Summary
DOJ probing why the former president personally inspected his stolen documents as one report revealed more than 300 classified documents were seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate. Double standard among GOP leaders having long demanded suspects to just comply with police, and yet backing Trump for fighting subpoena. On THE BEAT with Ari Melber Summit Series, author Fran Lebowitz joins Melber to talk about the GOP leaders minimizing January 6th despite convictions, violence, and corporate symbol. Emmy Award-winning director James Burrows joins Ari Melber to talk about the T.V. sitcom Will and Grace equality in politics and talk about some of his T.V. shows like Cheers and Taxi.
Transcript
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: Thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these truly extraordinary times. We are grateful. THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER starts right now.
Hi, Ari.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Hi, Nicolle. Nice to see you.
Welcome to THE BEAT, everyone. I am Ari Melber. And let me tell you, we have more reporting tonight on just comply. That`s the right wing hypocrisy over law enforcement lately. Well, civil rights leader and former detective Marq Claxton is here for a special conversation about just comply. That`s coming up.
And I can tell you before the hour is out, we will hear from the icon Fran Leibowitz on politics, democracy, and why she says Mitch McConnell is one of the worst things to ever happen to American government. Fran doesn`t pull her punches, and we will hear from her later tonight.
So I got to tell you, as far as I can see, there is something to get excited about here, and we`ll get to all of that, but the top story right now are the new details about Trump`s national security scandal. And this is one of those stories that actually, I got to tell you, kind of felt slow for a long time. I mean, we knew there was this clash with the Archives. And then we knew the government was viewing Trump as holding some important materials that were not his.
That`s also commonly known as stealing. But that was playing out for a while. It was not until the unprecedented search that blew this up in the public realm and made clear that what had seemed slow or even bureaucratic had actually become a criminal level scandal for Donald Trump involving his actions as and after he served as president.
Now today there`s more. New information that the government has now recovered 300 plus classified documents from Trump. That`s a big "New York Times" scoop. That`s the highest that number has ever reached.
Now, a man who would routinely skip intelligence briefings on the job also suddenly decided that he would spend his time in the semiretirement personally going through those boxes himself, which he did in late 2021 according to multiple sources "The Times" spoke to, and that was, quote, "before turning them over."
Now, if you have an order to turn them all over, you have to just give them all back. You`re not supposed to go through them and then decide which ones to continue to illegally hold, at least in the view of the government.
Why was Trump so focused on going through that secret material himself? Well, I don`t have the answer for you tonight. I could tell you that is under investigation. I could tell you that separate surveillance videos also reveal people moving boxes in and out, or changing the containers holding some of these super-secret important documents. At a minimum, that is suspicious and adds clues to why the fed`s approach appeared to continue to escalate.
And that escalation is also visible in a newly released letter out today but that was written back in May that basically amounted to federal hardball with the Archives trying to both pressure and warn Trump he couldn`t just continue to hold what they saw as illegal material and think this would go away. And that letter lists how some of the missing material had closely guarded U.S. secrets in the special access program.
If you`re not an intelligence expert I can just tell you that is a big deal. So you take it together with the new reporting and here`s what it is. It has been about two weeks since the feds searched Trump`s home. It`s been many months of defiance over the stolen national security secrets. And this clash has been at times odd and not always following Trump`s usual scandal playbook. It began with the DOJ actually staying quiet out of an excessive or special deference to Donald Trump who then publicized the search anyway.
Then it took a turn as the normally reserved attorney general confronted Trump in that unusual but perfectly valid and careful press conference suggesting that the DOJ would then be able to publicize even more about the search if Trump had so many complaints about the search. Then after some delay, Trump did go back to his more typical PR mode, demanding more information about all of this as a kind of a baseline so his allies and aides could throw out a slew of defenses and what were sometimes contradicting complaints on TV and in public.
Then the DOJ turned back to secrecy which was striking because in some areas Garland was saying, hey, if the search was so bad, why are you afraid of information?
[18:05:04]
But in others -- and there are reasons, we`ve reported on them but it was another kind of development where they said the roadmap, that affidavit for the search still should stay secret, and we`re tracking a filing coming in on that clash this Thursday. So it can be a little dizzying especially against this backdrop of technical points about law and classification authority.
But let me tell you the larger significance here. It`s not even really about only those rules or federal law. Indeed in this area of the law it is less likely to lead to the indictment of a former president than, say, for a coup conspiracy. The larger significance is really about what national security experts call Donald Trump`s failed and dangerous leadership.
