feds indict russian. transcript: 1/8/2019, the beat w. ari melber. - electronic message boards

Show: Rhythm & ARI MELBERDate: guest of January 8, 2019: Glen Kirschner, Lawrence Tribe, Natasha Lang, Wesley Clark Vanita Gupta, Jerome CorsiCHUCK Todd, show host: OK, this is all I have in an hour.
But, man, do we have more for the rest of the night? I will have more on MTP tomorrow.
But now it's the "beat" of Ari Melber ".
Good evening, Ali.
Host: Good evening, Chuck. A big night.
So everyone needs to cheer up.
TODD: You see.
See you soon.
Let me tell you the headlines today.
First, federal prosecutors have just sued Russian lawyers from the infamous Trump Tower meeting.
Second, Bob Miller's investigators now say that Paul Manafort lied to a Russian agent and committed a new crime during the 2016 campaign.
Third, President Donald Trump delivered his first Oval Office speech as president on the closure tonight.
Now, we start with these major developments in the Russian investigation, covering each story.
We all know why the news of Paul Manafort is so important.
Bob Miller has no bigger source than the former Trump campaign chairman Manafort.
Tonight, we are learning why this partnership is completely broken.
This is the first time we have heard these details.
Mueller's investigators apparently said Manafort lied to the Kremlin in 2016 when he shared the poll data --
Link operation.
Manafort allegedly hides his connection with Russia even after the flop, making other news tonight even more interesting.
Federal prosecutors are suing Russians, which you can see on the screen in the upper right corner, which is the Russians that Paul manafut and others met at Trump Tower.
Other key players like Don Jr.
Jared Kushner has been charged for obstructing official duties
So, before we go further, why is this happening tonight?
The prosecution of Russian Lawyers is open because the actions of the federal government today are intentional.
The news of Manafort was different. it was an accident.
Because Paul Manafort's own lawyer accidentally revealed what he was basically doing, the complicated story was solved.
So this should be edited.
We will show you.
In Manafort's response to Mueller accusing him of violating the cooperation agreement, we saw Manafort meeting with the Kremlin --
Contact agent of Madrid, Constantine kirinnick
This is not all.
This was during the 2016 campaign.
Manafort diverged due to voting data.
So not only did Manafort allegedly hand over political intelligence to the Russian agent, it sounds a bit suspicious, right?
But according to Bob Miller, Manafort will then try to cover it up.
Now, prosecutors are dissatisfied with this lie, because it shows that the accused has decided that instead of telling the truth, it is better to take the risk of a new crime of lying to the FBI.
Obstruction of crime is also used by the New York Federal Bureau of Investigation in what you see here.
As I mentioned, the Russian lawyer at the Trump Tower conference.
Now, they accused her of deliberately misleading the Russian government and secretly working with senior Russian prosecutors to fabricate evidence for a separate civil case.
So we saw this new pressure on the Russian side of the Trump Tower conference.
You may remember some.
The lawyer denied on television any contact with the Russians.
She is now accused of such contact with Russia. (
Start Video Editing)
Unidentified male: Donald Trump Jr.
They were told they wanted to arrange a meeting with him and Russian government lawyers who flew over from Mosko. That means you.
Marca VESELNITSKAYA, Attorney General of Russia (
By translation): No.
I'm certainly flattered by being laughed at and called a government lawyer, but I 've never worked for the government. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: NBC's Keir Simmons and Richard Engel cover the story and break some of the files you see on the screen.
These allegations are now cited in the indictment.
Like any accused, she was still innocent until the United States was proved guilty.
What have we learned tonight?
When you combine these key developments, what is the survey about the 2016 campaign?
Okay, let's see that.
It all started with some prosecution of Americans and suspicion of Bob Miller, who believed that domestic crime was not a conspiracy.
And then we saw-remember those charges against Russians?
Rod Rosenstein announced the news on the podium.
This is a huge deal.
Yes, skeptics say, but crimes abroad are not necessarily helpful in the United States.
So here and here, but not here.
But now we see a new prosecution against a Russian in the United States.
