Summary
Senate passed Inflation Reduction Bill along party line with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie. Bill considered a win for President Biden and the Democrats ahead of the midterms. Donald Trump`s lawyers are preparing for his possible indictment. January 6 evidence sparks debates over indicting an ex-president.
Transcript
JOHN HEILEMANN, MSNBC HOST: Remember her for how she lived. She won four Grammy Awards over a five-decade career. She sold 100 million records and her song "Physical" was recorded by Billboard as the number one pop single of the 1980s. Olivia Newton John Foundation Fund has raised a fortune, a fortune for cancer research. Again, Olivia Newton John passing today at the age of 73.
Thank you for being with us on this Monday. THE BEAT with Ari Melber starts right now.
Ari, you remember Olivia Newton John song "Have You Never Been Mellow." I`m wondering if you`ve never been mellow. What`s your favorite Olivia Newton John song is?
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: You know, John, I was thinking about it, I just feel like there`s such a legacy there. And the first thing I thought was actually when Biggie used to say getting physical like Olivia Newt. But you think about the echoes of these artists, it`s like decade after decade, there`s a million references and reflections. So I appreciate it, appreciate you doing the shout-out, sir.
HEILEMANN: All right, man. Have a nice night. Do a good show, all right?
MELBER: Thank you, John. Good to see you.
Welcome to THE BEAT, everyone. I am Ari Melber. And let me start with this question.
Is there evidence to support indicting former President Trump? And what would that legal step entail? Would it be unprecedented? And why is this in the news tonight? Why am I talking about this? Well, we have been working on something. We have some answers we think to those questions in our new special report which is coming up tonight in this program after our top story.
Now we begin with the breakthrough for President Biden. That is a top story, and by now everyone in the news and in politics knows about this. It is a big deal any way you cut it. The Senate passing the spending bill, the bill that is supposed to cut inflation, cut drug prices with these new negotiating powers for Medicare, and invest in trying to combat the climate crisis, which everyone is aware of including during the summer.
Democrats out on offense today, making public appearances around the nation to tout the very moment when the bill passed without a vote to spare in the Senate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The yeas are 50. The nays are 50. With the Senate being equally divided, the vice president votes in the affirmative, and the bill as amended is passed.
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: As amended, that is the bill. The Inflation Reduction Act. The House also expected to pass it this week. Now it had looked down and out or dead back when moderate Joe Manchin pulled his support at the time. That was just a few weeks ago. Now Biden and the Democrats bringing it back, slamming home policy breakthroughs that they have been pursuing for decades, including those powers to cut drug prices.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC ANCHOR, MORNING JOE: The Senate passed a sweeping climate, healthcare, tax bill.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Biden`s big historic agenda win.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The president`s legislative summer holds legacy defining power.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): A caucus running from Bernie Sanders to Joe Manchin.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Democrats` Inflation Reduction Act squeaks by thanks to a tie-breaking vote.
STEVE DOOCY, FOX NEWS HOST: It`s a big bill with a lot of details.
AINSLEY EARHARDT, FOX NEWS HOST: You see all those zeroes?
DOOCY: There`s a lot of zeroes.
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices. Thats a really big deal.
BRZEZINSKI: It`s the largest federal investment in clean energy in U.S. history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: No matter who`s talking or who`s counting, there is simply no denying this is a big bill, coming at a key time heading into the midterms and after some beltway pundits had again rushed to yet another narrative. This one was trying to trash Biden before even the halfway mark of his term, which doesn`t age well compared to many of the accomplishments you see on your screen. And so some of those narratives are being reassessed.
The White House, well, they`re thrilled about a breakthrough and keeping that Democratic coalition together through the vote. They`re also trying to rebuke those who counted Biden out, noting that this big spending bill comes after the other big COVID relief and stimulus bill, and after the president has been steadying the government amidst the pandemic, these economic jitters, and coming out of Donald Trump`s chaotic tenure.
