Skip to main content

tv   The Beat With Ari Melber  MSNBC  December 31, 2018 3:00pm-4:01pm PST

3:00 pm
♪ welcome to a very special holiday edition of "the beat." tonight, we're going to look at a lot of different things, what lies ahead in the russia probe. we're going to break down how democrats are going to fight trump in court with special reporting. and we're going to have some fun with a special year-end fallback. we begin with robert mueller's probe, closing in on someone you may have heard about, individual one, donald trump. more trump associates have been caught up in this investigation as we head into the new year. michael cohen, the man who said he would take a bullet for trump, is cooperating with mueller and is also headed to jail. donald trump's campaign chair,
3:01 pm
paul manafort, his sentenced is scheduled for the spring. of course, there's roger stone, who has come out and said himself he looks like a mueller target. tonight, i'm going to speak soon with nick ackerman and mia wylie with all of that. but first, another key wince who -- key witness who emerged this year, jerome corsi. in that interview, he admitted that he helped roger stone lie to congress about democratic e-mail hacks during that 2016 election. this was a wide ranging interview. i began by asking him why he rejected the plea deal that was offered to him by bob mueller's team. >> i felt the deal was fraudulent. it required me to lie and violate various regulations, and even i thought commit froud. i will not lie to keep myself out of jail, and i realized that
3:02 pm
i could go to jail for the rest of my life. i'm 72 years old. i might die in jail. >> you think what you're doing today increases the risk that you will be charged, convicted, and die in jail? >> yes, i do. >> when you look at this plea negotiation, you did enter into some kind of discussions with them. what would you have accepted? what would a plea deal look like that you would take? >> i would have taken immunity. >> that's not a plea deal. >> that's my terms. they proposed this and said we want you to consider it. this first count, which they said you only have to agree to one count, but you have to go in front of a federal judge and swear this on a bible. now, for me to do that, i believe in my heart would have been a lie. that count says i knowingly and willfully presented information i knew to be false with an intent to deceive federal authorities. i do not believe i did that. in my heart, i went in to tell the truth. did my best to tell the truth.
3:03 pm
and i will not swear before god and the judge something i consider to be a lie. >> but you did say something at the time, that you now acknowledge to be false? >> i acknowledge that what i testified day one, because i had not seen my 2016 e-mails -- >> i understand, but i'm going to hold you on this. >> go ahead. >> you led them to believe that you did not have contact with someone on behalf of roger stone when you did? >> the first day, the statement i gave was wrong. >> wrong, okay. >> and it was wrong because i forgot the e-mail that they're referring to. i had not seen it in two years. >> let's show this so viewers can understand, because this stuff is pretty important. it's important to your life and important to the probe. here it is, the mueller document on this says, corsi contacted an individual in london to pass on person one, roger stone's request to learn about wikileaks materials for the campaign. you did do that? >> and the special counsel allowed me to amend the original
3:04 pm
testimony, and i testified after i saw the e-mail that that was true and didn't deny it. >> here's the e-mail which you provided to nbc news from roger stone. it says, this individual, mallic, should see assange. >> correct. >> at the time, were you trying to get information about the stolen clinton e-mails back to the trump campaign? >> yes. and obviously i wanted -- wouldn't have sent that if i didn't want mallic to go. everybody in the world who was in news or political operations after july 22nd, when assange, 2016, when assange dumped all these e-mails on debbie wasserman schulz, said he had more. everybody wanted them. >> you wanted them to help the trump campaign? >> absolutely. and i was happy that it would help donald trump. >> and this is also from the mueller documents that you leaked. your e-mail, you're telling
3:05 pm
stone, you've got a friend in the embassy playing these two more document dumps. that's assange. impact plan to be very damaging, time to let more than the clinton campaign chair exposed as in bed with the enemy if they're not ready to drop hrc. is that a reference to john podesta? >> yes. and this was one of the main points of contention with the special counsel. i maintain and it's my best recollection that i figured that out. now, special counsel couldn't believe that. they said dr. corsi, we have e-mails, you knew it was podesta. you knew he was going to drop him in october. and how he was going to drop him. you knew almost what they included. i said yes, that's true. how did you know? i figured it out. >> so you tell roger stone about podesta and he tweets about it. this was roger stone saying he had an intermediary. >> i have not met with mr. sa .
