Skip to main content

tv   The Beat With Ari Melber  MSNBC  December 24, 2018 3:00pm-4:00pm PST

3:00 pm
♪ welcome to a very special holiday edition of "the beat." tonight, we'll look at a lot of different things, what lies ahead in the russia probe, we'll break down how democrats are going to fight trump in court, and we'll have some fun with a special year-end fallback. but we begin with robert mueller's probe clearly 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 once said he would take a bullet for trump, he's cooperating with mueller and he's also headed to jail. donald trump's campaign chair, paul manafort, his sentenced is
3:01 pm
scheduled for the spring. and there's roger stone, who has come out and said himself he looks like a mueller target. well, tonight, i'm going to speak soon with my special holiday guests for all of that, but first let's get into another key witness, jerome coursy. i was able to interview him on "the beat." 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 regulations and even commit fraud. i will not lie to keep myself out of jail, and i realize that i could go to jail for the rest of my life. i'm 72 years old. i might die in jail, but i'm
3:02 pm
still making this decision. >> you think what you're doing today increases the risk that you will be charged, be convicted and die in jail? >> yes, i do. >> when you look at this plea negotiation, you did enter into discussions with him. what would a plea deal look like? >> i would have taken immunity. >> jerome, that's not a plea deal. >> that's my terms. they proposed this and said we want you to consider it. now, 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 counts as 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, and i will not swear before god and a judge something
3:03 pm
that i consider to be a lie. >> but you did say something at the time that you now acknowledge to be false. >> no. 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. 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. >> sure. >> it's important to the probe. here it is. the mueller document on this says corsi contacted an individual in london to pass on 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 testimony, and i testified after i saw the e-mail that that was
3:04 pm
true and i didn't deny it. >> right. and here's that e-mail that you provided to nbc news from roger stone, and i'm going to read part of it, where it says this individual should see assange. >> correct. >> at the time what were you trying to do, 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 that was in the news or political operations after july 22nd, when assange 2016, when assange dumped all these e-mails on debbie wasserman schultz said he had more, everybody wanted them. >> you wanted to help the trump campaign. >> absolutely. and i was happy it would benefit donald trump. >> and i appreciate you putting that on the record. this is also from the mueller documents that you have leaked. your e-mail, you're telling stone, you've got a friend in the embassy planning these two
3:05 pm
more document dumps. >> that's assange. >> impact plan to be very damaging, time to let more than the clinton campaign chair to be 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 the main point of contention with the special counsel. i maintain 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 how he was going to drop him in october. i said yes, that's true. how did you know? i figured it out. >> so you tell roger stone about podesta. he goes on to predict it and tweet about it. this is roger stone saying he had an intermediary. >> i have not met with mr. assange and never said i had. i said we communicated through
3:06 pm
somebody who is a mutual friend. >> the main thing that links roger to assange with private intelligence with things that no one else seemed to know at the time is podesta, and that came from you. could you be roger's intermediary? >> i'm sure. but it was not because i talked to assange, because i figured it out on my own. i've never spoken with julian assange. i don't know him, and i have no contact. there was no third party who said roger stone got this -- >> you were making an important point tonight that julian assange, as an intermediary, the fact that there was information believed to be private, proved to be accurate, podesta's time in the barrel, that could have come from you and roger stone's mind that you would be that intermediary? >> you'll have to ask roger stone. i told roger stone, let's get this clear, in july, i was on vacation with my wife in italy, 25th anniversary. i think flying over, i figured
3:07 pm
out that assange had podesta's e-mails. i told roger in this e-mail and subsequently i thought it was podesta's e-mails. one more point on that. 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 figuring this out and telling roger. 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. >> fine, it's the truth. >> you said that to them. how did they take that? >> they didn't believe it. >> how did they react to the other defense that you made on behalf of roger stone, which is you agreed to help roger mislead congress about how we found out about podesta. >> see, in fact, there's two rounds of this.
3:08 pm
round one, i openly discussed that, 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 that, if you allow me. >> you're getting time here. you and roger put forward false information to the congressional committee about the source of the podesta tip in >> would you allow me? >> you're getting a time. >> allow me. >> go ahead. >> i've been trained in public relatio relations. in politipolitics, there's a lo repositioning going on. if that were a lie and people were guilty, there would be hardly a position alive today. >> i didn't say crime, i said lie to congress because you told the mueller folks, as i understand it, that roger wanted you to come up with a false
3:09 pm
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 yes? was this a lie? yes. so i openly admitted to them that in their terms, this was a lie. >> why did you do that? >> because it was the truth. >> and why did roger stone want you to lie -- >> 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 people said was a news making interview ahead, which includes jerome corsi bringing up pardons from donald trump. and later, my exclusive break down on how house democrats have precedent to beat trump in court. and later, a very special fallback. i've got to tell you, we're excited about this one, craig melvin joins me.
