Summary
Rapper Havoc speaks out. Could the Trump Organization probe lead to indictments as soon as next week? The DOJ sues Georgia over what it says is voter suppression. Derek Chauvin is sentenced to 22.5 months for the murder of George Floyd.
Transcript
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER starts right now.
Hi, Ari.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Hi, Nicolle. Thank you for your coverage on this big day.
I want to welcome everyone to THE BEAT. I am Ari Melber.
We`re tracking several significant stories.
The Trump Organization now formally expected to be indicted, the whole enchilada, the whole company indicted by next week. If that`s familiar- sounding, it`s because we first reported on some of that earlier this month. We have some special guests, including an insider, a protege of the DA who will make this call. That`s tonight.
And we begin right now with the breaking news out of Minneapolis, George Floyd`s murderer sentenced.
This is breaking news across America tonight. It is a gripping moment, the former Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin sentenced for the murder of George Floyd.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER CAHILL, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, JUDGE: The sentence for count one, the court commits you to the custody of the commissioner of corrections for a period of 270 months. That`s 2-7-0. That is that 10-year addition to the presumptive sentence of 150 months.
This is based on your abuse of a position of trust and authority and also the particular cruelty shown to George Floyd. You are granted credit for 199 days already served.
Pay the mandatory surcharge of $78 to be paid from prison wages. You`re prohibited from possessing firearms, ammunition or explosives for the remainder of your life.
Provide a DNA sample, as required by law. Register as a predatory offender, as required by law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Across the United States, this is clearly a moment of political, legal, and personal significance for so many.
We have the reaction here of Chauvin, as he learned his fate, walking out to prison for the sentence of 22-and-a-half years, the judge explaining that he based his decision many legal factors, which include under state law the heartache and pain of the family, the facts, the victim impact statements, which were played across America today, and, at no time, public pressure.
The technical potential maximum sentences is 40 years. The prosecution asked for 30, which is considered high, according to legal precedent.
Chauvin`s defense, well, they stunned many legal observers by making a request that would have no legal basis. They were requesting only probation after a murder conviction.
Before the sentencing, as I mentioned, this is part of the legal factors, because this is a state, Minnesota, like most states, that has a formal process to have victims` families be heard, that that is part of the way justice is served.
It`s tough, but important stuff. If you watched the trial -- we covered it -- so many people lived through in America -- this is not easy to watch, but our justice system, when it works, says it`s not supposed to be easy. It`s important to bear witness. It is part of justice.
It was today part of the punishment -- the factor for it, I mean -- Floyd`s family giving those emotional legal victims` impact statements.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRANDON WILLIAMS, NEPHEW OF GEORGE FLOYD: The sudden murder of George has forever traumatized us. You may see us cry, but the full extent of our pain and trauma will never be seen with the naked eye.
The heartbreak and hurt goes far beyond any number of tears we could ever cry.
TERRENCE FLOYD, BROTHER OF GEORGE FLOYD: On behalf of me and my family, we seek the maximum penalty. We don`t want to see no more slaps on the wrist. We`ve been through that already.
PHILONISE FLOYD, BROTHER OF GEORGE FLOYD: My family and I have been given a life sentence. We will never be able to get George back. Daddies are a daughter`s first love. He will never be able to walk Gianna down the aisle in her wedding, attend those magical moments of her life.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you could say anything to your daddy right now, what would it be?
GIANNA FLOYD, DAUGHTER OF GEORGE FLOYD: It would be, I miss him, and I love you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: "I miss you and I love you." There is not much more anyone can add when you deal with this kind of situation.
The state deemed this a murder, a preventable, fully avoidable murder, a death, a tragedy. And so those statements come into the record. That`s part of the justice today. Everyone in America who has been paying attention understands the rarity of a case like this, of an officer being convicted and then sentenced in a major way for killing someone or for killing a black American.
Now, on the Chauvin side, the convicted murderer, we haven`t heard from him. He became world famous for this horrific act that`s legally been deemed a murder, but we didn`t hear from him in the trial. We didn`t hear from him in other public forums.
We now today do hear from him. This is part of the process too. And, again, whether you want to hear from him or not, that`s a personal choice.
But I mentioned legally, this is also part of the process, because even a defendant or convict has rights. So he gave his own statement. You can judge it for yourself. There was a somewhat cryptic or odd reference to peace of mind.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEREK CHAUVIN, CONVICTED FELON: At this time, due to some additional legal matters at hand, I`m not able to give a full formal statement at this time.