3:06 pm
assange. i said we communicated through an intermediary. >> the main thing that links him is pa disodespodesta. could you be roger's intermediary? >> sure. but it was not because i talked to assange, but because i figured it out on my own. i have never spoken to julian assange. i don't know him and i have no contact that i was an intermediary, there was no third party who said roger stone has got this. >> but you were making an important point tonight in this interview that julian assange, as an intermediary, the fact that there was information believed to be private that proved to be accurate, to testatest -- podesta's time in the barrel -- >> you'll have to ask roger stone. let's get this clear, july, i was on vacation with my wife in italy.
3:07 pm
i think flying over, i figured out that assange had podesta's e-mails. i told roger in this e-mail and subsequently i thought it was podes podesta's e-mails. this was my conclusion, my supposition. it did not come from assange, and it didn't connect back to assange. so there's no link from me to assange. the link is from me figure thing out and telling roger. now, if i was the source, it was because roger believed me, figuring it out, not because roger believed i had a source. >> so you gave that defense to mueller's prosecutors. >> it's actually the truth. >> it's also a defense. >> that's fine. it's the truth. >> you said that to them. how did that take it? >> they didn't believe it. >> how did they react to this other defense on behalf of roger stone, which is you agreed to help roger mislead congress about how he found out about podesta?
3:08 pm
>> there's two rounds of this that i went through. round one, i openly discussed that with them and admitted it all, because it was true. i was telling the truth. >> you were telling the truth about a lie? >> no. yes -- >> yes. you were telling them the truth about a lie. >> i'm going to clarify if you allow me to. >> you're getting time here, but you and roger put forward false information to the congressional committee about the source of the podesta -- >> would you allow me? >> you're getting time, but that's about a lie. >> allow me. >> go ahead. >> i've been trained in -- in politics, there's a lot of repositioning. if that were a lie, there would hardly be a politician alive today. >> you want to debate it. i didn't say crime, i said lie to congress, because you told the mueller folks, as i
3:09 pm
understand it, that roger wanted you to come up with a false cover story for the podesta part. there's some reason why roger stone thought he needed to not tell the truth about podesta but to work with you on a lie. >> if you'll allow me. in front of the grand jury, he said, dr. corsi, was that a lie? i said yes. he said was this a lie? yes. so i openly admitted to them that, in their terms, this was a term. >> why did you do that? >> because it was the truth. >> and why did roger stone want you to lie about -- >> you'll have to ask roger stone. at harvard, i neglected to take the mind reading course. >> that's not all. i'll show you a lot more from what many said was a news making interview ahead, which includes jerome corsi bringing up pardons from donald trump and later, my ex-chew save break down on exactly how house democrats have pre precedent to beat trump in
3:10 pm
court. and craig melvin and "snl" join me. g melvin and "snl" join me ultimate feast time it'sat red lobster.r own pick four of ten favorites to create the ultimate feast you've been dreaming of. like lobster mac & cheese. or tender snow crab. so hurry in before new create your own ultimate feast ends.
3:11 pm
be right back. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections,
3:12 pm
including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. means they won't hike your rates over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
3:13 pm
hey, batter, batter, [ crowd cheers ] like everyone, i lead a busy life. but i know the importance of having time to do what you love. at comcast we know our customers' time is valuable. that's why we have 2-hour appointment windows, including nights and weekends. so you can do more of what you love. my name is tito, and i'm a tech-house manager at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. welcome back to a special edition of "the beat" tonight. now part two of my interview with a key mueller witness, jerome corsi. we talked about his communications with roger stone, why he kept bringing up the possibility of a trump pardon. and ultimately, who he thinks killed jfk. >> i don't believe roger ever
3:14 pm
thought that i had legitimate information, because i never represented to roger that i went to see assange or had a connection with him. >> and you think he used krid creddico. here he is. >> do you ever carry messages from julian assange about what he might plan to do or the nature of his work to other people anywhere else in the world? >> no. absolutely not. >> so he says he was definitely not the intermediary. you say tonight that roger may have thought you were the intermediary. when you gave roger this hot information about podesta, whatever its origin, he must have told trump about that. >> well, you know, again, roger didn't report everything he did to me. i don't know what roger did. you'll have to ask him. >> but you know roger stone who is at the center of this. he's an adviser to donald trump, and that was hot information
3:15 pm
that proved to be true. you would expect he would tell trump rather than keep it from him. >> i figured out it was podesta and told about everybody i knew and i knew it would help donald trump. and i was happy to do that. i was speculating, but i was sure i was right. >> is it accurate to say you expected roger to tell trump? >> i didn't -- look, logically should i have expected it? yes, of course. >> yes, you did. you said you thought it would help trump. roger is a trump adviser and has come to you with a request. have someone as an intermediary in london to go assange. then you come back and give them this hot intel about podesta, which proves to be true. i'm asking in the context of that arrangement, did you expect that information to go to donald trump? >> the point you're missing is that i never -- i told roger, he's never going to go see -- it's not going to happen. assange wasn't going to tell anybody.