Indeed, there`s sort of a note of sturdy resilience here, some seeing this as Biden`s LL Cool J moment, the vibe being don`t call it a comeback, I have been here for years. Well, in Biden`s case, about 79 of them. And Democrats say, if the party continues to mobilize off achievements like this for the midterms, well, when it comes to the Biden era, the best could still be yet to come.
I`m joined now by Cornell Belcher, former Obama polling guru and MSNBC analyst.
Is it a comeback? Is it more than that? What does this mean?
CORNELL BELCHER, MSNBC ANALYST: You know, I was channeling more Drake, you know, Biden looks light, but he`s heavy, though. Because in a lot of ways, you know, there`s this narrative out there that he`s soft and he can`t get anything accomplished, he`s not doing anything.
[18:05:02]
But in the end, Ari, not since LBJ have we had a president sort of more successful legislatively than Biden. And what he`s been able to do under a short couple of years here is move transformational legislation. And if you look at sort of the infrastructure bill, and you look at this Reduction Inflation Act, and you look at sort of, you know, our supply chain being ramped up and manufacturing and chips being ramped up here in America.
These are things that are going to position America in the long run to win the future and to be able to compete. He is a very consequential president if you just look at from a legislative side, and hopefully some of this narrative about how his agenda is done and how he`s been weak, hopefully some of that will be able to turn because it`s certainly not true.
MELBER: Yes. And you`ve been in and out of these situations. As you know, sometimes something just sort of takes hold and it could be trendy in a way to criticize, say, this incumbent Democratic president, on the left for a certain set of critiques and then the right has its reasons for amplifying that. And then beltway is always -- I shouldn`t say always but often if not always looking to just tear down whomever.
And then you have the coalition. I want to show the Bernie Sanders photo that`s going around, and this is one of those things. People have fun on the internet, things go viral. But of course the reason that people are interested in this -- there you have Bernie Sanders after the vote-a-rama taking a moment to himself.
But it`s not just the vibe, if you will, Cornell. It is, as in the clip we just showed previously, what the White House says is a real coalition that stretches from Manchin to Bernie Sanders.
BELCHER: And look, a lot of people criticize the president`s leadership skills, right? Style. And he wasn`t tough enough, and he wasn`t punishing enough, and that he should sort of call out Manchin and go after Kyrsten Sinema, and go -- you know, go after (INAUDIBLE). And -- but he is old school. And in the end, sort of compromise and not shutting down the conversation and having, you know, conversations, you know, in public and sort of being able to sort of bring Manchin and Sinema along.
And by the way, and to bring, you know, the Elizabeth Warrens and the Bernie Sanders of the caucus along, too. I mean, this is just -- it is a major accomplishment that in the end, in a completely evenly split Senate, where our vice president has to break the tie, he`s been able to do all these big things with almost 100 percent Republicans and obstruction of that. He`s been able to hold together the Democratic coalition, you know, as varied and diverse as it is in a way that not a lot of Democrats have been able to in the past.
MELBER: And so finally as you go forward and you also have Democrats looking at Kansas, where a very red state still said no to the sort of Justice Alito oppression. Justice Alito in his opinion had famously said, oh, well, you know, people can decide at the state level. A lot of people saw that as a kind of absurd overreach for someone who was unrolling 49 years of precedent, and yet even in Kansas they kind of said no to what some of the right wingers on the court were offering.
Do you see the Democrats` midterm message as more Biden spending, more Kansas pushback, or something else entirely?
BELCHER: I think it`s something else entirely. And then look, we`ve talked about this before, you know, go back six months ago, and the Republicans wanted to make this a referendum on what the Democrats weren`t doing and on Biden doing a poor job. I think today, if you look at -- and it`s interesting because you have data coming out today, where it`s sort of average data, sort of generic horserace today is now Democrats are ahead.
Six months ago that wasn`t true, and six months ago it was look like a red wave election. I still think Republicans could have a good election night. They will not have a wave election. This is not going to be 2010 or `94. I think Democrats are a lot better positioned right now because of some of the Republican extremism and because of some of that Republican overreach. And by the way, you have a president who is not loud and boisterous.