But, very briefly, though, I do want to give my condolences to the Floyd family. There`s going to be some other information in the future that would be of interest, and I hope things will give you some -- some peace of mind.
Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: As a factual matter, it is not entirely clear what information that would be, or how it would bring peace of mind. It`s always possible there`s some other information out there.
But the time to bring forward most exculpatory information or any such information was, of course, during the trial.
Now, here`s what the Minnesota attorney general, Keith Ellison, said after the sentencing:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEITH ELLISON, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Like the conviction of Derek Chauvin two months ago, today`s sentencing is not justice. But it is another moment of real accountability on the road to justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: We have special coverage tonight.
If you have been watching on MSNBC, there`s been much coverage of this important day.
We will be joined by Neal Katyal. And I will just say it plainly, not because he`s a legal expert on the channel, although he is and we often rely on him, but because he played a legal role as a special prosecutor in this case. Neal joins me shortly for a one-on-one interview.
But before we begin with Professor Melissa Murray from New York University and Jelani Cobb from "The New Yorker," who has been covering this trial and many related civil rights issues.
I want to welcome both of you.
And, Professor, I`m going to I`m going to go to second on the law, because, Jelani, while this is a legal matter, and we can get into all of that, and we have the experts for it, I`d like to begin the coverage tonight with you.
Here on THE BEAT, we have been covering these kinds of cases since our show launched. They very rarely end like this.
(CROSSTALK)
MELBER: This is a true rarity. And anyone watching who says, oh, well, what do we take from this anecdote, it is still, as I have shown in some of our recent special reports, on aberrant rarity in the justice system of the United States.
So, before we get to the law, I`m just curious, because you have proven to be such a big thinker on these issues, if you don`t mind the compliment on a somber day, what do you take from this? What context can you give us on this rarity in court today?
JELANI COBB, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: So, I mean, first off, I will say I`m not equipped to respond to the statement that George Floyd`s daughter made.
The gravity and the scale of what she`s lost is not apparent to her yet, because there are so many years and so many moments and so many opportunities that she would have had to spend time with her father, particular moments, and the import of them, that won`t happen now.
And I don`t think that any of us can respond to what that means in any kind of moral sense.
But I think that, in terms of this case, he was sentenced to 22.5 years. One of the things that people were looking at was whether or not he would get more time than Mohamed Noor, who is the black officer of Somali descent who was in recent years the only police officer held accountable in the midst of this spate of highly questionable and suspect shootings that had taken place between Minneapolis or Twin Cities area police officers and unarmed African-Americans.
And so there`s that dynamic. And people saw that he got a decade longer than Mohamed Noor had gotten.
But the other thing about this -- and I have been saying this from the beginning -- is that it took protests in 350 American cities and dozens of countries around the world, it took the United States being embarrassed on the world stage to galvanize enough public sentiment to ensure that this would be the outcome.
And so while it`s tempting to look at this as a signal of some sort of sea change, it`s also realistic to look at this as a case so atypical, and, with the police coming down on the side of the prosecution, highly, highly uncommon, as a kind of -- effectively a kind of good cop/bad cop scenario playing out in the course of the trial in the courtroom, it`s so atypical that it`s hard to say that this has a broader significance to what happens in American jurisprudence.
MELBER: And that takes us right to the professor.
It seems that Jelani has the evidence on his side to look at today`s case as important for the people involved, but aberrant until we see wider change?
MELISSA MURRAY, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think we saw this throughout the prosecution strategy at trial.
Over and over and over again, they sought to argue that Derek Chauvin was acting as a rogue cop, that the problem wasn`t necessarily policing. They were trying to thread this very delicate balance between criticizing the police, writ large, and criticizing Derek Chauvin, and they came out on the side of Derek Chauvin by himself went too far.
But, as Jelani suggests, the broader question, and indeed those protests over the summer were not about the single actions of one cop, but, rather, the broader question of policing in minority communities as a whole.
And, for my money, the real question and whether that question will be surfaced is going to come up in the trial of the three bystanding officers. I mean, that really speaks to the broader question of police culture, and whether, if you see something, you are actually willing to say something...
MELBER: Yes.
MURRAY: ... or whether that blue wall of silence will again prompt you to silence.
So I think that`s exactly right. This was aberrant. It`s not to say it`s not significant. But there`s more work to be done. And this trial certainly made that clear.
MELBER: And, Jelani, you talk about the daughter.
We have a little bit more of the daughter. And I mention to viewers, because I try to be as clear as possible, it`s not easy to watch. There are many reasons why one might want to turn away.