3:16 pm
i happened to figure it out. i don't think that stone thought i was a connection to assange, because i didn't represent that. >> and you understand that the reaction of the mueller investigators is a reaction many people would have, that your defense is, you magically figured this out yourself, without other leading information, got it right, and told roger stone? >> yes, that's what happened on the flight going across to italy. >> when you look at all this, you also have a joint defense agreement with president trump. is that still active? >> yes, but it was not a formal way and which represented that to the special counsel. what is type of information have you provided to trump's lawyers. >> i did not participate, these were all lawyer to lawyer. i didn't listen to them or hear any recording of them. my instructions were one way. in other words, we'll tell the president what we're doing. so he's informed.
3:17 pm
again, i support the president. i want him to be able to survive the mueller investigation. i want him to run for re-election and be re-elected. that's all my political preferences. so i said let's let the president know what's going on in the mueller investigation. i didn't want advice or to know about anybody else's case. jay sekulow was not saying, tell jerry corsi to do this. didn't happen and i wasn't interested in it. i'm not counting on donald trump for anything, including a pardon. that's not the basis on which i made my decision. >> why are you bringing up a pardon? >> because that's -- you were talking about it before. everybody -- >> but i didn't ask you about the pardon. >> i'm bringing it up because i want to make it clear that i don't expect one, i'm not asking for one and i'm making my decision on the base else that i know i'll have to face trial if they indict me and the consequences are i may go to prison for the rest of my life.
3:18 pm
>> i understand you face consequences, would you accept a pardon? >> accept a pardon? that's hypothetical. >> you brought up a hypothetical pardon. >> let's let it be offered and i'll tell you what i'll do. >> so people may take the inference you may be auditions for a pardon. >> you're asking me to tell you what people listening are thinking. i don't know what they're asking. >> but you're not asking for a pardon. >> i'm not asking for, or anticipating a pardon. >> do you understand why people don't believe you? >> yes, of course, i've had this issue all my life. >> it is news worthy that you were a target of this probe. >> correct. >> you also, politically, are known as a leader of the birther movement. >> yes. >> which is a total and complete lie. >> okay. >> that you believe.
3:19 pm
is there -- let me finish the question. is this the same defense you are now trying to use with mueller as you've used in that political operation, which is that you stand for a lie, that you say you believe and your defense is that because you genuinely believe the lie, you shouldn't be held accountable for it? >> i'll stand by what i think is true, even though you believe is a lie. you believe the state warranted conventional assumption. i'm a conspiracy theorist, which is a term invechnted by the cia for people who doubt that lee harvey oswald, with a used italian rifle that didn't shoot straight and a misaligned sight, killed jack kennedy shooting past a tree with three shots. i don't believe that happened. now, again -- >> the question to you is, do you think that will help you in your defense, that because you
3:20 pm
have believed this other lie you say, and you have devoted time and energy to this other lie that now that you have this apparent lie in front of you, you could just say, well, i believe lies, that's sort of my thing? >> mr. zalinski asked me that. he said dr. corsi, you take a fact from here and a fact from there and a lie and package it that it's true. >> did he ask that in relation to birtherism or other issues? >> he didn't say birtherism. >> you know that is a lie. >> now, because i know he can't accept what i have written as true. >> so he says what? >> he says you don't know the difference between true and false. he said you're so confused you can't answer questions. >> which makes it harder to prove a false statement. >> it's not a tactic. i do not believe barack obama
3:21 pm
has a original 1961 berth certificate. i defy anybody to produce it. secondly, when i flew to italy, i did figure out, on my own, without any outside help or influence, that julian assange had podesta's e-mails and how he would use them. >> a lot of what you have said does not add up and you know that, because you admitted what you said in the context of this topic, are lies that you had to admit to. you also admitted that you and roger stone worked together to mislead this government investigation on the congressional side. >> i object to your characterization, counselor. >> i understand. this is me wrapping, i appreciate you coming -- >> can i wrap? >> you can have a final statement? >> first of all, i don't think i lied. i have -- >> you admitted on this interview to lying. >> no, we're talking -- there's two things. when i did this work for roger there -- >> i'm referring to the out of
3:22 pm