He`s just got his head down and doing the hard work and getting things accomplished. Again, he might look light, but he`s heavy, though.
MELBER: To bring it back to Champagne Papi at the end, the Drake reference, when there has been apparently some champagne popping.
Cornell, good to see you, sir.
BELCHER: Good to see you, brother.
MELBER: Appreciate you. We`re covering more than one topic tonight, but the reason I`m letting Cornell go is that in 60 seconds we turn to what I mentioned at the top of the hour. The indictment of Donald Trump. The legal and historical precedent. We`re going to break it down and then talk to Maya Wiley about this report when we`re back in 60 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:11:09]
MELBER: There are fresh signs that Donald Trump is bracing for a possible indictment. His own lawyers planning for criminal charges and how to thwart or combat that possibility. A reality driven by two open probes in Washington and Georgia, and the extensive January 6th hearings, which showed the evidence of crimes by insurrectionists and crimes building towards a wider coup conspiracy, including the involvement of Trump himself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Gripping new testimony from the January 6th hearings.
BRIAN KILMEADE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Laying out all of these 187 minutes makes him look horrific. It really does.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I think there was evidence that the former president engaged in multiple violations of the law.
JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: So it`s possible there will be a criminal referral?
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: As more leader say it out loud, you have evidence that Trump allegedly broke the law. You have the fact that punishing a failed coup would be key to deterring the next one. But the debate also has been shifting to how some Americans do look at all this and kind of feel like the very prospect of indicting a former president -- any former president - - might be odd or disconcerting.
The idea is sometimes presented that indicting this former president might take the U.S. into suspect or dangerous turf. And that brings us to tonight`s special report on the precedent for inviting a president or head of state. The fact is, the U.S. has already been down this road. It was completely understood and accepted that Nixon might lawfully and even rightfully face indictment after he left office.
The Congress knew it. The country knew it. And he knew it. His successor knew it. After resigning, it was a given that Nixon could be indicted, that that could happen after he left office. And that was regarding evidence of misconduct that, when you look at it today, fell short of an insurrection or attempted coup.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But if Mr. Nixon leaves office, will he face criminal prosecution?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A special prosecutor is in a very unusual position, and he would have to make that decision.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A third option if the first two fail is for the incoming president, Mr. Ford, to pardon the outgoing president, Mr. Mixon.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Ford granted former President Nixon a full, free, and absolute pardon for any criminal offenses he might have committed while in office.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That`s the historical and legal reminder that there is a precedent for any hard calls regarding this former President Trump. Former President Nixon could have been indicted. Now, it might have been divisive but that was never a reason to hold back on acting. And Nixon accepted that pardon we just referenced there in the historical view precisely because of the option or likelihood that he would otherwise have been indicted.
Now, legally that pardon for Nixon prevented the nation from ever sort of digesting the trial or the visuals that would have shown no one is above the law, not even a former head of state. But in modern history and the history of democracies where elected leaders do oversee enforcement of the law while they are running the country, let`s take a look tonight. There are actually several solid examples where sitting or former heads of state are prosecuted for actions or crimes committed when they were in office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRZEZINSKI: Former French President Nicholas Sarkozy has been sentenced to one year in prison.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Lula has been convicted of graft and money laundering, and sentenced to nine and a half years in prison. If the conviction is upheld, he will not be able to run in elections.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Now, there are lessons in some of these cases.
[18:15:01]
The strongest legal precedence from abroad in this situation tend to involve abuse of office, a politician who abused power or corruptly enriched themselves, which makes sense, as opposed to a prosecutor running down a former president or something else. In France we showed you President Sarkozy charged and convicted of corruption and got a one-year sentence served in home confinement.
In Italy, a media mogul turned flamboyant politician whose drawn Trump comparisons, Berlusconi, faced trials that showed in that country no politician was above the law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The tax fraud trial of the former Italian prime minister and media magnate Silvio Berlusconi. He was sentenced to four years in prison.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Silvio Berlusconi says he does not want to run for prime minster, but he is obligated to because the country needs him.