But the way the system works and the dehumanization of certain individuals, many defendants in general in the typical context and the inmates, but the dehumanization of blackness in our justice system is a deep thing, so that, when the tables may be proverbially turned, according to the way people sometimes imagine it, and you have a black victim, suddenly, we start getting information from the state and other things to dehumanize or degrade that person.
And so it is actually striking to me legally that there is a forum for the family to speak. We saw it at the trial. That was for the jury. And that`s round one. That`s the call about guilt or innocence. Sentencing, here`s the judge.
But in both, the state actually does have a decent rule here that provides for us to actually remember the human being that was lost. So this is just about half-a-minute. I`m going to play it for your reaction from today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you miss most about your daddy?
G. FLOYD: Well, I ask about him all the time.
We used to have dinner meals every single night before we went to bed. My daddy always used to help me brush my teeth.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Aw. Do you miss him helping brush your teeth?
G. FLOYD: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you could say anything to your daddy right now, what would it be?
G. FLOYD: It would be, I miss him, and I love you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Jelani.
COBB: I mean, I think it just compounds the grief that she`s the spitting image of her father.
And we`re hearing this statement and kind of adorable little Southern accent, and she`s talking in this very articulate way. And what`s beneath that is heart-wrenching. It just really focuses, it narrows down the scope of all these things that we`re talking about.
We can talk about criminal justice. We can talk about what happened. We can talk about toxicology, things, debating back and forth, but she is the fundamental question. She is the fundamental issue at the heart of this and what she has lost.
And I think that, just lastly, the idea that what Derek Chauvin did didn`t represent a bigger truth is belied by the fact that he remained on that police department for 19 years. And so there were 19 years in which someone could have intervened to have spared this little girl that grief.
MELBER: Melissa, a final thought?
MURRAY: I think one thing that is important to note here, that we are seeing the use of victim impact statements in a way that actually supports and benefits a minority family.
But there`s been a lot of racial politics around victim impact statements, and, indeed, many racial justice groups have worried over time that these statements can actually be used to exacerbate sentences when the defendant is black.
So, again, we are seeing this very odd and perhaps aberrant situation where the change in the nature of the defendant, the fact that it is a black victim and a white defendant, is really sort of changing our understanding of how all of these different elements of the sentencing system and the criminal justice system are working in tandem.
MELBER: All really important points.
I appreciate these perspectives on this somber, but important day, Professor Murray, Jelani Cobb.
We turn now, as promised, to Neal Katyal. He is a former acting solicitor general. He was a special prosecutor in the Chauvin case.
Neal, walk us through your views as a participant here.
NEAL KATYAL, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, really, I think you started with Jelani and Melissa in exactly the right place, that it`s rare to have a day like this.
We`re not used to sentences like this. We`re not used to convictions like this. And it was 13 months ago today that George Floyd was callously murdered. And today is a fork in the road of history.
I mean, the fact that these cases -- that this case was brought, historic. And the fact that the charges included murder, historic. The fact that officer after officer testified to how wrong this was, historic.
And so I do think that the case and the verdict does send a message today that no one is above the law. And it`s such a welcome change. And I don`t have the words to describe just how important I think this is, but I think Jelani captured it so well, when he just brought it down to human terms and Gianna, George Floyd`s daughter, and what she`s gone through and what she will go through.
MELBER: Yes, and that humanity and empathy is hopefully a part of what we can take as a project, as what we need to do as a society, really.
And the law is a piece of that. And I know you worked -- well, you worked on this case, I imagine for some of those reasons. And yet it`s broader than that.
I did want to get your reaction to, again, as a fact-finding mission, what this convict, this convicted murderer was saying, because we didn`t hear from him at trial. That was widely viewed as the right technical legal strategy, given how difficult a cross would have been for him, although they still lost.
Here`s what, again, Chauvin said here briefly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHAUVIN: There`s going to be some other information in the future that would be of interest, and I hope things will give you some -- some peace of mind.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KATYAL: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
MELBER: You were a part of the legal team. Do you have any idea? Yes.
KATYAL: I mean, I have some speculation and ideas, but they`re just speculations. And so I really can`t comment on that.
I mean, I do think that what you saw in the proceeding today was, we, as the prosecution, asked for 30 years because of the sentencing enhancements, and he had asked for basically probation, even though he was convicted of second-degree murder. And he gave that statement, in accordance with his ask for probation or for a low sentence.
And he was sentenced ultimately to 22.5 years. And I think people are now asking, are we happy as prosecutors with that sentence? And I think that`s really the wrong question. Sentences are never about, is someone happy with it or not? It`s about the judicious application of the law.