court lies. >> i said in your terms it was a lie. in my terms it was politics. politics is that way. i don't consider that to have been -- >> you did admit in this interview today that you told those lies and you had to update them to mueller. >> i told it to the grand jury because they're not going to believe in the longer conversation, what i believe in my heart. i said fine, if you want to call it a lie, call it a lie. but i did not have a source going back to asang. i did get this all put together on my own. i was not an sbintermediary between stone and assange and i'll stand by that. >> i appreciate you coming in and taking the questions and what you did say that's true is you are in a situation that has potential criminal liability. i appreciate you coming in and taking the questions. >> and i'll kol back. let me put it like this, there is a lot to unpack from what we just heard and we have
3:23 pm
two of our favorite experts when we are back in just 30 seconds. messy situations. and put irritation in its place. and if i can get comfortable keeping this tookus safe and protected... you can get comfortable doing the same with yours. preparation h. get comfortable with it. (man) don't ...go...down...oh, no! aaaaballooned your car. call meeeee! (burke) a fly-by ballooning. seen it, covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ i openly discussed that with him and admitted it all, because it was true. i was telling the truth. >> you were telling the truth about a lie? >> no. yes -- >> yes. you were telling them the truth about a lie. >> one of the key moments there from my interview with mueller witness jerome corsi. we saw him admit that he helped
3:24 pm
roger stone lie to congress. emand he had to clean up those lies to prosecutors and said he's ready to die in jail. let's bring in nick ackerman and mia wylie. nick, what did we learn legally from that interview? >> what mr. corsi is trying to do is to extricate himself from being involved in the same conspiracy that's been charged against the 13 russian intelligence officers in july of this past year. the conspiracy of which was to break into the democratic national committee, steal documents and e-mails and then stage and release those documents. >> that's very important. you are saying mueller over here is saying these russians broke the law in the u.s. with their actions. >> right. >> the question, which we don't know, but you're putting forward a legal theory is, that on the u.s. side, jerome corsi could be
3:25 pm
potentially charged as helping those russians. >> we could be charged as a member of that conspiracy helping the russians. if you look what he lied about and how he's trying to dance around this, it's clear what he's trying to do is to keep himself out of that conspiracy and portray himself as somebody who just learned about certain things after the fact, and really had nothing to do with julian assange. he admits to the e-mail after he lied about it before hand but had no choice to admit to that e-mail about ted mallic going to visit assange. he comes up with this story about having this epiphany on an airplane trip from the u.s. to italy where it came to him that assange was going to release e-mails about hillary clinton's campaign manager in october about podesta. and that tries to say he gave that information, may have given the information to roger stone, and that's why roger stone,
3:26 pm
before that tweeted that it's now podesta's turn in the barrel. >> to be fair, mia, on a long plane ride, you can get some good thinking done. >> yeah. unless you've made a career of disinformation, which is exactly who jerome corsi is. this is a person -- remember 2004 and the swift boat scandal. we have john kerry who was a decorated war hero, and we have a jerome corsi creating really a fictitious set of disinformation facts to undermine his campaign about him not being a hero. this is the same person who created disinformation about who barack obama was in the 2008 campaign. and at the same time, it is very, very hard to believe that he came up with that in an airplane when remember, the question we believe from the draft report from robert mueller
3:27 pm
was that he was asked specifically whether or not he was asked to go to try to get those e-mails, asked someone to get those e-mails. he said oh, yeah, i was asked, but i said no, i wouldn't do it. i wouldn't have anything to do with something that might be part of an investigation. so to nick's point, that's not forgetting about an e-mail. that's actually crafting what sounds very directly like a lie. and how would you forget those e-mails? >> particularly when you destroyed them. that's what he did. there was a senate committee investigating what was going on, he destroyed those e-mails. if you look at the other e-mails that they found, when he's talking about what's going to happen with podesta, he starts out by saying "word is," he didn't say i've got a lightning bolt from god on an airplane. >> you're getting into the record that we now have, when he
3:28 pm