Allegedly endangering intelligence assets in the field and allegedly stealing classified material and holding it hostage, and allegedly lying to the government he once led about all of that while people in service and in uniform continue risking their lives under all the usual and traditional and all-encompassing burdens that we as a nation call upon those who serve.
You know, we talk about law around here, and for good reason, but these reports reinforce why these laws were passed in the first place, because of the risks involved and the lives at stake, and because the few people who are entrusted to make life and death decisions for those people you just saw, for the people who serve, the leaders who have to make life and death decisions for them, traditionally are expected to satisfy at least a very bare minimum when it comes to the responsible stewardship in and out of office of things that can get those people killed.
So this relates to the law, but I think it runs much deeper to what kind of leaders the United States still wants to have.
We turn now to Maya Wiley, who is president of the Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights, and she was a New York City mayoral candidate, talking about leadership.
Welcome back.
MAYA WILEY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS: Good to be with you, Ari.
MELBER: Your thoughts about this point that, yes, there are legalities involved, but much of that body of law is based on something very deep that relates to what is expect of leaders in this national security arena.
WILEY: Yes, I agree with you 100 percent, Ari, because when we`re talking about these documents, and remember that really there`s already reporting that there were 700 documents that the National Archives got. That`s before the 300 we`re hearing about now, right? That was back towards the beginning of the year when they recovered 15 boxes.
The sheer volume of classified material, including some of the highest most protected material that can be classified in a place that is unsecured like Mar-a-Lago, where anybody can simply rent a room, including spies, really suggests not only that Donald Trump was not paying attention to just his duty and the duty frankly that any of us would feel as Americans to protecting our national security, but that he was doing it in a way that was about advancing his own personal interests.
I think that is what we have to surmise from the way in which we are hearing the facts unfold. Why the Department of Justice had to take this extreme measure, one that is historic, to actually go to an independent federal judge with evidence and say, look, we have no choice now because we have been told by an attorney that he doesn`t have any more documents, except that he does. And it`s his own camp, his own people who are telling law enforcement that he has it.
MELBER: Yes.
WILEY: What that says is that others, including those who have supported Donald Trump, recognize your point, too, Ari, which is that there`s a much bigger issue here about protecting our national security, and that is something we should expect of any elected or former elected official. And by the way, Hillary Clinton`s e-mails -- four documents. Four. And none of them marked with this level of security that we`re hearing about, which really is more like a thousand pages of documents that Donald Trump had.
MELBER: Yes, as you say, but her e-mails pales compared to his but his secret documents that he allegedly knowingly stole, and held on to, and then double stole in that they handed some back and apparently, at least according to the view of the DOJ, we`re continuing to report this out, that they held back with a false attestation.
[18:10:05]
I hate to sound so legal, but I want to be precise. I`ll put them on the screen for your analysis. Miss Bobb who`s a lawyer we`ve mentioned involved in the Florida case, basically signed this draft statement as custodian that said asserting to the best of her knowledge, a key piece of language, quote, "All classified material was there and had been returned." Two people familiar with that statement.
Now I want to be very precise, Maya. The fact that two people in Trump`s orbit are trying to pin this all on another person in Trump`s orbit is not what lawyers would call dispositive. I give full fairness to Miss Bobb and anyone else in there, also welcome to come on THE BEAT as Trump lawyers have to present their side.
So I say that not to say that we have all the facts yet on that, but that apparently at a minimum, some people involved think that there`s some trouble with the false statement, and they`re trying to say somebody was behind it. So there`s at least awareness, Maya, that something was misleading, whether that gets people in trouble or not. I`m curious to your view.
WILEY: Well, look, it could be because we`re talking about a lawyer making an assertion. One of incredible performance, because remember that this assertion was made after an investigator goes to Mar-a-Lago personally from the Department of Justice because after a year of the National Archives trying to get documents back, getting those 15 boxes and saying, wait, we still don`t have them all.
And then hearing in May that, from someone again inside the Trump orbit, that there are in fact more documents, goes in June, and says, I`m hearing more documents. Gets more documents. Then is told, that`s it. That`s all there is. And then come to find out that`s not true.