And the sentence from the court of 22.5 years is one of the longest that a police officer has ever received for using deadly force. And it`s far above the Minnesota sentencing guidelines, and I think does set a standard for police accountability in the future.
But what I -- what he meant by that, we will have to see.
MELBER: Yes, understood there.
I think the final point you make is a legal one that`s important. We started, as I mentioned, with some of the heart of this. But, as you say, people can debate what they think the outcome should be. That`s American, American dialogue.
But, as Neal reminds us, this was above even what the standard would be. So, if that becomes a precedent that is used, that would be a striking change. As we discussed with the other experts, that is TBD in the way policing works in America.
Neal, thank you very much.
I want to mention, Neal is one of the lawyers directly involved.
Another senior attorney in Minnesota, the attorney general, Keith Ellison, will be on with Rachel tonight 9:00 p.m. Eastern.
Coming up, the first criminal charges in the Trump Org probe are expected next week, a blockbuster "New York Times" story that NBC has been matching.
We have new information, Trump lawyers confirming the story, with the heat on the CFO. And we have an insider coming up.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: Breaking news late today in this Trump Org criminal probe we have been covering.
"The New York Times" wrote the story, and multiple sources also speaking to NBC News, and here it is: the Manhattan DA expected to indict the entire Trump Organization as soon as next week.
This is a rapid escalation. The first public reporting that prosecutors were close to charging Donald Trump`s company itself coming today, although we have had a lot of other clues leading up to this.
The report in "The New York Times" also refers to CFO Allen Weisselberg, who we have been covering.
The district attorney`s office has informed Trump`s lawyers, "The Times" reports, that it`s considering criminal charges against the entire company. This is in connection with at least -- quote -- "fringe benefits that it awarded a top executive."
Now, that`s not all. "The Times" and NBC reporting this, but then, on the Trump side, they`re not contesting it. They`re not debating. Take a look at this, Trump`s legal team confirming late today in a written statement that they did indeed meet with the DA prosecutors yesterday, and that Trump lawyers also expect charges against the company.
For his part, we want to report that Trump and the organization deny any wrongdoing.
Now, this news that DA Vance could indict the company, well, this doesn`t come out of thin air. There have been signs we have been reporting on right here on THE BEAT.
Now, Vance had tapped a mob prosecutor to work on the case, showing that they weren`t just waiting out the clock, prosecutors looking at all sorts of ways to squeeze, including indicting potentially the entire company.
And we have reported right here on THE BEAT that indicting the entire company is in the DA`s toolbox.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Prosecutors are scrutinizing and probing the Trump Organization the same way they have mafia organizations.
The DA could indict all of Trump Organization.
Like Vance`s other do-overs, he could go farther and try to indict the Trump Org or indict its staff, which is a big deal.
DANIEL R. ALONSO, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Given the policy, given all the considerations, no reason not to charge the Trump Organization.
MELBER: Even if Donald Trump himself is not ever indicted, there is another way the prosecutors can actually indict the entire Trump Org.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: There you have it.
We`re showing you the reporting because sometimes what seems familiar has actually just been reported out as illegal path.
In this case, starting in early June, we started to pull on this thread here and THE BEAT, explaining how you could indict an entire company without indicting maybe Donald Trump himself. And given all of the issues of the unprecedented prospect of indicting a former president, this could, according to the DA, be a middle ground.
The Trump lawyers today saying it`s extreme. They view it as totally unfair. So, what we were telling you about in early June and again last week with Cy Vance`s protege Dan Alonso is now, according to NBC News and "The New York Times," it`s what`s about to happen.
Now, the charges could also go beyond this fringe benefit issue. We know the DA has looked at bank fraud, financial deceit and tax fraud. And if prosecutors do indict the entire company, if they won, well, that could bankrupt the entire Trump Organization.
And Donald Trump is the Trump Organization. It could bankrupt him, again, in a deeper way than the past corporate bankruptcies he`s gotten out from under.
Now, to indict Trump Org, there are guidelines. Prosecutors have to show a broader pattern of activity, not just a single crime within the company. The DA`s office has this internal memo that we told you about. It lays out how prosecutors decide on whether to indict a whole company. There`s federal and local rules on this.
That 11-year-old memo, as I mentioned, was written by the former chief assistant DA Cy Vance, Dan Alonso.
And he joins us on the big day of this big news when we`re back in just 60 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANIE WINSTON WOLKOFF, AUTHOR, "MELANIA AND ME": Follow the money. If you follow the money, you will get your answers. People need to start following the money.
