weird, cool, kind of disturbing show on Netflix. And even if you`ve never seen it, it is bad news for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis today and it`s not my pop culture analogy. So, allow me to explain.
The governor, as you may know, has been pushing all kinds of bills and laws that seem to be designed to get attention, but many of them are getting defeated in court, and they are casting him as one of the biggest opponents and enemies of the First Amendment in America. Again, you might say, OK, someone on the news is saying that.
I`m not telling you an opinion. I`m about to tell you why a judge found yet again, not the first time that this governor is acting in a, quote, unconstitutional manner, violating the First Amendment with impermissibly vague, big government attacks on your freedom of speech. That`s just an independent judge.
Then we get to the culture. The judge writes in the popular television series Stranger Things, the upside down describes a parallel dimension with a distorted version of our world. Recently, Florida under DeSantis has seemed like a First Amendment upside down. That is a sick pop culture burger. But again, the results here are significant.
The judge saying, Mr. DeSantis is an enemy of the First Amendment, and he`s exceeded his power and he will be stopped by the constitution. As for the Netflix show, well, it deals with the supernatural forces that can disrupt the lives of otherwise regular small-town Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nancy? Hey, hey. Stay with me, Nancy. Hey!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: OK, if that was a little scary for Friday afternoon or evening, we won`t show you any more of it. But the legal point stands, the judge is not only burning DeSantis but also blocking his powers by saying that what you just saw there, that scary underground world is how the First Amendment would operate if DeSantis had his way in Florida. But he`s not that powerful.
The constitution beats and it means that the First Amendment every time, no matter what party they`re in. And this is not isolated. DeSantis has tried to also go after Disney and punish it under state law because of its free speech rights to express itself on matters that it viewed as discrimination. And again, you don`t even have to get into the details on that. We`ve covered it before.
But whether or not people because they work for Disney should be muzzled or punished for what they say or supporting equality is a First Amendment issue he lost on. DeSantis also railing against what he has called canceled culture, which is odd because he is the one trying to cancel Disney if it doesn`t agree with him.
Now, a lot of this is political pandering, but there is accountability, because, well, Mr. DeSantis, according to the judges who oversee the First Amendment, you are the canceled culture, you are the problem, and you are less powerful today than you were yesterday, because you keep losing in court.
We wanted to give you that update. We have a lot more on the program, Tucker Carlson, like McConnell concerned about Republicans losing the midterms. And the search theatrics, why Trump is losing the big battle but making a different argument in public. We have a very special guest on that. And before the hour is over, we get to the happy days. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:38:27]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a joke. This is momento. And quite honestly, I`m concerned that they may have planted something.
CHRISTINA BOBB, DONALD TRUMP ATTORNEY: If we are on the verge of nuclear war, giving up the nuclear codes, maybe it`s acceptable that they violated the president`s constitutional rights. It was not acceptable.
LINDSEY HALLIGAN, DONALD TRUMP ATTORNEY: What the FBI did was an appalling display of abuse of power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Is it any of those things? You have Trump`s legal team alleging a lot in public but almost nothing in court. They have not availed themselves of the right to challenge this search warrant weeks later. To get into why the out-of-court theater is so different than the in-court rejections and the progress that Justice Department prosecutors are making. We turned to someone who is a liberal theorist, a writer but also an Emmy Award-winning T.V. producer, Michael Hirschorn. Welcome back.
MICHAEL HIRSCHORN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ISH ENTERTAINMENT: Hey, thanks so much.
MELBER: You know what we thought of you for this?
HIRSCHORN: Tell me.
MELBER: Because we were like -- here`s the thing that`s not true. That is like a reality show representation as if they were fighting it in court. And I`m sorry to tell you this man, because we do like you, but you know, for the really true stories, they`re higher in the show and we go to other guests. For these, we go to you. What do you see happening here?
HIRSCHORN: I`m this -- I`m the strip at the party. That`s why you bring me in. No, I think this is super interesting what`s happening. I would liken it -- I play a fair amount of poker, maybe too much poker. When you have the worst hand of poker is a two-seven off suit, sometimes when you have a two-seven off suit you bet far more aggressively than if you have a good hand.
[18:40:00]
Because you have a good hand, you want to keep the other players in the game. So that`s what`s going on here. And that kind of reality show context. This is bullying. This is Alfa-style behavior. But from my point of view, it`s kind of an expression of weakness. The (INAUDIBLE) your hand, the louder you`re going to bellow.