3:10 pm
i'm ari melbourne, and you're watching "the beat" on msnbc. 'r watching "the beat" on msnbc mo just got rescheduled - for today. amanda needs right at home. our customized care plans provide as much - or as little help - as her mom requires. whether it's a ride to the doctor or help around the house. oh, of course! tom, i am really sorry. i've gotta go. look, call right at home. get the right care. right at home. 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.
3:11 pm
...and i found out that i'ma from the big toe lian. of that sexy italian boot! so this holiday season it's ancestrydna per tutti! order your kit now at ancestry.com
3:12 pm
has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.
3:13 pm
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 communication 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. >> you think he used creddic cr 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 roger. >> but you know roger stone at the center of this, and he's an adviser to donald trump, and that was hot information that proved to be true. you would expect he would tell
3:15 pm
that trust. >> i figured it was podesta. i told stone and about everybody 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? >> 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 come to you with a request. have someone as an intermediary in london go to assange. then you give them this hot intel about podesta that proves to be true, and i'm asking in the context of that arrangement, did you expect that to go to donald trump? >> the point you're missing is that i told roger, mallic is not going to go to see assange. assange wasn't going to tell anybody. i happened to figure it out. i don't think that stone thought i was a connection to assange,
3:16 pm
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 exactly what happened on the flight going across to italy. >> when you look at all this, you have a joint defense agreement with president trump. is that accurate? >> yes, but it was not formal written. which represented such to the special counsel and they know that. >> and what type of information pursuant to that agreement have you provided to trump's lawyers? >> my instructions to the attorney, and i did not participate, and these were all lawyer to lawyer. >> copy. >> i didn't listen to them or hear any recording of them. by instructions were one way, in other words, we'll tell the president what we're doing. so he's informed. again, i support the president.
3:17 pm
i want him to be able to survive the mueller investigation. i want him to run for re-election and be rehe ekted. that's my political preferences. so i said let's let the president know what's going on in the mueller investigation. i didn't want to know about anybody else's case. jay sekulow was not saying tell corsi to do that. that 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 in a television interview? >> you were talking about it before -- >> but i didn't ask you about it. >> i'm bringing it up, because i want to make it clear i'm not asking for one and i'm making my decision completely on the basis that i know i'll have to face trial if they indict me and the consequences are i could go to jail for life. and i understand that.
3:18 pm
>> would you accept a pardon? >> that's hypothetical. >> you brought up a hypothetical pardon conversation. >> i'll tell you what i'll do at that time. >> so people may draw the inference that you are right now auditions for a pardon when you end that statement saying let it be offered. >> you're asking me to tell you what people who are listening think. i don't know what they're asking. >> but you're not asking for a pardon? >> i'm not asking for a pardon and i'm not anticipating a pardon. >> do you understand why people don't believe you? >> yes, of course. i've had this issue all my life. when i come to decisions, i don't think the way people do. >> it's news worthy you were a target of this probe. >> correct. >> you are also known as a leader of the birther movement, question is a total and complete lie that you believe. is there -- let me finish the
3:19 pm
question. is this the same defense you are now trying to use with mueller as you have 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 said as true, even though you think it's a lie. you believe the state warranted conventional assumption, and i'm a conspiracy theorist, which is a term invented by the cia for people who doubt that lee harvey oswald, not at the peak of his game with a shooter with a used italian shooter that didn't shoot straight when it was made with a sight misaligned killed jack kennedy, shooting past a tree with tree 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 believed this other lie you say, and you have devoted time and
3:20 pm
energy to this other lie, that now that you have this apparent lie in front of you, you can just say, well, i believe lies, that's sort of my thing? >> mr. zielinski asked me that. he said you take a fact from here and a fact from here and a lie and convince people that it's true. >> you're talking about the mueller prosecutor? >> yes. >> did he ask that in relation to birtherism? because you know that is a lie. >> no. because i know he can't accept what i have written yet as true. >> so he brings that up with you and says what? >> you don't know the difference between true and false. he said you're so confused in your mind you can't answer questions. >> which makes it harder to prove a false statement. >> i'm sitting here tonight, i do mott believe barack obama has a legitimate 1961 original birth certificate. i defy you or anybody else to
3:21 pm
produce it. secondly, when i flew to italy on that flight, 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 said does not add up, and you know that because you admitted that some of 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 the congressional investigation. >> i object to that, counselor. >> i understand that. i appreciate you coming in, though, i'm wrapping this -- >> first of all, i don't think i lied. i have -- >> you admitted on this interview to lying. >> oh, no. there's two things. when i did the work for roger -- >> i'm referring to the out of court lies. >> i said in your terms it was a