JENNIFER WEISSELBERG, FORMER DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF ALLEN WEISSELBERG: Taxes, tax fraud, tax evasion. What was compensated? What was gifts? What are their actual real estate?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: I`m joined now by the former chief assistant district attorney Dan Alonso, who, as mentioned, worked under DA Cy Vance, who will make this momentous call, and Tristan Snell, a prosecutor who helped lead the investigation of Trump University.
Welcome to both of you.
Dan, I took pains to show viewers here that, while this may sound familiar, because we have reported it, and you were ahead of it on the air last week, it`s an advancement when NBC and "The New York Times" report that now the office you used to work in, the Manhattan DA, has literally told the Trump Organization to expect these charges.
It`s a major advancement. And unlike some political and legal stories, there`s not a debate tonight, which suggests bad news for Trump.
I want to read briefly from the Trump lawyers` statement, which says -- quote -- "They could not get Weisselberg to cooperate and tell them what they wanted to hear. And that`s why they`re going forward with these charges."
Of course, they have every right to defend themselves. But, Dan, that`s also a confirmation, as well as in other parts of statement, that they are going forward with the charges.
What does it mean to indict the entire Trump Org? And do you find this reporting credible that it could happen soon?
ALONSO: I find this report credible. Obviously, the defense lawyers have confirmed it. It`s not strange to me that they`re going to indict the entire organization, as you alluded to.
Well, first of all, I don`t know the entire organization, some corporate entity, presumably the operating company that paid these fringe benefits. So I`m not sure which entity that is. We will find out presumably next week. That`s not so strange that they would do that, given that it`s being directed presumably by Allen Weisselberg, who is, under the law, a high managerial agent, which is required to at least recklessly tolerate the behavior.
Here, presumably, Weisselberg helped direct it. And so these crimes were committed, presumably, if it`s about the fringe benefits, by Weisselberg, allegedly. And, also, that would be then on behalf of the organization, because the organization would be not withholding the right amount of tax, and they would be creating records that are incorrect, at least according to what the DA is likely to allege.
So, based on that and the factors you talked about in that memo, it`s not surprising that they would indict one or more Trump corporate entities.
MELBER: The memo you wrote when you worked directly for DA Vance.
Have you spoken with anyone in the current DA`s office about this case this year?
ALONSO: Other than in most -- the most general terms, in terms of how hard they`re working, no.
MELBER: General terms, but has anyone relayed to you that they would look at the theory of indicting the whole company?
ALONSO: No. No, that`s something that is something they would look at in -- in any major case, you look at the theory of indicting the whole company.
As you mentioned, there are factors. And those factors in this case play can almost completely against the Trump Organization.
MELBER: Yes.
ALONSO: They didn`t cooperate. They didn`t self-report, et cetera.
MELBER: Yes.
ALONSO: So, it`s not that strange.
(CROSSTALK)
MELBER: And so what I`m getting at, Dan -- yes, I`m...
ALONSO: Go ahead.
MELBER: Not super strange, but considered a heavyweight tactic, because many companies have legal issues, and the whole thing doesn`t necessarily go down.
As you point out, we still have to wait and see what they do, because they could go for part, and there`s subsidiaries. That`s how Trump`s gotten out from under corporate bankruptcies in the past.
But I was leading to a minor legal compliment, if I may, which is, you don`t claim any inside intel, and yet, in our reporting here on THE BEAT, which was partly based on you and other source materials we have, you said this was a strong case, you said you could see this happening.
And so I`m curious, before I bring in Tristan, to walk us through how you saw that coming. Is it just that there is a strong legal case here? And how do you square that with, again, to be fair, the defense from the Trump lawyers today, which is, this, they say, looks like an overreach if it`s only about -- quote, unquote -- "benefits"?
ALONSO: Well, we don`t know how strong the case is in terms of evidence, but, presumably, they wouldn`t be filing it if they didn`t believe they could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. So I don`t know how strong it is.
What I do know is that what`s been reported by you guys, by "The Times" by others as being the facts do lead to an up to a natural charge, by the way, not the most severe charge in the world, right? Obviously, it`s different to charge taxable fringe benefits vs. millions of dollars of just not paying taxes or embezzlement or something like that.
So we have to put it in perspective. That said, if you`re committing a tax fraud, it`s not just the state of New York that`s being defrauded. It`s the IRS. There are creative theories that the DA could bring into play, like false business records, false filings with the state.
I mean, it is a case of some moment. I would not call it the case of the century. And I also want to caution that just because they`re indicting one or more entities, it doesn`t mean the whole Trump Organization is going to go down. Obviously, they can defend it. And they will, even if convicted, it`s not like it`s a bank. It`s not like they`re going to lose a license or something.