MELBER: Yes, it`s an expression of weakness and unlike some things where people say, oh, will this ever pierce the right -- the certain right-wing universe. It`s already being brought up by people frustrated on the right because this is not arcane stuff. I mean, people seem Beverly Hills Cop, they know what an illegal search is. Take a listen to how this playing out on Fox.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LISA KENNEDY MONTGOMERY, HOST, FOX NEWS: If this was actually an illegal search, which is what he`s saying it was, you could bring that to court. And his lawyers are not doing that. They`ve had 10 days now to do it and they`ve done nothing. And it`s reminiscent of when Rudy Giuliani -- no, that`s actually not true. They can bring it to court now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: I mean, that`s piercing. And we showed it in a different context, a different anchor at night asking the same question because the problem with this much lying is that then the gullible type people think, oh, it must be true. Maybe it was this FBI terrible overreach. And if they believe that to be true, just as some people were lied to about the election results, they then do things. And so, it seems that unlike other sealed-off things, this is already quickly boomeranging on them. I`m wondering your view of that part.
HIRSCHORN: Well, I think -- to me, I think it is clearly boomerang on them. It is a sign that they are already failing. They cannot back down so they have to double down, and they have to be (INAUDIBLE) more and more aggressive. Now, to take my poker metaphor from before. If they win the pot, they destroyed democracy. And so, the stakes are really high. And so, they`re playing a game with something that`s really, really serious.
And that`s what`s kind of scary to me. But I think, you know, as a student of history, what they`re engaged in is really what Marx, Lenin, Mao engaged in, how do we push and push and push and see if we can break this thing in a way that makes it really work for us and rebound to our advantage. So, it`s a really crazy game they are playing.
MELBER: Right. No, I appreciate that. The seriousness that you remind us of that because the other thing that goes on is in the modern era if you`re talking about the last, you know, century or two you don`t have widespread authoritarianism without propaganda.
And the people -- the two people that fascist tend to keep closest to them are first a muscle, of course, the military, the military, the arm -- you know, arm, secret service, secret police secret Stasi, whatever you want to call it. And then the propagandists because that`s how they keep a larger populace down. And so, I think both those things intersect as you say, in a serious way. And with that, Michael, I hope you have a great weekend.
HIRSCHORN: You too.
(CROSSTALK)
MELBER: Peace. Let me tell folks what`s coming up. Tucker Carlson is worried that Democrats are actually on the comeback. Even amidst inflation, economic problems, Biden`s mediocre numbers, he still thinks they might win the midterms.
And tonight, I told you it`s happening, and I meant it. The Fonz, Henry Winkler, the one and only, is our live guest along with our friend Ayman Mohyeldin to end the week. I encourage you to stay with us for that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:48:16]
MELBER: It`s the end of the week, or near the end of summer, and after that comes the fall and the midterms and some conservatives are warning that candidate quality and other problems could saddle the Republicans with a disappointment in November. Here`s Tucker.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, FOX NEWS: All the indications we have right now suggests that despite Joe Biden`s well-earned unpopularity, the Democratic Party still, again, as it tonight has a strong chance of holding Congress in November. So, if you ask people, which party do you like more, they say Democrats. That is not good at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That`s his opinion mixed with some facts. The Democrats have improved their standing for the midterms. It`s also true that Joe Biden is not currently very popular, his aides emphasize the economy. But something seems to be going on when you have a medium to unpopular incumbent president and still this kind of traction.
Then Mitch McConnell, also this week saying basically they might not get back Senate control. He cited, quote, low candidate quality among Republicans. So, let`s get into that and a lot more as we end the week.
We have the one and only Henry Winkler, the Fonz from Happy Days, who we love, who you`ve known has been honestly a part of American life for quite some time. And I got to tell you, I was mentioned this to him today. He has just fantastic on the HBO hit Barry, where he`s won an Emmy and does so many different pieces of pathos.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY WINKLER, ACTOR: I once auditioned for the guy that robbed the house on Full House, and I carried a loaded Beretta with me into the audition, just feel the weight of it.
BILL HADER, ACTOR: Did you get the part?
WINKLER: Oh, they freaked out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[18:50:00]
MELBER: They freaked out. Oh, just to feel the weight of it. And another friend of THE BEAT who we all know and well -- know well, MSNBC anchor Ayman Mohyeldin, who has been acclaimed for his coverage around the world on the ground these days. You can also always catch him here on Saturday and Sunday on MSNBC. Welcome to both of you. Dealer`s choice, but Ayman, your in-house, we`ve been covering these midterms, what do you see in this anxiety publicly expressed on the right?
AYMAN MOHYELDIN, MSNBC HOST: Yes, look, I mean, I think they see the writing on the wall, certainly on the Senate side. And, you know, you look at some of the candidates that the Republicans have been fielding in Wisconsin, in Georgia and Pennsylvania, and Ohio. And you know, quality as Mitch McConnell said, matters. And let`s be honest, this is not exactly an A-list lineup of candidates with what you`re seeing come out of Herschel Walker --
MELBER: Would you go B. list or lower?