Not only in America.
She and Donald Trump's senior aides and family are in a room in Trump Tower.
Today is the first time we have seen two people in that room, an American, a Russian, and are now prosecuted.
Americans, of course, pleaded guilty.
What happened to the Russians?
As I have always mentioned, it is innocent until proven guilty.
Is there any more information coming out, well, that's it next.
On this big news day, Lawrence Tribe joined me as a constitutional professor at Harvard University.
He heard dozens of cases in the Supreme Court.
He advised President Obama
The authors of many books, including the latest "end of the Presidency", are a study on impeachment power.
Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner and Natasha Bertrand of the Atlantic also joined me in the case, which she covered extensively.
Glen, as I mentioned, your current view of the potential is that there are multiple people in that room being sued for that decisive meeting to get them together at least once.
Former federal prosecutor glenn kirschner: Yes, Ari, Veselnitskaya development is a very interesting development.
I think it highlights some potentially important factors about who she is and who she was when she attended the Trump Tower meeting.
She not only met with Russian government officials, but apparently had close ties with Russian government officials, according to a document released by a senior Russian prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.
It is one thing to be closely aligned with these types of people.
It is another matter to collude with these people to create false documents and statements, and then you will provide them to a court in New York that is pursuing her, veselnitskaya's clients are trying to get them to confiscate some of the Russian dirty money that he allegedly used to launder money.
What does it tell us?
It tells us, Madam.
Veselnitskaya is closely related to the Russian government and Russian prosecutors, and is actually a conspiracy to commit crimes with them, against the United States. S.
Criminal justice system.
Another thing, Ari, we learned that the prosecutor has some of her emails.
Shipping traffic between Veselnitskaya and Russian prosecutors.
When I saw this, I thought to myself, kid, we're going to hear more about the progress of the Veselnitskaya email
I suspect it's mail.
SMELBER: Professor Tribe, how do you see this in the context of these multiple investigations?
Ali, I think this is a big bomb.
It may be a deeper part than the Manafort Veselnitskaya part.
But I agree with Glenn Kirschner that Veselnitskaya, the Kremlin's agent, is now clearly exposed.
So when making an offer at the infamous Trump Tower E-Commerce Conference
An email from Hillary Clinton, a proposal by little Donald Clinton
He said he would be happy if it could come at the right time for the campaign, and we now know that this is basically the help of the Kremlin, in violation of US law, it is forbidden to accept help from foreign countries.
As far as Manafort is concerned, we now have the umbilical cord that connects all Russians.
Conspiracy with Americans
Conspiracy.
Melber: Well, professor, let me draw you -- tribe: running for president -- of course.
Melber: Let me paint you at your first point, because like any Harvard law professor, you speak in multiple languages --point thoughts.
With respect to your first point, Mr. Chairman, you are saying that the material that appears here increases collusion on the part of the Kremlin, which may be useful for prosecutors, combined with other information, you can contact Putin directly at the Trump Tower meeting. TRIBE: Correct.
That means the president's son, the president's campaign leader, and the president's son --in-
The law, all of these people are asking for help, not just some random Russians, but also from the Kremlin.
As far as today's Manafort revelation is concerned, it shows that the head of the presidential campaign, almost certainly, provides the Kremlin with information on US secret voting data.
Now, the Kremlin does not like to focus on American politics.
The only point in giving them this data is to facilitate their intervention in our movement.
This is an exchange condition because the other thing that we have inadvertently discovered is that part of this involves helping Russia. a-vis Ukraine.
So, what's missing is just a knot in this whole thing.
I think we are now seeing the structure of a transnational conspiracy to help Donald Trump win the election.
It is quite profound.
MELBER: it's profound when you say that.
Natasha, the Americans who come home tonight look at their screen and see a title, no matter what government you imagine or the family members you imagine, that title is a blockbuster.
If you see the federal government suing foreigners from foreign hostile forces, they meet with the guilty campaign President and the president's family, and if it's Obama's family, Bush's family, it's a bomb.