They do have some collateral consequences. But it`s not going to be one of those things like Arthur Andersen, which went out of business when the Justice Department convicted them.
MELBER: Interesting. So you see them potentially surviving, depending on how it`s structured, even if they lost.
Tristan, your views on all of the above.
TRISTAN SNELL, FORMER NEW YORK ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, I mean, for one thing, we actually also brought a case against the Trump Organization, when we did our civil prosecution of Trump University.
So, on the civil side, this is also something that happens all the time. You`re going to go up to hit one of the parent entities or holding companies. That`s what Trump Organization is. It`s a holding company. It then holds interests in a whole series of a couple of 100 LLCs that then hold the individual properties and the interests of Trump`s businesses.
So this is not a completely unprecedented thing. For the Trump people to say that it`s overreach is just a -- that`s a bunch of hogwash. That`s just them making hay out of this.
MELBER: Well, let me press you, Tristan.
"The Times" report consults independent experts who say they can`t think of a corporate level indictment on just benefits.
SNELL: I think the benefits thing is what makes this slightly different than a lot of other cases.
But that`s -- the big point that I think needs to be made here is that this is -- this is round one, or the first inning, or whatever sports metaphor you want to use. This is just the beginning. This is not the main event, not even close to the main event.
They are going to be bringing, I believe, a surgically -- basically, a surgically driven case here to get at something they know they can win and actually get indictments on Trump Organization, probably on a number of these individuals.
I think that, obviously, Weisselberg is probably a main target. And then, from there, they`re going to do other things.
(CROSSTALK)
MELBER: Tristan, let me press you on that.
SNELL: Yes.
MELBER: Let me press you on that, devil`s advocate or arguendo, as they say in court, for the sake of learning.
(LAUGHTER)
SNELL: Yes.
MELBER: Some people, hearing you say first ending would think, really?
Donald Trump`s legal problems are now in the first inning?
SNELL: You know...
MELBER: Because, to a lot of Americans who follow this stuff -- and we think BEAT viewers are up to date -- there`s been a lot of innings of Trump U, which you handled, the Trump SoHo investigation by the same DA office where Dan worked that did not end in charges, the Mueller investigation, the Georgia investigation, the other impropriety investigations in Trump Organization, the NDAs, which was in federal court in SDNY.
I could go on, but the show is not long enough to list all the legal problems. I didn`t even get into all the indictments of people like Bannon and Stone and Manafort.
So, when you say first inning, that could cut both ways. I give you, as always, the chance to expand and rebut.
SNELL: Yes, I would like to rebut that.
No, it`s first inning of this phase ,of going after the Trump Organization and Trump and his employees on the taxes, the tax fraud issue that -- and the bank fraud issue, this investigation that they have been undertaking, with the Manhattan DA and the New York A.G.`s office. This is the first round of that piece.
If we`re talking about the whole grand sweep of different things that Trump has gotten himself into, yes, we`re in like the 344th round.
MELBER: OK.
(CROSSTALK)
MELBER: Tristan Snell and Dan...
(CROSSTALK)
ALONSO: Sorry.
This is generally...
MELBER: Go ahead.
ALONSO: It`s not the first inning, but they`re obviously calling someone`s bluff on this, because they have been investigating much weightier issues.
Whether they`re going to file his charges, we don`t know. But, obviously, they want -- they tried to get him to cooperate.
SNELL: Yes.
ALONSO: According to the reporting, he`s not cooperating.
And they`re calling his bluff. They`re charging him. And they`re going to charge him with whatever they have right now that`s provable. And that`s without prejudice. They have got a long-term grand jury. It`s going to be around for at least six months.
SNELL: Yes.
ALONSO: It`s going to continue hearing evidence. And that`s...
(CROSSTALK)
MELBER: I`m supposed to fit in a break. I`m supposed to fit in a break.
But the question that hangs over that, then, is that strategically sound, if they have other things that they`re holding back? Or when is it time to call everyone`s bluff and put all the cards on the table?
I leave that as a question to brew on over the weekend.
And, Dan and Tristan, as experts, will both be back with us. They`re telling -- they keep telling me to fit in a break.
So thanks to both of you.
When we come back, we have a friend of THE BEAT and a Trump executive insider, Barbara Res, back.
And the DOJ going after Republican voter restrictions. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: We are joined by a former Trump Organization executive and insider, former executive vice president Barbara Res.
She has been part of our coverage as we have been pulling on the threads of this open criminal probe into the Trump Organization.