MOHYELDIN: I got -- I probably go down D. list. Ouch.
MELBER: Ouch.
MOHYELDIN: Yes. So, the quality`s not there for them. And I think they know that. They see the writing on the wall, at least on the Senate.
MELBER: Yes, candidate quality is such a funny term, Henry, and it`s sort of just Mitch McConnell, shading the people who might join him, although I guess he thinks some of them are on the path to losing. Speaking of that, let`s get into his specific and pretty fun example to end the week. Dr. Oz has gone viral, but this is what the kids sometimes called bad viral for this crudity video.
His Democratic opponent Fetterman who is up, says it shows that Dr. Oz who`s very wealthy is completely out of touch. Fetterman also, still up in the race. And so, we go to the big questions, Henry, you can tell us anything you want to end the week, but do you call it a veggie platter or crudite? Does this look like an out-of-touch elite Hollywood thing to you? And what do you think about Dr. Oz in the midterms?
WINKLER: I think this. I think that -- one I would like to say hello to Ayman. Two, we`d like to say it`s nice to be back with you. And three, I think Mr. Fetterman held up a wonderfully packaged crudity for like $5. So, Dr. Oz who has been selling products that probably do less than he touted I think it`s out of touch.
MELBER: Out of touch. Ayman?
MOHYELDIN: Look, Ari, to be honest with you, I wasn`t sure I was going to be able to join you tonight. Crudity is a big thing on our house Friday nights. We like to hit up to trader foods. We`d like to go to the trader foods but we`re more of a homeless and (INAUDIBLE) news type of family. So, I got to be honest and tell you I don`t know what kind of crudity Dr. Oz was presenting there. But it definitely would not fly in our house. So that`s all I can say. But it`s very telling from the guy --
(CROSSTALK)
MELBER: Let me Henry in on that and then you go again, because if I`m not mistaken, Henry, (INAUDIBLE) all of us, go ahead.
WINKLER: I would like to say this. That what really -- if there is such a thing as a fallback if there is still a fallback. I would like to say that a lot of these people keep saying that celebrities should not talk about what they`re feeling. But I`m an American first. I have been here all my life. I pay my taxes. I have voted. I`m a professional actor. Why do I not have the same right to express myself as a professional plumber?
MELBER: Respect. I mean, you`re talking about a kind of a reverse bias because we`ve heard from the right wing about Hollywood liberals, and it`s sort of anytime you`re caricaturing an entire profession. You know, you`re definitely on the wrong path, I think. Ayman, I did want to let you finish your thought and also speak to the hummus of it all.
MOHYELDIN: Yes, look, hummus unites us all. Let`s agree on that. And it goes well with every single vegetable that`s out there. So, if you want to try to bring both sides together, I think should do it or a plate of homeless but let me just say really quickly on a serious note. I think the truth of the matter is when it comes to somebody like a Dr. Oz, John Fetterman`s trying to portray him as out of touch.
And I think he`s doing that for himself. I don`t think John Fetterman is going out there to try and define him as somebody who`s out of touch. Mehmet Oz is actually portraying himself as somebody who is out of touch with all of the way he`s been campaigning, and not even knowing whether he has 10 houses or properties. You know what I mean? Most of us, most average Americans would be lucky to have one house. Dr. Oz has got properties.
MELBER: Yes. Before we wrap it all up as we end the week. I got to say to you, Henry, what I said to you in private, I`ll just say the same on television. The work you do, and Barry is just so great. It`s so funny, but it has this emotional depth to it.
I`m sure some of you have seen the show on HBO but some of you may not have HBO. Just tell us about the fun of being in that role at this point in your life and you play this person who`s advising other people how to act and emote and then, yet you bring this extra high jinks to that character.
[18:55:00]
WINKLER: Well, first of all, thank you. Second of all, it is a gift in my life. Third of all, we have started the fourth season and we are in the midst of making the fourth year of Barry. There are no words. I literally have tried in interviews in my house, to my wife, I have literally tried to define how wonderful this experience is, and I have learned to just shut up and do it.
MELBER: And your chemistry with Bill Hader?
WINKLER: Do you know that I have been very lucky. It started when I was doing the Fonz, I was with Ron Howard and then with Scott Baio and we had an amazing unspoken electricity. And the same is happening with Bill Hader. We rehearse it, we do it, and then something happens in the middle of it that we never planned on.
MELBER: Yes, I love it. That comes through and I hope that someday then the outtakes that masterclass that your character is teaching. I hope that whole thing is available to all of us. What a nice way to end this week our friend Ayman and our Hollywood friend Henry Winkler. Thanks to you both. That does it for THE BEAT. "THE REIDOUT" with Tiffany Cross is up right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)