We don`t know -- you`re right -- what the lawyers knew. But I will say something about Miss Bobb that should concern us all is that after a judge who is independent, nonpartisan and having to evaluate the facts and evidence, and present that evidence by the FBI approved by the attorney general says, there is probable cause here for this search warrant. She without any statement of fact of support suggests that the FBI may have planted evidence?
MELBER: Hmm.
WILEY: And now the same team is suggesting there has to be a special master to review the documents before the Department of Justice after the Department of Justice got a search warrant based on evidence. This is a set of tactics that don`t have a lot of support in law and that sort of suggest that we do have to ask questions about how this legal team is behaving.
MELBER: Hmm. Really appreciate you walking us through that, particularly with the details, the master detail, and some big questions.
Maya Wiley, thanks for kicking us off tonight.
WILEY: Thank you, Ari.
MELBER: Absolutely. We have our shortest break -- bye-bye -- which is, our shortest break is 60 seconds. We`re turning to what I told you about, just comply, with a special guest going deeper on this issue and why there is such hypocrisy on the right. Just comply, when we`re back in one minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: If in fact a police officer gives you a command, please exit the car, you should say yes, officer, no officer, OK, officer.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wish he would have complied a whole lot earlier.
ERIC BOLLING, FOX NEWS COMMENTATOR: Bad decisions by a cop, but those decisions wouldn`t have been made if the perp didn`t run away.
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, FOX NEWS COMMENTATOR: Just comply. Please, listen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Listen, just comply. That`s the longstanding conservative demand. Just comply. As one police group put it, "Comply, don`t die." The idea is citizens must simply comply with law enforcement demands completely. Do it first, no questions, deal with any potential objections later.
[18:15:08]
Now we`ve been covering this issue for you here on THE BEAT as well as the hypocrisy of some of these same voices cheering Donald Trump when he does not just comply with subpoenas, which is why he got searched much to his consternation, and tonight, we have a police and civil rights leader here to go deeper on this very topic. Former detective Marq Claxton heads the Black Law Enforcement Alliance and is our special guest.
So Mr. Claxton is here to cut through the noise in a few moments. Right now I want to give you just a few more facts because the voices you just heard were lecturing people to just comply when even innocent people have been injured or killed. Meanwhile, Trump and his aides have had months to comply and they refused. And they still got elite treatment when asked to follow the law.
Like White House vets who defied subpoenas, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, who had months between when they refused to just comply and when they were ultimately arrested. Bannon was taken in peacefully, and Navarro, like Trump, was deemed so illegally untrustworthy that a judge approved a warrant, which Navarro later angrily complained about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER NAVARRO, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: What did they do? They intercepted me getting on the plane, and then they put me in handcuffs, they bring me here, they put me in leg irons, they stick me in a cell. That`s punitive. What they did to me today violated the Constitution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Handcuffs are part of an arrest. Navarro repeated some of those same complaints on FOX News, where viewers had been lectured so many times on avoiding problems with law enforcement, just comply.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: If in fact a police officer gives you a command, please exit the car, you should say yes, officer, no, officer, OK, officer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Hannity was giving that lecture about police interactions with primarily black Americans like an unarmed man Walter Scott who was running away from an officer when he was shot in the back and killed by that officer. At the time there were critics on the right assailing Scott for not complying.
Complying did not save Terence Crutcher, however. He had his hands clearly above his head when police shot and killed him, seen here. That officer was acquitted for that.
Trump and Navarro both got very peaceful treatment through a warrant. While it was a more aggressive no-knock warrant used in the operation that led to police killing Beonna Taylor, or take the recent case where Jacob Blake did for about one minute what Navarro legally did for months, meaning both of them from a legal perspective were not complying.
Blake was seen walking away. He was not seen on tape trying to hurt anyone. But for that refusal to comply, police shot him seven times in the back in this disturbing scene.
We`re not showing all of it. Here`s what Lindsey Graham said about that exact shooting of Blake when it was in the news. Stressing, Senator Graham said, that Blake did not comply or yield when asked.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I don`t know why the gentleman didn`t yield when he was asked to yield.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: First, that is legally the wrong answer. Police are barred from using lethal force only because a person is fleeing or refusing to yield. Graham`s a lawyer and knows that. Second, Senator Graham is not using the same standard now for Trump when it comes to immediately yielding to law enforcement demands. And while we`re at it, third, Graham is certainly not using that standard to apply to himself.
He is currently fighting a subpoena, refusing to yield and comply with Georgia prosecutors who are just requesting his peaceful testimony which could be scheduled any time he`s willing to yield.