You know, what people are looking forward to more is-think about the speech and the shutdown, and there's a lot of other news, it's a blockbuster.
How do you think about what Miller is doing?
Because it's a separate federal prosecution.
Natasha Bertrand, staff writer for The Atlantic: it's separate.
At the beginning, I, like many other observers, said that we have known each other for a long time, more than a year, and that veselnitskaya has these connections with the Russian chief prosecutor Yuri Chaka, she has been working closely with him to undermine the magnitzki act worldwide.
It's basically all of their efforts in 2016, especially during the Trump campaign, and they're trying to get them to lift those sanctions.
But on the other hand, this is very important because it shows that the Southern District of New York is submitting to the court the fact that she is a Kremlin agent.
I have been told by legal experts that this is basically a prelude to the future.
Especially if Miller wants to lie in his own court papers, Veselnitskaya is meeting with Trump's campaign in the Trump Tower 16 years in June 20 while she is working for the Russian government.
So I think for this reason alone, she is now involved, and of course, this is not only at the heart of this major money laundering scandal.
In addition, she works hand in hand with the Russian government, and she is not just an informant for the government, as she has claimed to NBC in the past.
And she's basically acting as their agent, as someone who's going to the US to lobby --
Senior officials have lifted the sanctions, which of course is Putin's highest goal in the past eight years or so, especially after the Magnitsky Act. MELBER: Right.
Bertrand: So I think we have to look at it from this perspective.
Melber: Glenn, from this point of view, Natasha's point of view is that if Bob Miller was playing chess, would you start to suspect that the federal prosecutor in New York was his queen?
He moved it very actively to the board, and sometimes people didn't realize how it crossed with his plan. KIRSCHNER: Yes.
I think even though they are separate investigations, I think they may coordinate with each other on a regular basis to make sure they don't step on each other's toes.
Their tasks are indeed slightly different.
But I agree with Professor Tribe that with Manafort's disclosure to Bob Mueller about the sharing of voting information with Kilimnik, now we know that Veselnitskaya is not only closely related to the senior prosecutor, and to be able to speak with senior Russian government officials.
With these new revelations in mind, you can see these tentacles, just reaching out and connecting the Trump campaign, the Trump Tower and Russia more and more closely. MELBER: Yes.
I want Professor Tribe back.
I don't know if anyone will think that a Russian at Trump Tower is being sued and we will start a new year.
I mean, that tells you the speed of the investigation, no matter what jurisdiction it is going through.
Tribal professor, I would like to give you the last sentence, concluding remarks, if you wish, in this section, and also let you hear some of the sounds unearthed today.
Interestingly, it didn't come out early, but Donald Trump found it the day after his visit to Russia, touting the hope that he would do business there. Interesting. Take a look. (
Start Video Editing)
US President Donald Trump: I went to Russia at the invitation of the Russian people and Russians.
I may have gone to Russia to build a hotel.
At their invitation, they wanted me to build a great hotel in Moscow.
They want me to go.
I am trying to open a suitable bargain, unlike a bargain in New York City.
I'm trying to make a hard deal.
They want me back.
They asked me again. I may go back. I don`t know.
I can finish the transaction in two minutes and I can finish the transaction.
If I want to do so, it will be done according to my conditions, otherwise it will not be done at all.
So he said, you went to Russia and he failed.
I mean, they want me back.
They want an agreement. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: two minutes or thirty years.
Professor Tribe, your point of view of linking it all together.
Tribe: Well, my point is that one of the possible reasons for the row over the wall and the shutdown is to distract people from the results of the Russian investigation, because the president is clearly worried about being forced to go nowhere, all the walls on him collapsed.
Perhaps the main reason why he stressed so much the emergency power of building a wall was that he wanted to keep the wall behind him.
MELBER: a very interesting point, which I think is part of our other coverage.
Tribal professor, I want you to come back in an hour to discuss some of the legal powers that the president may be trying to capture.
Glen Kirschner and Natasha Bertrand, thank you for telling the big story with us tonight.
Next, what Donald Trump might get or lose from his speech at the Oval Office tonight.