WEDEMAN: Separately, Berlusconi is also on trial accused of paying for sex with an, at the time, underage Moroccan exotic dancer. Friday`s verdict barred him from holding public office for the next three years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: He was convicted actually four times on charges from tax evasion to embezzlement, and then barred from holding office in that country. We showed you Brazil, where Lula was convicted on corruption charges that drew a hefty 13-year prison sentence. At one time, each of those European leaders were of course on top in their countries with loyal followings. Their trials, though, were ultimately seen as positive for the rule of law, not some kind of strain on the nation or the public`s ability to comprehend that a former leader is also a citizen and subject to the law.
Now take Israel, a small country with a relatively tightknit political class. It has seen prime ministers across a range of ideologies face trials for corruption.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OREN LIEBERMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert began his prison sentence Monday morning. It will be at least 18 months behind bars. Olmert`s conviction goes back to what`s called the Holy Land affair, a corrupt real estate deal.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tonight, Benjamin Netanyahu is in trouble. Israel`s attorney general, one of Netanyahu`s former closest advisers, indicted the prime minster on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: It`s abuse of power that tends to tie some of these cases together around the world. There are other precedents that of course can also blur the lines of crime or simply poor performance in office. Iceland convicted its former prime minister for basically how he handled the financial crisis, and that did spark debates over whether it was just criminalizing poor performance in office.
But there are many, many examples, we`re looking at a fraction of world leaders prosecuted in what I showed you tonight. And few experts argue that too many persecutions in a single country is something you want to follow. I mean, you see countries that have corruption problems or politicized prosecutions with weak controls, and they can certainly spiral into a kind of norm where there are too many prosecutions.
Take Peru. One account shows that, quote, "all but one of Peru`s past seven presidents have faced criminal charges." Four living ex-presidents in South Korea have been convicted. That`s not necessarily a great sign for those countries. But if there is a broader theme, it`s that many democracies have tried or convicted former leaders based on the evidence and found the process can work. The nation can handle it and the punishment can deter abuse of power and corruption.
Now the U.S. never got closer than the brick wall of Nixon`s pardon. That was at the federal level. Unless most democracies, of course, America has this sort of two-tier government system. The states really have their own governments as we know. They have their own leaders and their own powers, and governors oversee their own prosecutors and police forces. So it`s worth noting that more than 15 heads of these states, if you will -- I`m talking about American states -- have also been indicted.
Governors commonly indicted in America. Illinois, for example, saw two governors tried and convicted and got lengthy prison terms. One was Republican, George Ryan, the other was a Democrat who was pretty famous by now, Rod Blagojevich. He was busted for trying to get bribes to fill Obama`s Senate seat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The FBI tapped his phones and got 500 hours of secret recordings.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prosecutors say Blagojevich is plotting to take campaign donations from candidates he knows he`ll never appoint.
ROD BLAGOJEVICH, FORMER ILLINOIS GOVERNOR: Blair Hull actually thinks he can be senator. You believe this guy? He`s an idiot.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So does Jesse Jr.
BLAGOJEVICH: Yes. He got people calling to my house now, Jesse Jr.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, he`s putting the full-court press on you. He`s going raise you money, pal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Blagojevich ultimately served eight years. He got a pardon from his former apprentice castmate Donald Trump. Now Trump and Nixon faced evidence of abusing power to basically subvert democracy or try to steal elections.
[18:20:07]
Now that`s one of the most serious crimes you can commit in office. It`s on par with that Illinois precedent that I just showed you, the precedent there were Blagojevich was abusing the government power he had over a Senate seat which got him indicted. We also have the foreign cases that again often turn on corruption, so you`re abusing the power you have, the public faith of the democracy you`re running and later it`s catching up with you.
Now there`s even more bad news for Trump here because other more minor legal offenses also can carry the prospect of indicting a former president. Consider that it was federal prosecutors in the Clinton case who did not allege that then President Clinton was doing corruption in Whitewater, the original reason for that probe, or that he attempted a coup or that he did anything regarding an insurrection. No.