says word is that tells you that he's drawing information from somewhere else. >> from somebody. somebody has told him something. and that's what mueller's people wanted to know, because that puts him right into the soup of the staging and releasing of the documents which puts him into that conspiracy. >> if it was as bad as that, why would mueller offer him a plea only on false statements? which we know because jerome corsi leaked it and told me about. >> because they hope and they thought he could testify to his role in the conspiracy, stone's role in the conspiracy and other people's role. >> if the mueller folks had better evidence, they could indict on that without his testimony. are they missing key evidence there if it exists? >> we just don't know. that's possible, but keep in mind, every time mueller has gotten a guilty plea, he's not gotten out the facts of these conspiracies and people's roles. he holds that back purposefully, because he doesn't want it to
3:29 pm
get back until he's ready to get it out in a final indictment. >> a lot of this heat is circling around roger stone, that is quite clear. even though there's much we way not know. here was roger stone late this year, basically reinforcing his loyalty to donald trump. >> there's no circumstance under which i would testify against the president, because i would have to bear false witness against him. i would have to make things up, and i'm not going to do that. >> for people who aren't steeped in this or don't follow it every day, that could sound reasonable, because nobody wants to make things up. what is wrong with the argument he's making? >> what's wrong, and corsi makes the same argument, so it's interesting they both have the same argument about cooperating with robert mueller. but the point is, he's saying i would be forced -- so a sitting federal prosecutor would be requiring me -- he would be
3:30 pm
charging me with perjury, meaning he's asking me to purger myself to make something up, to lie, to fabricate evidence to get his outcome. but if robert mueller is having a conversation with getting an agreement with him, it's because he has evidence. it's not because he doesn't, right? a prosecutor is not going and saying, i have no evidence that you've done anything wrong, but i would like to enter into a plea agreement with you. that doesn't happen. so really what he's saying, there's evidence, i'm trying to play this a different angle, and i think you got closer to the truth with jerome corsi who himself raised the pardon, you know, the word pardon, and that may be the angle they're going for. but to nick's point, their real concern should be pulled into a conspiracy charge. >> same thing happened with manafort. manafort purported to cooperate and tell all, but he knew
3:31 pm
exactly what manafort could testify to, and manafort went in there and lied. i mean, he just didn't tell the truth. >> let's just remember one thing we know about robert mueller, because every prosecutor operates this way. when corsi or cohen walked into their interviews and they got asked a direct question about what they knew and lied, they then pulled their evidence out that they already had. in other words, they're testing whether or not they're going to be truthful. when they're not, they can demonstrate when they haven't been truthful. that is why roger stone's claim seems so unrealistic. >> you put your finger on the casual way most human beings ask and answer questions in good faith, how was day, what did you have for lunch, is an exchange of information. information. that's not how prosecutors use questions and people learn that
3:32 pm
lesson at their own peril. another big interview i want to ask you about, because you were a part of it, which was a mueller witness that i spoke to, a key one in the probe who made a lot of news, sam nunnberg. we talked to him when he announced to the world that he would refuse to comply with the mueller subpoena. he did have a change of heart, which came about in part after conversation with mia wylie in a news making moment of 2018. >> do you understand that you have a legal obligation to comply? >> yeah, i have a legal -- technically i have a legal obligation. >> does your lawyer think what you're doing now tonight is a good idea? >> i have no idea. i think he may have dropped me. i know my father doesn't like it, and he's one of my co-counsels. >> i think your family wants you home for thanksgiving and i hope you'll testify. >> this is ridiculous. >> no, it's not ridiculous, sam. it is so not ridiculous.
3:33 pm
>> what do you think reflecting on that now? >> first of all, that was a team effort. we didn't prepare that, but it was your graciousness that set up the tone of that evening. and secondly, i'm just thankful he did. i'm thankful he cooperated and testified. he's in a lot less trouble today because he did that. from what we've seen from others who have asked to appear before the grand jury who don't do it and don't come clean makes a lot more sense to come forward and participate in our process. >> i appreciate what you're saying there. i think it's something each of us have observed, which is you have a justice system and you look for accountability and truth and you can judge, that's the process, people who make mistakes. and yet whether you're covering mistakes by people in this trump orbit or mistakes by people in inner city chicago who are being railroaded as sometimes is the complaint.