The hypocrisy is obvious, it`s political and it is racial. Those past howls to just comply mostly flow in one direction, as we`ve noted in our earlier reporting, which you can file under "just comply" or if you`re on Twitter today, #justcomply. Because it`s all part of this larger sequence and problems.
This is about justice and safety, so let me say, the point I`m making about just comply is not suggesting police use more force in more of these situations but rather that we can see from this very public history that some right-wing leaders clearly view the police as one-sided muscle for a supremacist system. It`s also clear that officers are able to use those less intrusive measures more across the board.
[18:20:01]
If innocent Breonna Taylor was policed by the standard used for Trump or guilty convicted Steve Bannon, she would be alive right now. And everyone agrees she`s innocent. She was just killed by that type of police measure. If unarmed Walter Scott were apprehended by the standard used for indicted noncomplying Steve Bannon or Peter Navarro, Mr. Scott would be peacefully apprehended in handcuffs, not shot in the back.
Bottom line here, both things can be true. The past refrain of just comply was totally selective. But this new attention on how some elites are so carefully policed can actually show a better nonviolent path. In other words, folks, sometimes even a dumb political debate can lead to some smart points and real reform if we keep our eye on the ball.
And Mr. Claxton is here to do exactly that and make us perhaps a little bit more informed on this key topic of policing right when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:25:51]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: If in fact a police officer gives you a command, please exit the car, you should say yes, officer, no, officer, OK, officer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Yes, officer. Joining me now is retired NYPD detective Marq Claxton, leader of the Black Law Enforcement Alliance.
We`ve been reporting on this. We just walked through both what`s wrong with it and what might be a path to better policing. Your thoughts, sir?
MARQ CLAXTON, FORMER NYPD DETECTIVE: Look, I mean, you pointed out brilliantly over the past week or so about the -- just the hypocrisy that some people coming from privileged positions have when they are instructing others to simply and merely comply, and in reality, it`s really a subjective instruction, and it`s based on too often, just like other aspects of law enforcement or criminal justice, it`s too often race-based.
But it`s clearly subjective and it clearly ties into some of the discussions around privilege that we had, whether it be racial privilege or political privilege or economic privilege, and the expectation and the direction and the instruction that people so often give is really targeted to black and brown people and those who are less affluent or less empowered politically.
MELBER: We have heard public commentary and analysis about this situation versus that. Does it matter that many black and brown people are being police in a way where within 10 or 20 seconds they`re facing lethal force, and we showed examples that are others where compliance does not prevent the use of lethal force, as compared to other individuals who are given literally months to defy, and then somehow they still find a way to bring them in peacefully, which I`m emphasizing should be the goal for all of those who are policed.
CLAXTON: It adds, for black and brown communities in particular, it adds insult to injury, and something that really wasn`t fully examined even on January 6th at the Capitol, was the lack of compliance by those who were trying the take over the Capitol building. But also the extreme restraint showed by law enforcement professionals. So you can see sometimes, like I said, it`s clearly a subjective situation because those who attempted the insurrection were failing to comply.
There were officers in the midst of pain and agony, who were demanding or making demands, that that was just totally disregard. Now black and brown communities look at that and wonder, what would have happened had the insurrectionists been of color, perhaps? What would have happened? And so it adds insult to injury when you look at it from that lens.
MELBER: Yes. And we mentioned the warrant process, I think Americans are reminded how that works. You go to a judge. That was the case to get an arrest warrant for Mr. Navarro, we showed you his concerns before. Mr. Trump has complained about his process. Those are both valid processes. The emphasis has been that they were so carefully done.
In the case of Breonna Taylor who was wrongfully shot to death by officers executing a warrant it was a more aggressive warrant. It was also it turns out illegally obtained. They lied in the warrant to create a false narrative to get the approval of the judge. Headline here today, ex- detective admits lying to the judge. The former detective now has pled guilty to a conspiracy count, which is rare and a big deal, while other officers await trial.
Mr. Claxton, my question to you, would we even know about this if not for the huge controversy around the killing of Miss Taylor by police? And does that mean we should be concerned about other repeated or habitual lies being told in the service of policing certain communities?
CLAXTON: We should definitely be concerned and worried about other lies being told, especially as it relates to some of these fatal incidents involving police and civilians, and you know for -- what we heard and what we know about Breonna Taylor that really was on the heels of a significant movement and demands for significant substantive police reform.