Government closures are hurting many people, according to reports across the country.
The next guest is Angus King, an independent senator from Maine.
Later, as mentioned earlier, Donald Trump's advisers may help him declare a national emergency and involve the army in some kind of plan to build a border wall.
Later, I interviewed someone who was both a witness and a potential target in the Russian investigation.
Jerome Corsey is now trying to fight Bob Miller in court. I`m Ari Melber.
You're watching the beat on MSNBC. (
Business break)
Melber: Tonight, our other top stories, and the president's speech to the nation, are of great significance.
Think like this.
We're in the second place now.
The longest government shutdown in American history
18 days, no end.
In less than three hours, President Trump will speak and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will respond to the Democratic Party.
Democrats have said they reject any case in which Trump defended the border wall that the country faces a national security crisis at the border.
One of the main outstanding questions is, Will Trump try to use this statement to declare a national emergency? Some advisers believe that this may be for the use of military funds without congressional approval
Meanwhile, there are reports here that congressional leaders will return to the White House tomorrow to hold a meeting on the shutdown.
Independent Senator Angus King from Maine joined me in the caucus with Democrats.
Thank you for joining me on a very busy night. SEN. ANGUS KING (I)
Intelligence Committee: Ali, of course. Glad to help.
Melber: can the president make an argument tonight for you to support funding the wall through Congress?
Kim: I don't know what to do unless he has some extraordinary data that no one has seen yet.
Your question contains a real big question, what is the wall?
One of the problems we have here is that I don't know what we're talking about and I don't submit any plans.
Where, how much it will cost, what it will do, and what parts of the border it will cover.
This is one of the real problems here.
He's been talking about something called a wall, but we don't know what he wants.
A typical construction project of the federal government, you have to submit the plan and say this is what we are going to do, this is how big it will be, and that is the cost of it.
We don't have these.
What does it tell you, senator?
I mean, I think people can understand your point of view so clearly.
The president wants a certain amount of money to say that he won in this matter, what does that tell you, but according to you, even where the money will go, there is no record of any proposed?
King: That's right.
What it says is that I think he is trying to deliver on the campaign promises he has made hundreds of times.
Of course, he has said hundreds of times that Mexico will pay for it.
This part of the campaign promise seems to have disappeared.
But the other thing is, it's a crisis.
I will introduce you to a report that was managed by the trump card of the Department of Homeland Security for 17 years in September 20, about a year ago, to evaluate the situation on the southwest border.
All the numbers are down.
Prohibition, arrest, and recidivism are all far from the peak of 2007.
It's a problem, but call it a crisis, and then move from a crisis to a national emergency-Melber: Yes.
Kim: I think this is a real extension.
Frankly, this is an attempt to end
It seems to me to run our constitutional process.
Melber: Senator, we have spoken to all the people on this issue.
Listen to a Republican congressman who defended Trump saying they have to have some money on the wall to support the re-election
I just interviewed the government on the previous show. KING: Sure. (
Start Video Editing)REP.
Roger Marshall (R)
Kansas: National security is a huge priority.
Due to the holes in the southern border, we have more deaths than the number of criminals, more than the current problems in the Middle East.
So I think we should all admit that this is a huge problem that we want to solve. (END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: What do you say about this argument, I think it's two-part.
First, look at the risk of crime from the southern border.
Second, it is assumed that starting the construction of the boundary wall is the best way to prevent the boundary wall.
Your question, I think, also contains the answer.
First of all, Ali, no one here is open to the border.
I'm really tired of hearing people say you're either for the wall or for the open borders.
This is nonsense.
We have both voted many times to make significant investments in border security.
The question is, in terms of return on investment, what is the best expenditure for this money?
Is a wall $20 million a mile, or is it a better place to have a fence, or is drone or other sensor technology?
You know, what would be the best use if-to deal with this rather than this one size fits all size?
Again, it goes back to what I said before.
We don't even know what they're talking about.
There's already a wall there. I`ve seen it.
Some places make sense.
There are other places that don't make sense, but we don't know-the president basically asks for a blank check.