3:34 pm
you can make a mistake and still be a human being. i thought you addressed him not only as a person who was in the middle of, you were talking to him while he was making a mistake, planning to effectively break the law, but also looked to him as a human being who might try to undo the mistake and i have to say it, he was home for the holidays. my thanks to both of you. on to i expect to be a big 2019. but this episode of "the beat" is not quite over. up next, an exclusive breakdown how the house democrats will use the courts to battle courts. and a 2018 edition of fallback with craig melvin and chris redd from "snl." very excited about this one.
3:35 pm
if your moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection
3:36 pm
experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio®. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach. patients that i see about dry mouth. they feel that they have to drink a lot of water. medications seem to be the number one cause for dry mouth. i like to recommend biotene. it replenishes the moisture in your mouth. biotene definitely works. [heartbeat]
3:37 pm
elections have consequences, and the record breaking blue wave is changing who runs that building behind me. democrats will control what bills come to the floor and they
3:38 pm
will have new powers to investigate the trump white house. there are already 85 issues dems want to probe. like trump's ties to russia where adam schiff plans to push the white house, and elijah cummings says he will root out corruption. but trump doesn't follow norms. we know that. what if the trump administration defies these democratic chairs? that's where subpoena power comes in, and democrats say they'll use that if need be. >> we will make sure that matt whitaker will appear before the committee. >> i've spoken to a senior democratic source on the ways and means committee who says breaking news, they do intend to request president trump's tax returns. >> i am going to issue subpoenas that go to the heart of our democracy and protecting that democracy. >> so in each of those examples, forcing whitaker to testify,
3:39 pm
gets tramp's tax returns, demanding information from trump aides, the democrats will make demands and the trump administration can cooperate or refuse. if refusal, that's where the key legal fight comes in. to enforce a subpoena, these democratic chairs, they can't just act all on their own. they need the expected speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, to use her power on behalf of the house to sue the trump administration to enforce these subpoenas. this is key when dealing with any resistant white house. congress, when you think about it, they can throw all the letters and subpoenas they want at a white house. but to enforce a subpoena, to deploy the prospect of criminal contempt or even jail, then a speaker has to deploy the house's general counsel and take it to court. the trump white house may be target rich, but pelosi and that counsel, look, they're not going to file 100 lawsuits over resisted subpoenas. that wouldn't be responsible. it would undercut their
3:40 pm
credibility in the courts in washington and potentially the supreme court where these battles can be decided. so when january comes, pelosi and her counsel are going to be making some very big decisions about which subpoenas and which demands are worth fighting over. russia, the trump organization, trump's tax returns. and remember all those debates over pelosi's experience? well, these intricate battles, they're not always front page nightly news kind of stuff. this is back room stuff. but she has done it before, and when she did it before, she won. in fact, when she was speaker in 2008, she made history with the first order of the house counsel to formally sue the bush administration on behalf of the u.s. house over, yes, defying a subpoena. the conflict was something that could play out again with this administration, because it involved bush officials refusing to testify, citing executive privilege, which is something that trump has instructed some
3:41 pm
aides to do, even when facing a republican house on russia. pelosi combatted that move by instructing her house counsel to sue on behalf of congress. and the issue in that very case may also sound familiar. it involved criticism that white house was trying to politicize the justice department after bush officials mysteriously ousted seven federal prosecutors. dems investigated and subpoenaed to get answers, and then the bush cover story started to fall apart. >> reporter: white house officials struggled to contain the fallout from this story as it became clear that it was the white house that first suggested firing the country's top prosecutors. >> and that fallout wasn't very well contained. the white house, they kept initially trying to defy the house requests that key staff testify. as attorney general alberto gonzalez sealed his own fate in a disastrous hearing where he claimed under oath he
3:42 pm