[18:30:00]
But there are hundreds of other cases that occur on a daily basis that don`t get the attention or the focus, that are just as egregious and have some of the similar components. When you`re talking about perhaps police misstating or lying-in order to obtain warrants, both search warrants and sometimes arrest warrants.
You know, these things occur, unfortunately, on a regular basis. It`s just that we just don`t have enough energy to cover all of the cases where these things occur. And they occur in communities that lack the necessary power and influence, political influence to make larger issues of it.
MELBER: Yes, I hear what you`re saying. You mentioned the energy, personal, intellectual, political, however people view it whatever people can do in their own lives. We are going to try to keep the energy up here on this program, because my team has been tracking these cases and we`re going to keep on them. Because you can see how in some ways, even the scrutiny makes some impact on reform. Former Detective Claxton, thanks for being here tonight.
CLAXTON: Thanks, Ari.
MELBER: Appreciate it. We got a lot coming up, as I mentioned, including the director behind some beloved hits like Cheers and Will and Grace, James Burrows, coming up later. But first, we`re tracking new action as of January 6 committee. And Fran Lebowitz, the one and only, the icon is here. We`re going to hear from her on American democracy.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:36:18]
MELBER: The raw imagery of the January 6th attack on the Capitol endures in our public mine. House committee continues its work. Today they`re interviewing another top Trump security official more hearing set for next month. And while all of that evidence is crucial, there`s other ways to fully make sure we grasp what happened and how to combat it.
Now for that we sometimes turn to writers, thinkers, and artists with a broader portfolio. That includes the writer and cultural commentator, Fran Lebowitz, who pulls no punches. Here is some of what she told me about ethics, politics, and the insurrection in a special interview.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MELBER: One of the most watched news days ever was January 6th, which was a horrific day as Shonda (PH) write for the nation.
FRAN LEBOWITZ, AUTHOR: And I -- at first, I was -- I was in my living room reading and a friend called me and said, I have a friend who has the television on 24 hours a day. Called and said, are you watching this -- going to the Capitol. I have no what she`s talking about it. So, what are you -- so what? What are you talking about? I said, I think people are allowed in the capital. I visited the capital when I was a kid.
What do you mean, they`re going in the Capitol? I mean, it was one of the shocking things ever seen in my life. And of all -- I mean, there was no aspect of it. That wasn`t shocking. But to me to see the Confederate Flag in the Capitol was stomach turning. It was just -- it was horrible, horrible. And of course, now, as you`re aware, of course, the Republicans is like, this didn`t happen, or this was something else.
This was, you know, a New Year`s Eve party, or, you know, this was -- these were actual, you know, lefties and -- yes, it was horrible. And the fact that they refuse to investigate it. You know, it`s in -- it`s always been interesting to me that, you know, shameful and shameless mean, almost the same thing. You know, so these people are shameful, you know, and shameless, you know, they just don`t care.
Mitch McConnell probably knew when he made that speech about how the president was responsible for this. And two minutes later, the president was now responsible. He knew that people were going to put them side by side, he didn`t care. He they don`t care. They don`t -- they`re -- there -- They care about nothing, except retaining the power that they have at the moment.
They don`t care about anything else. Even like this, you know, trying to keep up with voting. There -- they`re basically saying we`re trying to keep certain people from voting. Because if we don`t keep these people from voting, we can never win. And even Trump said that, well, the Republicans can never win if everyone`s allowed to vote. You know, I don`t know what to say about it that anyone else hasn`t said about it.
I mean, that was one of the most shocking things I`ve ever seen. OK. And I`ve seen numerous shocking things. That guy who put his feet on Nancy Pelosi`s desk. This is an image like, what you`re not old enough. But the second I saw that something came to my mind, which is that when I was a teenager, there were, you know, all these protests at Columbia, university, and SDS, which is students for democratic action, and whatever it`s called --
MELBER: Society.
LEBOWITZ: Society. They had a big strike at Columbia, and they broke into the president`s office, and there was a guy who had a picture of himself taken -- not let himself, but with his feet on the desk of the president smoking a cigar. Now he was older than me. So, I was a teenager. And even as a young teenager, I looked at that picture, and I thought, you`re a jerk.
I mean, just as your clown. You know, that`s like the stupidest thing. And when I saw that guy, with his feet on the desk of Nancy Pelosi, I thought the same thing, you know, you`re a clown. This guy was -- well into his 50s it looked like to me. And when he said, this is my desk. I thought, first of all, you don`t have a desk, not only is this not your desk.