3:22 pm
lie. in my terms it was politics. politics is that way. i don't consider that to -- >> but you did admit in this interview today that you told those lies and you've had to update them to mueller. >> in front of the grand jury, they're not going to believe my longer explanation. what i believe in my heart, okay? so i said fine, you want to call it a lie, call it a lie. but i'm telling you right now, i did not have a source going back to assange. i did get this all put together on my own. i was not an intermediary between stone and assange. and in fact, i'll stand by that. >> you'll stand by that. and i said you would get your final statement and i appreciate you coming in and taking the questions and what you did say that is true that you are in a situation with potential criminal liability. i appreciate you coming in and taking the questions. >> and i'll come back. >> let me put it like this, there is a lot to unpack of what we have just heard. we have two of our experts to talk about it when we're back in
3:23 pm
30 seconds. 30 seconds kayla: our dad was in the hospital. josh: because of smoking. but we still had to have a cigarette. had to. kayla: do you know how hard it is to smoke in a hospital? by the time we could, we were like... what are we doing? kayla: it was time for nicodermcq. the nicodermcq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. and doubles your chances of quitting. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how. i openly discussed that with him and admitted it all, because it was true. >> you were telling the truth about a lie? >> no. okay, yes. yes. >> you were telling the truth about a lie. one of the key moments there from my interview with mueller witness jerome corsi. he admitted that he helped roger
3:24 pm
stone lie to congress and he had to clean those up to prosecutors and he said he's ready to die in jail. let's bring in now my guests. nick, what did we learn legally from that interview? >> i think what we learned is that 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 potentially charged as helping
3:25 pm
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 it, 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, before that tweeted that it's
3:26 pm
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 says word is that tells you that
3:28 pm
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? >> 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 role. 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. 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 make things up, and i'm not going to do that. >> for people who are steeped in this, 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 charging me with perjury,
3:30 pm
meaning he's asking me to purger myself 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 does bls, 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 partdon, and tha may be the angle they're going for. but to nick's point, their real concern could 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 tuld testify to, and manafort went in there and lied. >> let's just remember one thing we know about robert mueller, because every prosecutor operates this way. wher j when corsi or cohen walked into nar interviews and they good 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 is an exchange of information. that's not how prosecutors use questions and people learn that lesson at their own peril. another big interview i want to
3:32 pm
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, samnunnberg. 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 confidence 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.
3:33 pm
it is so not ridiculous. >> 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. you can make a mistake and still be a human being.
3:34 pm
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. up next, an exclusive breakdown how the house democrats will use this to battle trump. and a 2018 edition of fallback with craig melvin and chris redd from "snl." very excited about this one. ite. when i first came to ocean bay, what i saw was despair. i knew something had to be done.
3:35 pm
hurricane sandy really woke people up, to showing that we need to invest in this community. i knew having the right partner we could turn this place around. it was only one bank that could finance a project this difficult and this large, and that was citi. preserving affordable housing preserves communities. so we are doing their kitchens and their flooring and their lobbies and the grounds. and the beautification of their homes, giving them pride in where they live, will make this a thriving community once again. ♪
3:36 pm
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. 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,
3:39 pm
forcing whitaker to testify, demanding information from trump aides, the democrats will make demands and the trump administration can cooperate or refuse. 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 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 employ 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 normally 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
3:41 pm
that trump has instructed some 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 storey 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 dponz se gonzalez sealed his own fate 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 justice department that, by his
3:43 pm
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? 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 dem it s if trump administration defies their demands next year. trump is not a typical president.
3:44 pm
no other president has fought to hide what you see there, his tax returns. so if democrats empower the house to dehand 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 w50edeeds, 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. redd and craig melvin are with me, next (burke) parking splat. and we covered it.
3:45 pm
3:46 pm
3:47 pm
3:48 pm
talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
3:49 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, man. i left my suit in the car.