couldn't remember anything. >> i have no recollection of the meeting. >> it's not that long ago. it was an important issue. that's troubling to me. >> senator, i don't know that a decision was made at that meeting. >> how can you be sure you made the decision? >> i recall making the decision, senator. >> when? >> sir, i don't recall when the decision was made. i don't recall him speaking to me about that, sir. >> it didn't happen, it did happen or you don't recall? you can't remember that conversation? >> senator, i don't think that conversation happened. >> it was so bad, that gonzalez faced calls to resign from both parties. >> i believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation. >> i urge you to re-examine your performance and for the good of the department and the country, step down. >> that congressional and public pressure ultimately pushed gonzalez out. >> alberto gonzales leaves a
3:43 pm
justice department that, by his own admission, was demoralized. for the past six months he's been hammered by calls to resign. >> so that was part of a victory. but democrats in congress still wanted to get to the bottom of the scandal to what really happened. so pelosi kept up that lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas against white house officials. it was a chief of staff and white house counsel. the white house resisted and claimed executive privilege. they said that should trump congressional demand. who was right? this is pretty important right now. pelosi's aggressive legal strategy took that case to court, where the house won. a federal judge ruling the subpoena was valid, the aides should testify, they did not have absolute immunity from congress in the subpoena dispute. and providing something of a road map for house dems if the trump administration defies their demands next year. trump is not a typical
3:44 pm
president. no other president has fought to hide what you see there, his tax returns. so if democrats empower the house to demand his tax returns from the treasury department and the secretary there defies that law and that request, then dems may need pelosi to get the house counsel to sue over it, just like her past house counsel irvin nathan led that fight i've been telling you about to sue the bush administration over those subpoenas. this is all off stage, and a little in the weeds, but sometimes the most important action in this town is off stage, and in the weeds. still ahead, the mother of all fallbacks. who needs to fall back for the year 2018? i'm happy to stay "snl"'s chris redd and craig melvin are with me, next. ( ♪ ) dealing with psoriatic arthritis pain was so frustrating. my skin... it was embarrassing. my joints... they hurt. the pain and swelling. the tenderness.
3:45 pm
the psoriasis. tina: i had to find something that worked on all of this. i found cosentyx. now, watch me. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are getting real relief with cosentyx. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. cosentyx treats more than just the joint pain of psoriatic arthritis. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms. if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i got real relief. i got clearer skin and feel better. now, watch me. get real relief with cosentyx. with expedia, i saved when i added a hotel to our flight. so even when she grows up, she'll never outgrow the memory of our adventure. unlock savings when you add select hotels to your existing trip.
3:46 pm
only with expedia. select hotels to your existing trip. about 50% of people with evesevere asthma k? have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication,
3:47 pm
astrazeneca may be able to help. when heartburn hits... fight back fast with tums smoothies. it neutralizes stomach acid at the source. tum tum tum tum tums... smoothies... ...and introducing new tums sugar-free.
3:48 pm
ito take care of anyct messy situations.. and put irritation in its place. and if i can get comfortable keeping this tookus safe and protected... you can get comfortable doing the same with yours. preparation h. get comfortable with it.
3:49 pm
you know what it is? it's 2018, a fallback for the entire year with some very special guests who are doing my hand motions. >> it's hard not to. >> craig melvin of the nbc "today" show and a colleague here at msnbc. and for our special fallback, chris redd for "saturday night live." thank you for coming through. >> thank you, man. i left my suit in the car. >> you can rock it with that. >> this is like cow skin, i think. >> this reminds me of hyper color a little bit. >> i just noticed that. that is "snl" money. >> no, that's not. that's not money.
3:50 pm
i have no money. >> that's like that one car that's supposed to look like the bentley but it's not a bentley? >> this is a rolex. >> wow! >> business is good. >> it's a rental.rental. i'll take it back after the interview is over. >> rent the runway rolex? >> it never stops. you heard drake. i don't need you to come on here talking about my watch, the one thing i own. >> you know how we describe that kind of watch. >> how do we describe it? >> bus down. you guys don't know what that means? >> you put the diamonds -- >> that's when there are actually bust downs -- >> that's busted up. >> what is this segment again? >> this segment is the fall dg back for 2018. what's running through your mind is running through viewers' minds. it's a made-up segment. >> i love it. >> chris, for the whole year, who needs to fall back?