What they alleged about Clinton was that he lied, and he lied in a government proceeding, which can be perjury, right? And they pressed the real possibility of a criminal indictment of former President Clinton after he left office. That was on the table, which led to them negotiating this deal to avoid that very prosecution.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATIE COURIC, JOURNALIST: President Clinton has just a few hours left at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but he`s making news right down to the wire. On Friday he accepted a deal to end the independent counsel`s investigation of his role in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, thereby avoiding indictment after leaving office.
ROBERT RAY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: He has acknowledged that some of his answers were false. He has agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas bar license.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That last voice was Ken Starr`s replacement in that office, former prosecutor Robert Ray. He announced the suspension there of Clinton`s law license. Now, Ray went on to defend Donald Trump at his impeachment. You might even recognize him from some appearances on this very program.
But the key in that Clinton example with then Counsel Ray is that the indictment of that former president was legally on the table. Clinton seemed decided to cut that deal to avoid that prospect after he left office, and the Watergate jurors also viewed a Nixon indictment as on the table after he left office. History shows on jury recounting how 19 people in that secret grand jury room raised their hands about wanting an indictment of Nixon.
Prosecutors then developed those written charges which became a kind of so- called road map, the list of evidence and facts, not opinions, that many see echoed now in the January 6th Committee`s evidence, which was highlighted in the displays at those public hearings.
Now this history does not answer the legal question over whether Donald Trump should be indicted by the DOJ or the Georgia prosecutor or potentially in both cases. Only the evidence can speak to that legal question. We are not prejudging or foreclosing it here. But this is important, and there`s a reason why we`re walking through this right now at this moment.
The history shows that subjecting former heads of state to the full prospect of a justice system in a democracy, which can include possible trial and conviction is not a departure from democracy. It is not something that is dangerous or precedent busting. It is, if you actually look at history, a feature of the rule of law. You can see that in these cases of American presidents in both parties, and governors in American states from both parties, and these democracies abroad which, the U.S. has sometimes touted as allies or examples.
And so if you hear lately or particularly in the coming months that a Trump indictment would be unprecedented or risky or set some kind of new dangerous cycle of prosecution in America, well, you`ve learned it tonight. You are hearing something false if someone tries to convince you of that.
Now, why would someone want to you think that false thing? A thing that also might make an indictment less likely? If we believe that these prosecutors exist in the real world of humans where what people say and do affects other humans? Well, if somebody`s trying to convince you that this is so much more rare than it is, maybe they`re a Donald Trump apologist trying to lie or scare the public away from a sober, more evidence-based approach to this issue.
Or -- and this is interesting -- if someone wants to convince you that this would be some new wild turf for a democracy, that person might also be a Merrick Garland apologist trying to soften the ground or walk away from major evidence to claim that leaving this be and not creating a new precedent is the independent thing to do while that person might be publicly spinning that thing in the very D.C. tradition of James Comey.
[18:25:01]
So let me tell you something. These are strange times when insurrectionist foot soldiers and randos are prosecuted while the planners, lawyers and televised promoters of coups remain, as of this moment, largely off limits at DOJ. And at the same time, other Republican coup plotters are literally running for office to oversee our elections and your vote. These are strange times when there is talk of violence and rebellion, but the prosecutors tasked with enforcing the law are being told sometimes in louder and more menacing voices that if they do find the evidence were to lead of an indictment of a citizen who happened to once hold the job of president, that that enforcement of the law would then be the real danger to the republic or would risk the unrest and violence that, well, the MAGA movement already subjected the nation to on January 6th.
This is a big one. Will the people in charge, will America get this one right? We have a special guest on this report when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: White House spokesman knocked down speculation that President Nixon might arrange for immunity from prosecution and then resign.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some members of Congress want to pass a law to protect Mr. Nixon from a criminal trial.