3:50 pm
>> 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. i have no money. to look like te bentley or it's a roll sneks >> it's a rolex. >> business is good. >> it's a rental. i'll take did back after the interview is over. >> it's rent the runway rolex? >> it never stops. you heard drake. i don't need me to come on here talking about my watch. >> sorry. >> you know how we describe that kind of watch. >> how do we describe it? >> bus down. he doesn't know what that means. >> bus down is when you put the diamonds -- >> that's extra diamonds. >> this is not busted down. >> what is this segment called again? >> this segment is fall back, and this segment is the fall back for all of 2018. >> for all of the year. >> what's running through your mind, craig, is what's running through some of the viewers'
3:51 pm
minds is because the segment is confusing, it's made up. it's a made-up segment. >> i love t. >> chris, for the whole year, who needs to fall back? >> number one, who needs to fall back, is fake rage. it it's like how can you be mad at everything? there's only 24 hours in the day. everything can't set you off. >> like everyone is ready to be outraged before they even know the facts. >> exactly. not only that, but for four days. >> four days, four hours. >> do you think, chris red, the cable news makes that worse? >> probably, but -- >> do you think cable news hosts sometimes take over a segment when they're a guest in it it? >> yeah, then they pit you against each other. you get caught in the middle. >> i got a question. can you not ask a question for five minutes? >> it's really hard. >> dag, that's that today show gus toe right there. >> i'm going 0 speak when spoken to. >> craig melvin, you look at the year 2018, who needs to fall back? >> ari melber needs to fall
3:52 pm
back. ari melber needs to fall back in 2018. i knew ari melber when no one watched him. when he was this multi media sensation. he had a show and he was very good. he was a stand out on the show. all of a sudden, like chris red on snl. >> doing the sound effects out here. why are you trying to turn this into a roast, craig? >> i wanted to come on and just tell you how proud i am of the beat and ari melber. >> that's very nice. who needs to fall back? >> no, i got nothing. the mcrib needs to fall back. >> you were talking about that. >> i was talking about that. i like the mcrib. we don't know what it is. we don't know what it's made of. why pretend you're going away when you're going to be back? i don't like that. just like a person on facebook, i'm leaving facebook, i don't like facebook, i hate it then the next day they have a status, good morning. 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
3:53 pm
that made like, you know, a couple hundred kids sick. now they have a contraption that looks like boxed wine. it's almost as if these detergent makers want children to drink the product instead of using it. >> you know, i'd get my butt whipped if i ate my mom's detergent. >> you're referring to what you believe is a parenting style? >> i think culturally there are certain children out there that are permit today 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, i believe, southern parents. >> yes. you're from illinois, i thought. >> well, my parents are from mississippi, yeah. >> so both of you have that southern upbringing which can be quite strict. >> yes. >> it can. >> now, your people, seattle people. >> the coastal people. >> seattle people? >> permissive. you know how your people are out there. >> seattle is hippied out. when you go to order coffee in
3:54 pm
seattle. you go to a coffee shop, you're like, what's up? you're like, how are you doing? good. can i get some coffee? they're like, don't rush me, man. but this is a coffee shop. >> i don't like that. >> it's like, it's aggressively chill if that makes sense. >> in chicago they're just gres aggressive aggressive. i went to mcdonald's. number one. fam. hold on. >> it's right there. >> it's an option. >> i like this segment. i've never actually seen this segment on tv, but this is a great concept. >> is this a television show right here, just this? >> i feel like it is. >> i would be a part -- may have to after this. >> two suits and a hoodie. is it tuesday? i don't know what day it is. >> a hoodie and a rolex. >> hoodie and a rolly. >> unbusted. >> 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.
3:55 pm
craig mel vvin, your first timen the beat. >> i joan you. i enjoyed you, chris red. >> love those guys. and we will be right back. i'm alex trebek here to tell you about the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85
3:56 pm
and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you, too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the number one most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed, and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. and with this plan, you can pick your payment date, so you can time your premium due date
3:57 pm
to work with your budget. so call now for free information. and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner, and it's yours just for calling. so call now.
3:58 pm
uh uh - i deliverberty the news around here. ♪ sources say liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. over to you, logo. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
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 with in-depth conversations with artists, cultural icons people we think may be reshaping our world. i wanted to tell you, you can catch my interviews with some of those people. actress khloe ee grace marets,
4:00 pm
and jill. all these interviews are up right now. at msnbc.com/mavericks. that's msnbc.com/mavericks. that does for all of us here on the beat. we want to wish you a merry christmas, very happy new year and we hope to see you next year. >> it's the 2018 "hardball" awards. /s ♪ ♪ good evening. i'm chris mathews in washington, and tonight we're celebrating the good, the bad and the infamous of the past year with the "hardball" awards. and over the next hour we'll celebrate the people, the moments and, of course, the tweets that define 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 odd est moment of the year

63 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on