[18:40:00]
I`m guessing you`re not a desk guy. I`m guessing the last time you had a desk you were in detention. I`m guessing the last time you had a desk, you were in detention, you know, in junior high school. It was incredibly angry, and I think that`s why he did that, you know, and he has the same attitude as a teenager.
It`s a teenage thing. A lot of this stuff is adolescent, you know, except that they`re not kids, you know, and they have guns, you know, and they are allowed to vote, you know, and so they`re very dangerous in a way that teenagers generally are not very dangerous.
MELBER: And you see that in the current moment as overrepresented by largely male and often a white male movement that is terrified of losing its station, its historical position.
LEBOWITZ: Yes, of course, that`s what it is. It`s fear, you know, I mean, these people in general, are the most fearful people I`ve ever even heard of in my life. You know, this thing with guns, every time you see them on the news or whatever, or reading the paper, they`re always saying, I am entitled to defend myself.
I`m entitled to defend my family. And I think who`s after to you. You know, I mean, I lived alone in New York City, you know, as a 21-year-old girl, you know, in an apartment that -- not forget how to dorm it. Didn`t even have an intercom system, OK. New York was incredibly dangerous then, it never occurred to me to get a gun. I wasn`t that scared.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MELBER: Fran on fear and ethics and politics. This is part of our Summit Series, where we talk to leaders at the summit to their fields, and we aim for in-depth discussion. So, I got to tell you, the majority of this conversation doesn`t actually air on THE BEAT. If you want to see it all you can go search now for Melber Fran on YouTube, you just type Melber Fran, or you can visit our YouTube playlist.
The best way to connect with me is to go to AriMelber.com. In fact, as I`ve mentioned, you can sign up for my writing and get in touch with me directly at AriMelber.com, and as some of you already know, I right back. I hope to see you there if you`re interested but you can keep it locked on THE BEAT. We`re going to fit in a break. But coming up, we have a special conversation about politics and equality and strategies that actually work. Stay with us for the politics coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:46:49]
MELBER: Politics is full of clashes over culture, which makes sense. The liberal Daniel Patrick Moynihan distilled America`s political relationship to culture with a famous adage. The central conservative truth is that it`s culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society, he said. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.
He meant conservatives are right to obsess over culture and how it shapes our values. And that liberals are correct in viewing politics as an avenue to improve culture and our own decency for each other. Consider life for gay Americans back in the 90s. No equal rights, they couldn`t marry, employers could fire people for being gay, banned from the military. A policy that a Democratic president reformed by mandating that gay Americans in the military must hide in the closet as policy.
And yet something else was happening at the same time in culture, shifting awareness and respect for people`s rights. In fact, it was seen as a moment on network T.V. when the hit show Cheers, featured a Broadway icon Harvey Fierstein and happened to include the fact in the fictional universe that also overlaps with his real life that he was an openly gay man. This was in 92.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Somebody stole my car.
HARVEY FIERSTEIN, ACTOR: Oh, I`ve been there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, really?
FIERSTEIN: Yes, my ex-lover. First, he stole my heart, and he stole my car.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He? Aren`t you supposed to be Rebecca`s old flame?
FIERSTEIN: Not that all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: By 1999 -- 98, NBC had Will and Grace go into living rooms around the nation was the first U.S. show to star an openly gay set of lead characters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m gay.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you hungry?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you hungry?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m gay.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What?
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m gay.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That shows quality, its success. The way it connected with people. Paved the way for more representation which does shape as mentioned, culture and ultimately politics. It`s some form of representation that affects so many of these issues. And that along with telling great stories brings us to a director behind those iconic shows, you know, James Burrows, seen here.
He`s also been behind shows like Taxi, Frasier, and Friends, directing over 1000 episodes of T.V. over five decades and netting 10 Emmys and a lot of love along the way. Which brings us to our special guest tonight, the director James Burrows, who has a memoir Directed by James Burrows out now. Thanks for being here.
JAMES BURROWS, EMMY AWARD-WINNING DIRECTOR: Thanks for having me, Ari.
MELBER: You`re associated with many things. What we picked out was just one avenue in the culture that of course matters to a lot of people, and this isn`t just sort of a BEAT culture riff here and you don`t have to take a giant bow, but the current president once credited Will and Grace more than a lot of other things in the movement. Take a look.