3:51 pm
>> man, number one, who needs to fall back is fake rage. it's like how can you be mad at everything? there's only 24 hours in the day. >> i agree. >> everything can't set you off. >> like everyone is ready to be outraged before they even know the falkts. >> exactly. not only mad for four days. >> four days -- four hours. >> you think, chris red, the cable news makes that worse? >> um, probably, but -- >> you think cable news hosts sometimes take over a segment when they're a guest in it? >> yeah, then they pit you against each other. you get caught in the middle. >> i've got a question. i've got a question. can you not ask a question for five minutes stae it's hard. it's really hard. >> that's that "today show" gus toe. >> i'm going to speak when spoken to. >> craig melvin, you look at the year 2018, who needs to fall back? >> ari melber needs to fall back. ari melber needs to fall back in 2018. i knew ari melber when no one
3:52 pm
watched it, he was a multi media sensation. he was a stand out on the show. all of a sudden /like chris red on snl. just blew up. >> why are you trying to turn this onto a roast? >> i wanted to come on and tell you how proud i am of the beat. >> who needs to fall back? >> the mcrib needs to fall back. i like the mcrib. we don't know what it is, we don't know what it's made of. why are you pretending like it's going away when you're going to be back? i don't like that. like a person on facebook. i'm leaving facebook, i don't like facebook, i hate it. the next day they have a status, good morning. ooh, to who? >> they can't break up. i tell you one thing i hope falls back next year. those detergent makers that have come out with the pods. the pods that made like, you know, a couple hundred kids sick. now they have a contraption, looks like boxed wine. it's almost as if these
3:53 pm
detergent makers want children to drink the product instead of using it. >> i would get my butt whipped if i ate my mama's detergent. >> you're referring to a parenting style? >> i think culturally there are certain children out there that are permitted to do things that we weren't permitted to do in our -- >> you're talking about tough parenting. also as perhaps a corollary to that -- >> corollary, i like that word right there, corollary. >> you were raised by southern parents. >> yes. you're from illinois, i thought. >> my parents are from mississippi. >> oh. >> so both of you have that southern upbringing which can also be quite strict. >> yes. >> it can. >> your people, seattle people -- >> the coastal people. >> seattle people? >> permissive. you know how your people are out there. >> seattle is hippied out. when you order coffee in seattle, you go to a coffee shop. you're like, what's up? how are you doing? good. can i get some coffee. they'll be like, don't rush me,
3:54 pm
ma man. and i'm like, but this is a coffee shop. >> i don't like that. >> it's aggressively chill. >> in chicago they're aggressive aggressive. i don't know, pham, hold on. >> it says number one right there. >> it is aa it's an option. >> i like this segment on tv. this is' a great concept. >> is this a television show right here? >> i feel it is. >> i may have to after this. >> two suits and a hoodie on tuesday -- is it tuesday? i don't know what day it is. >> a hoodie and a rolex. >> hoodie in a rolly. >> unbusted down. >> on that note, i'm going to say this segment needs to fall back and we're done, and thank you very much for coming through. >> of course. >> 2018 fall back. craig melvin, your first time on the beat. thank you. >> this is my first time i. enjoyed you. >> i enjoyed you, too. >> love those guys.
3:55 pm
and we will be right back. a source of inspiration. an act of kindness. an old friend. a new beginning. some welcome relief... or a cause for celebration. ♪ what's inside? ♪ [laughter] possibilities. what we deliver by delivering. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. (man) don't ...go...down...oh, no! aaaaballooned your car. call meeeee! (burke) a fly-by ballooning. seen it, covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
3:56 pm
oh! oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching,
3:57 pm
rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. (urgent drumming) ♪ (drumsticks clatter)
3:58 pm
very high triglycerides with diet and exercise deserves the hard work that went into the science behind vascepa. prescription vascepa. vascepa, along with diet and exercise, has proven results in multiple clinical trials. vascepa looks different because it is different. over a decade of extensive research and development achieved proven results. that's the prescription power of vascepa. vascepa is not right for everyone. do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. ask your doctor about what the science behind prescription vascepa can mean to you. amarin thanks the clinicians and patients who participated in the vascepa clinical trials.
3:59 pm
what a year it's been. and one final note for you before we go. this year we launched a brand-new series called mavericks with ari melber where we aim for in-depth conversations with artists, musicians, cultural icons people we think are reshaping our world. you can catch my interviews with some of those people. actress chloe grace,eries red we heard from on tonight's show and
4:00 pm
transparent creator jill. all the interviews are up right now on that's that does it for all of us here on the beat. we want to wish you a merry christmas, a very happy new year. we hope to see you next year. /s it's the 2018 "hardball" awards. ♪ ♪ good evening, i'm chris mathews in washington. and tonight we're celebrating the good, the bad and the infamous of the fast year with the "hardball" awards. and over the next hour we'll celebrate the people, the moments and of course the tweets that defined 2018. including the award for the most inglorious exit from trump world this year. the best concession speech. the trumpiest thing said by someone not named trump, and the big award of the night, the the
4:01 pm
odd est moment of the year in


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on