Barbara, give it to us straight. How did you first hear the news today, as I mentioned, first broken by "The New York Times," also reporting later from NBC News, that the Trump Organization or part of it could be indicted as soon as next week?
BARBARA RES, FORMER TRUMP ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT: I was working on my computer, and I had the TV on.
And I looked up -- on MSNBC, of course. And I looked up and I saw the headline running across the bottom. I`m like, oh, my God. Started making phone calls.
It`s interesting.
MELBER: You guys -- yes, I mean, you guys have had legal scraps when you worked there.
But have you ever seen a day like today for Trump Org? And the Trump lawyers` statements, which I have emphasized to viewers, make this different. Is this is just not a, what`s going to happen? Is it, oh, another threat? The Trump lawyers are confirming the DA told them get ready for charges.
RES: Yes, they`re -- Trump is probably behind self. They maybe have him in a straitjacket.
He`s completely worked up. I mean, this is the biggest thing that`s ever happened to him, without a doubt, in terms of his liability, his possibility of getting indicted himself or having his company go under in ways.
So I think it`s a major, major -- and, of course, the lawyers come back and say -- they pooh-pooh everything. That`s what lawyers do. That`s what they`re paid to do sometimes.
But I do think it`s...
(CROSSTALK)
MELBER: Barbara, you know how lawyers are.
(LAUGHTER)
RES: I do.
But it`s a major...
(CROSSTALK)
MELBER: Go ahead.
RES: So.
MELBER: Yes, I mean, it`s major. And it does sound different than before.
Walk us through what this company does next, because we have seen Donald Trump fight as a president, where he had a lot of people whose full-time job was to defend any president, who happened to be him. What does he do now with his back against the wall with the business in New York, while he`s camped out in Florida talking up another run, et cetera?
RES: Well, I -- they don`t know what they are being charged with exactly. None of us knows. I mean, we think it has to do with the money that he -- or the gifts or whatever, unreported income that several people have so.
And they`re going to be prepared to fight that. And they`re going to fight it with, basically, some of the things are legal, and they`re going to claim that -- they may end up throwing Allen under the bus for the things that they gave him, because he didn`t report them.
That`s a possibility. But this is all so complicated. I was -- loved your previous two guests and some others I have seen on MSNBC. I mean, I don`t know why -- it`s hard to understand why they can`t indict Trump himself, to be honest with you.
But they`re going after Allen. And I think it`s a very good way to get to Trump. I am surprised that Allen is not caving by now. He must be very afraid of Donald. That`s what I`m thinking. He must be very, very afraid of Donald.
And Trump went into New York a couple of times. I think they were meeting him and talking things out. Either it`s the carrot or the stick, one way or the other. But I think that Donald has got him convinced not to talk right now, right now.
MELBER: Yes. You make -- well, you make great points, Barbara. You`re sort of given us the fact witness view, knowing these characters.
"The Washington Post" reported on recent times where Allen and Donald were in the Trump Tower building at the same time. Didn`t quite get to reporting on the meeting, because I don`t think they have surveillance, but they have what we call situational analysis.
And then, as the previous guests said, this is tremendous pressure on Weisselberg, because the bluff is up, and he`s going to be in this process, if the reporting is correct, if these charges come in the next week.
We will see.
Barbara, thank you, as always.
(CROSSTALK)
MELBER: Going to fit in a break, and turn to another big story.
We have been looking at civil rights and the voting rights clash. Now the DOJ going after Georgia for voter suppression.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: The DOJ formally going after Republican voting restrictions. This is new today, Attorney General Garland formerly suing the state of Georgia.
This is the first lawsuit of its kind in this Biden-Garland era at DOJ. The allegation is that Georgia`s controversial new voting law specifically and illegally targets black voters.
Republicans in the state have been pushing these laws since Trump`s loss. Georgia saw record voter turnout. In civics, well, that`s supposed to be a good thing, but, according to Republicans in the state, well, maybe not so much.
You may recall when the Republican governor signed that voting bill behind closed doors in March, and you see the imagery there of the lawmakers backing this effort that even independent experts say would clearly reduce access to the polls by certain people.
And it`s in front of the painting depicting an old Georgia slave plantation, for good measure.
We also reported at the time how a Democratic state lawmaker was arrested when trying to do oversight and just see the signing of that public law. The racial overtones, they`re obvious. Now it goes to court, with the new attorney general saying this is the beginning, because the Justice Department will vigorously look at evidence of potential discrimination in any other new state voting crackdowns.