[18:50:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My measure David and I take a look at when things really began to change, as are the social-cultural changes, I think Will and Grace probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody`s ever done so far. And I think, people fear that which is different. Now they`re beginning to understand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Jim, big opening question, how do you tell stories that allow us to see each other as people which we so desperately need?
BURROWS: The script was -- was written by Max Mutchnick and David Kohan, and it was sent to me. And it was -- I don`t usually do high concept shows. But this was a little -- a little elevated because it had two gay characters in it. It was a really funny show but just happened to have two gay characters.
So, you know, we talked about it and I figured if -- if it was funny enough, that people would come to the dance and not be intimidated or scared of the gay characters, or -- you know, intolerant of them. If I could -- if the boys, Max and David, and I could embrace them enough with the humor and poignancy of the show, they would continue to watch, and luckily enough, we were able to do that.
MELBER: How did you know that that was working?
BURROWS: I -- well, the show started to do well in the ratings, and in 2000 --
MELBER: I`ve heard of those. I`ve heard the ratings.
BURROWS: And in 2001, the Emmy Award for Best Comedy. However, I tell this story, in the book, I talk about the influence of the show, I would drive carpool for my 13-year-old daughter on Thursdays and Will and Grace was on Thursday night. And once the kids were in the car, there were four other kids in the car. And I was driving school, invariably, one of the kids would say what`s on Will and Grace tonight.
So, I knew that 13-year-olds were charmed by the show or liked the show. I`m not sure why whether it was funny, or they, you know, like to look at the set or the lighting was great. But they were coming to the dance. And I knew that these kids were being influenced about gay people from the show. We never set out to do a proselytizing show. We only set out to do a show that was funny.
MELBER: No, that makes perfect sense that it`s what we see in culture and film and great literature and music, especially with a new generation that comes up and says, oh, we look up to this person or this is interesting or even better. Sometimes they don`t even notice what a previous generation saw as quote, different or other eyes.
As you said, the kids might watch it and just say oh, this is cool. This is interesting. And not even know or have to unlearn that distinction. Given that you`ve been involved with so much, we did take the liberty of a little bit of a highlight reel. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s great to have the cage back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) it`s finally happened. This is the thanks I get introducing in my personal shopper.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You remember my brother Ross?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure. Hi.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oops, I did it again, I played with your heart.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re a close book, lady.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I`m not. I`m an open catalog laying on the nightstand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURROWS: Wow.
MELBER: What show -- yes, right. What show or character surprised you the most and its ability to connect compared from where you might have started with it?
BURROWS: That`s a tough question, I think probably will embrace the -- the humanity that the two boys attain through careful writing, and you know -- and worrying about being respectful to the gay characters and giving them vulnerability, which is the most important thing for hooking anybody into a sitcom is to make the character vulnerable. I mean, Ted, we -- he was a bartender, but we made him a recovering alcoholic.
The Charles brothers did that. My two partners on it, and that gave him a sense of vulnerability. Judd Hirsch on Taxi was the only one in that garage, who wanted to be a cab driver. Everybody else wanted to get out of the garage. And so, that`s what you have to do with these -- the characters you have to give them vulnerability so the audience can say, oh, they`re a little bit like us.
[18:55:00]
MELBER: I got about 40 seconds left. Did Cheers work, because it almost felt social even while we were just watching it or what made it special?
BURROWS: It was a show that took place in a place that everybody wanted to go, because it was warm and welcoming and -- do I dare say it, everybody knew your name.
MELBER: To be fair, Jim, and they`re also glad you can.
BURROWS: Yes, I wish that -- that was the lyric of -- that song writer`s lyric. So, I can`t take credit for it. But that was, you know -- that was - - that was my favorite show. I -- it had poignant -- a lot of poignancy and a lot of great jokes and a lot of very interesting characters.
MELBER: Yes, and as you say, that`s what transports us in shows and culture that there is both a familiarity of that place, but you can be home and have the vibe of being out for drinks with friends. There`s some duality there that I think people still feel now sometimes when they use the internet. Jim, your first time on THE BEAT I hope you`ll come back. Thank you, sir.
BURROWS: I hope you`ll ask me, and I love your show.
MELBER: Oh, well, from a director we`ll take that. Thank you, sir. Thanks to, Jim Burrows. That does it for us. "THE REIDOUT" is up next.