GERALD R. FORD, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon on to Richard Nixon.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A rebellion of sorts is developing inside the Watergate grand jury. The jury has felt betrayed with emotions ranging from disappointment to outrage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST (on camera): Were joined by Maya Wiley, President of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and a longtime legal expert we`ve drawn on during the Mueller probe, during the impeachments, and during the search for accountability for an insurrection. Welcome back.
MAYA WILEY, PRESIDENT, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS: Good to be with you are particularly after that incredible breakdown of where we are.
MELBER: Well, thank you for saying that. We`ve been working on that, Maya, because there`s a question about the evidence and whether that passes the threshold for indicted and that`s something prosecutors will decide at the state and federal level. Then there`s this wider discussion in America which I mentioned comes not only, to be fair, from Trump apologist, but sometimes other people who seem to be worried about what would happen if the DOJ went down this road.
And yet, the history seems to show that this has been on the table for other presidents and other heads of state certainly for fact patterns that don`t even rise to the attempted coup.
WILEY: Yes, look, you know, I think the question should be, what happens to the Republic if Donald Trump is not indicted given the evidence. And I say that because part of what the constitutional order protects us from, as you said I think well in your lead-up, is abuse of power as well as crime.
In this case, we have heard evidence already of abuse of power. And that evidence have has been so public now thanks to the committee, that we see evidence that certainly can form a basis for an indictment. And he is a former president. He`s not even a sitting president. This is not -- there was a real debate about whether or not you could indict a sitting president for committing a crime. And after Watergate, you know, the Department of Justice said, no, you can`t, which really was binding on the staff of the Department of Justice no matter what they believed or felt.
That`s not even at play here because the truth is he`s simply not president anymore. But we`re talking about something we haven`t faced down in this country, which is literally trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. And there`s just simply nothing more central to protecting democracy than protecting us from that ever happening again.
MELBER: Yes, you really put your finger on it. I mean, one of the things we noted in doing this survey is that in most of the what we would call evidence-based or valid prosecutions of heads of state, the themes were either corruption, which is a kind of narrow but abuse of power, but for on a narrower basis but quite common, or what you just said which is whether the democracy itself will hold. Because if there aren`t strong lines there, then the person who has the incumbent power and control of the military and control in our -- in our nation of nuclear weaponry, has a lot of physical, tangible ways that people are going to pay attention to what they do.
And so, it really takes these laws to be enforced not just to exist in theory. Or you end up with a lawless view that Nixon put rather bluntly in what became an infamous interview and what Trump and others sort of would- be autocrats say, and in so many words, which is why they appealed to violence so much was is that they are the state. Here`s that short infamous Nixon quote.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD NIXON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: From when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Maya?
WILEY: Well, you know, here`s the point. It`s not that it is by definition not illegal. There is a constitutional debate that one can have about whether or not that President can be indicted while in office as opposed to after they leave office. Now, there`s just simply no constitutional argument that says when you`re not sitting there in that chair anymore, that you literally can get away with murder. So, I think that`s really the question here.
[18:35:20]
But you know, I think we should point to one other difference. You know, when, when Nixon was frankly forced to resign, let`sbe honest, he was forced to resign, you know, the Republican Party turned against him, you know, and that -- Representative Larry Hogan Sr. who first came out and said two weeks before the resignation, I`m going to vote for impeachment. And it turned out that there actually were enough votes for impeachment well before Nixon resigned.
That turning of the tide that included Republicans was kind of central to making sure there were consequences for his illegal acts. That didn`t get us even to the debate about whether he would be prosecuted until after he left until there was a pardon. But that left the question on the table to your point that that question is not on the table here. Donald Trump is not sitting in office.
And frankly, you know, what he is, is apparently at the center of from all the evidence we`ve seen, has literally been a willingness to allow the physical endangerment of members of Congress and his own Vice President, in order that he could keep control of his political seat, despite having lost it as all so many of his senior members, including in his office of the White House Counsel, told him was overdone and he had lost.