We will keep an accountability watch on all of this. It`s one of the many ways that we`re seeing this clash over who gets to vote in America continue.
Now, I have got another break, but we`re going to end the week with something really special, an important conversation with historian Michael Beschloss and a very special guest.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: It`s Friday on THE BEAT. It`s been a long week. And now it`s time to fall back.
And we bring you a dynamic duo tonight. Havoc is the rap artist and producer from the legendary Mobb Deep, which also featured Prodigy. Rest in peace. They have a platinum album, three gold albums. And our friend and NBC presidential historian Michael Beschloss, author of nine books and an Emmy winner.
Many accolades all around. Great to have you here together.
How are you guys doing?
HAVOC, RAPPER: All right. Thank you, Ari.
MELBER: What`s going on, Havoc? I see "The Infamous" behind you. We like that. We like the background.
HAVOC: Oh, yes, you -- you know I got to rep whenever I`m on.
Fridays, I got to represent them all. It`s all good.
MELBER: Hey, there`s no better way to end the week, Fridays.
So, we like to look around beyond the daily news. And, boy, there was a lot today.
But broadening out, Havoc, I`m curious what`s on your mind? What`s on your "Fallback" list?
HAVOC: Well, So, on my fallback list today, for this Friday, is the high executive pay, that these executives, they`re having record pay for these CEOs.
I think the real headline should be them showing empathy to their employees by giving back with this high executive pay, because I`m not against them getting high pay. If they worked for it, they earned it, they should get it.
But in a time like now, people having all these hardships and not being able to work during the pandemic, I think the headline should be executives with high pay, record high pay giving back to their employees, showing some kind of empathy, or team player-ism.
MELBER: Yes.
Yes, fall back. As you say, it`s fine to work hard and be successful. But you think about what we went through in the past year. And these pay packages don`t come out of nowhere. They are the choice of the board and the CEO, deciding, huh, do we want to go up or down this year? And they lived through what we just lived through and said, yes, let`s break all- time records for inequality.
I appreciate you. We have this segment partly to put other things on the table. I appreciate you putting that one on the table here as we end the week.
Michael, what`s on your mind?
MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, NBC NEWS PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, I`m thinking about the fact that a statue of George Floyd a couple of days ago was defaced in Brooklyn, where I think Havoc is from, right, Havoc?
HAVOC: I`m actually...
MELBER: Queens.
HAVOC: I`m from next door, but you`re not too far off.
BESCHLOSS: OK, but you were born in Brooklyn?
HAVOC: Yes, I was, indeed. There you go.
BESCHLOSS: OK. Just wanted to make sure we got this historically correct.
MELBER: Well, hold on, Michael.
He -- yes, he`s got a Brooklyn link, but he was representing Queens pretty hard in the game.
BESCHLOSS: Well, I heard that. I just wanted to make sure that we got the full historical background here for...
HAVOC: Well, he got the details -- he got the details spot on. I definitely was born in Brooklyn.
BESCHLOSS: I`m doing Havoc`s -- I`m doing your three-volume biography. I just want to make sure that the first volume starts out in the right place, Brooklyn, not Queens.
(LAUGHTER)
BESCHLOSS: And the bad thing, which is not funny, is that this statue was defaced a couple of days ago...
MELBER: Yes.
BESCHLOSS: ... of all weeks, the week that we are trying to get some justice for the murder of George Floyd.
And this is after five years in which hate crimes have gone way up. Plus, today is the day in 1964 that, in St. Augustine, Florida, there were black protesters who were trying to desegregate a segregated beach.
All they wanted to do was go swim in the ocean. And white tough guys, segregationist racists, came and pushed them away and, to some extent, beat them up. That was 1964. That was 60 years ago this month, which are -- or not 60 years ago this month, but almost 60 years ago this month.
And it might seem a long time, but you can take any day of the week or the year and find a moment in civil rights history like this. It was so recent. It still goes on. America has a lot to do.
MELBER: I will say, in rounding it out -- and we went long in sort of our Floyd coverage at the top, so I appreciate you guys being concise -- that Michael makes such great points here, the living history and what we still need to learn from.
And then, Havoc, on the lighter note, we can all see why Michael is a historian, because he`s got every little detail when he comes into any segment. Just don`t tell them in Queensbridge that Havoc spent too much time in Brooklyn, because that`s a different energy.
BESCHLOSS: Right. Just doing a little fact-checking, Ari. I`m doing my best.
(LAUGHTER)
MELBER: Now I got to hand it to Joy.
Thank you to Havoc and Michael. That is THE BEAT.
"THE REIDOUT" is right now.