So, that`s pretty astounding. And it`s a first in our country`s history that we at least know of. But certainly, in terms of the level of violence that this President has stoke, divisions in this country, just makes no sense that we would say somehow that there`s not a criminal consequence if, to your point, the investigation shows prosecutors that they have an indictment.
MELBER: Yes. Well, we appreciate -- I mean, you really lay it out the clarity which goes to what the history shows and why so much what we`re hearing lately seems, willfully or otherwise, to ignore it. Good to see you, Maya. I appreciate you.
WILEY: Good to see you.
MELBER: Absolutely. Coming up later tonight on a different legal matter, we turn to the convicted murderers of Ahmaud Arbery sentenced today for separate hate crimes, an important story. But coming up next, something we`ve been talking about and a lot of people are cheering, the massive $50 million fine hitting MAGA conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, the precedent for accountability and a special guest.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:40:00]
MELBER: -- for the lies about that massacre, which go along with a whole wider profit approach to lies, as he put grieving parents through a type of hell.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEIL HESLIN, FATHER OF SANDY HOOK VICTIM: I can`t even describe the last nine and a half years of the living hell that I and others have had to endure because of the negligence and the recklessness of Alex Jones.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That`s just a small quote from some of the real people affected, which clearly moved the jury Jones facing this punishment. But it`s not over. There`s a whole separate defamation trial in the same Texas court for another victim`s family. Because these lies, of course, have defamed many different people. And there`s a case in Connecticut as well.
Now, what does this mean for the legal limits and punishments for other individuals who make lying and conspiracy theories part of their business model or politics? We`ve seen this all the way up to the insurrection as a huge part of American life. Well, Fox News is clearly watching this closely. They are facing this suit by Dominion Voting Systems for over $1 billion about false perceptions and what they say is deliberate lying that could basically bankrupt that whole company given Fox`s huge megaphone.
Trump AG Barr was actually subpoenaed in that case last month. The suit is moving ahead. And there`s the larger warning that just repeating things that you know to be false cannot be protected speech if you are doing it and try to disguise what is the circulation of lies in the media and the liars who push those lies.
We wanted to turn to someone with a lot of experience about this over time. That`s Mother Jones Washington Bureau Chief David Corn. Welcome back, sir.
DAVID CORN, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, MOTHER JONES: Good to be with you, Ari.
MELBER: I will do the semi-annoying thing for regular viewers which is mention that this program has a big commitment of First Amendment and free speech. I actually literally used to practice First Amendment Law. And so when it comes to objectionable, even hateful words that are a part of debate in American life, I`ll defend them. I`ve actually literally done that in court.
What is not defensible and what, as you know, is not First Amendment protected speech is defamation, the willful and repeated malicious lying about people and designed only to hurt them when you know it to be false. Jones already is convicted of that, so we`re past that phase. I`m curious what you see here as a wider precedent given that other people use a similar or slightly diluted version of this playbook?
[18:45:32]
CORN: Well, I think you`re right. As journalists and as citizens, we have to be concerned that people don`t misuse defamation laws and libel laws to silence free speech. And reporting sometimes can make mistakes and be held accountable for it. We`re talking about the reckless promotion of lies with malice. And that`s what Jones does. The cases prove this. It`s been proven over and over again not just from Sandy Hook but with 9/11 truth or trutherism and everything else.
And so, I think if you`re in that line of work, and he`s made apparently over $300 million a year doing this, you have to watch your back now because this jury has sent a signal that we`re not going to allow First Amendment rights protect the promotion of reckless disinformation and propaganda that is just so beyond the pale.
And right now, we see Dominion not just suing Fox. Dominion voting is suing OAN. It`s suing Newsmax. It`s suing Rudy Giuliani. It`s suing the pillow guy. It`s suing Sidney Powell. And you know, there are different -- this is happening in different states and different courtrooms, but you`d have to be really worried because they were in essence doing the same thing.
I think there`s even a bigger issue here than you raised in the introduction, and that is we`ve seen conspiracism take deep root within the Republican Party and the conservative movement over the last five, 10, 15 years. Alex Jones helped put it there. He wasn`t the only one that did this. Trump did it with birtherism. We have an Arizona Secretary of State who was just elected by Republicans, a nominee, not -- he hasn`t won yet. But he is a QAnon supporter.
You have Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania running for governor there, Republican. He has been friendly to QAnon. So, the whole conspiracy theory industry has sort of subsumed the Republican Party in the conservative movement. And now, we`re seeing out of this one jury in Austin, Texas, that they`re saying, hey, we`re going to try to put some guardrails up and put some brakes on this. And I think that has ramifications for a lot of people other than Alex Jones.
MELBER: Yes, you mentioned something other cases. We mentioned Fox. Take a look at the Fox News situation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN HANNITY, HOST, FOX NEWS: Dominion came under heavy fire after allegations that their machines caused thousands of votes in one Michigan county to be switched from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.
RUDY GIULIANI, TRUMP LAWYER: The machines can be hacked. There`s no question about that. Their machines can be hacked.
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You know, the votes in Dominion, they say, are counted in foreign countries.
LOU DOBBS, HOST, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK: We reached out to one of the leading authorities on open source software for elections. Eddie Perez for his insight and views.
Have you seen any evidence that Smartmatic software was used to flip votes anywhere in the US in this election?
EDDIE PEREZ, TECH DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, OSET INSTITUTE: I have not seen any evidence that Smartmatic software was used to delete, change, alter anything related to vote tabulation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: David, the final segment there is one where they did something apparently that never occurred to them or they didn`t want to do in the middle or the beginning, which was fact-check the actual claims. But in a democracy, whether people understand factually what the results are not, can make all the difference between a peaceful transfer of power or what we lived through.
CORN: And you saw in the January 6 Hearing when Rusty Bowers, who is the speaker of the Arizona State House, said that Giuliani told him we have theories, but we have no evidence. Donald Trump went out on election night and claimed there was fraud, claimed, you know, there were -- there were -- the big lie. He started immediately without having any evidence, any facts.
And of course, as you noted, Bill Barr has been deposed in the Dominion case because he told Trump that this whole conspiracy theory about Dominion voting machines was a bunch of crap. So, again, you know, I think this is a great push back your to the row of conspiracy theory in American politics.
MELBER: Yes. Really excellent. I appreciate your view on it. It`s a big, big precedent that`s clearly getting noticed. David Corn, thank you. I`m going to fit in a break. When we return, news in the sentencing of Ahmaud Arbery`s murderers. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:50:00]
MELBER: The three men convicted of killing Ahmaud Arbery was sentenced today on separate federal hate crimes charges. Travis McMichael and his Father Greg McMichael sentenced to life in prison. Their neighbor William Bryan sentenced to 35 years behind bars. The three arrested after their own cell phone video showed them hunting down Arbery and that came out.
All three were, as you may recall, already serving separate life sentences because they`ve been convicted of murder at the state level. And for the first time today, the court also heard what was billed as an apology from Mr. McMichael, then he chose is not to speak prompting a reaction from Arbery`s mother.
[18:55:04]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WANDA COOPER JONES, MOTHER OF AHMAUD ARBERY: Travis shows not to even say tha the was sorry. So, it really shows the court -- I shows the family and it shows everybody who`s been saying Justice for Ahmaud what kind of people really took my son away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: This was the case that as we reported at the time was initially not slated for even investigation, let alone prosecution, let alone what pressure ultimately brought to bear, which is multiple life sentences and what the family says is an initial measure of justice. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: We have breaking news courtesy of a brand new statement that just crossed from Donald Trump. He asserts in this statement that his home in Mar-a-Lago is "under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents." This new statement from Donald Trump seems to assert that there is an FBI raid recent or ongoing. He says that "this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary." He also then goes on to attack the DOJ and makes various claims we have previously heard about, his view of the investigation.
But a big headline here. NBC News and MSNBC has not yet confirmed, but the former president saying there is a raid at Mar-a-lago. We will keep working on confirming and reporting this story. "THE REIDOUT" with Jason Johnson filling in is up next.