Let me build a wall.
I put it where I want it.
Like I wanted.
You have nothing to say.
This is not how the system works.
Melber: from Donald Trump's business experience, would you say it would be a good idea to give him a blank check?
Kim: I don't think it's a good idea to give anyone a blank check in this case.
Melber: fair enough.
Kim: if this is a military construction project, they have to go through the project. they have to go to Congress and authorize the committee to come. MELBER: Right.
There must be a sense of responsibility.
King: That's what the law requires.
That's what the Constitution says.
Melber: Well, Senator, I know it's been a busy night and we'll all be keeping a close eye on the president's detailed remarks.
I really appreciate you making time for tonight's game. Senator King.
King: of course. Thanks, Ari.
Thank you, sir.
Russian lawyer who met with little Donald Trump
Trump Tower has been charged for lying about her relationship with the Kremlin.
When we come back in 30 seconds, we have a lot of things to do. (
Business break)
Melber: we support Donald Trump's speech on the closure of the government.
A big question is, will he use the statement of the border crisis to try to bypass Congress and build the border wall with military funds?
You heard from Trump. (
Start Video Editing)
Trump: I may announce a state of emergency, depending on what will happen in the next few days.
Reporter: So there is no need for congressional approval to build the wall? TRUMP: No.
We can use them. Absolutely.
Because of the security of our country, we can call it a national emergency. Absolutely.
No, we can. (END VIDEO CLIP)
We can do it. Or can we?
There are many legal issues here.
Democrats have said they will question it in court.
Senior Republican officials in the House Military Committee opposed the bill said, "I am opposed to using defense funds for non-defense purposes.
S. President has declared about 54 state of emergency since Congress passed Bill 1976.
Because they are updated every year, they expire automatically.
Many people still work.
Now with me is Vanita Gupta, a former head of the civil rights division of the Justice Department under Obama.
Chairman of the Civil Rights Leadership Conference, retired General Wesley Clark.
The Lawrence Tribe came back with us, Professor of Constitution at Harvard University.
There are many ways in this regard.
General Clark, we start in the middle.
Is it a good idea to ask the military to do things that Congress and the president disagree?
Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO's Supreme Coalition: I think it's a very bad thing for US armed forces to get involved in this matter. We`re non-political.
If this is a legal order, we will do whatever the commander-in-chief ordered us to do.
The lawyers will debate this.
But whether it's legal or not, it's ultimately a political issue, and men and women in uniform understand that.
They are used for obvious political parties.
It will hurt.
Melber: So your point is that even if it may be legal, I mean, the court may end up having to rule on that, for the military, is this not a place to break the deadlock in such a massive shutdown struggle?
Clark: That's right.
And Vanita, is it legal?
Vanita gupta, former director of the civil rights division of the Justice Department: Look, I think the president's attempt to deprive Congress of power is a direct violation of the Constitution.
The house has power in our democracy.
Trump's attempt to seize a-'s power by creating a false national emergency is against the constitution.
I mean, you know, I think it's really important to understand that it's completely a human crisis.
The president, who is in legal and political trouble, is appealing to his base, is creating the whole crisis, and is now trying to legalize it, use money to create something that no one can fully identify or understand.
There will be a lot of lawsuits.
There will be a lot of oversight and action in Congress.
This is ultimately harmful to our democracy.
Of course, please note that at the same time, when all this happens, we have federal employees, and thousands of people across the country are not paid, including some who are actually responsible for providing border security.
This is also an irony.
Therefore, we must observe with great shock what has happened tonight and what the president has said, because it poses a certain level of threat to our democracy and our military.
Melber: tribal professor, this is different from some things in Washington, and I think this is an idea of a preliminary appeal for many Americans and for the courts.
Because when you say "military", you go directly to the legal system that the court often says in reality --
They don't want a second time.
I guess is commander-in-chief
Then, when you go into it, you end up with a lot of other situations where you say yes, but that doesn't mean that the president can say the word "military, the Treasury Department, which has not been embezzled, stole money.
Conservative Judge natantano of Fox showed some of it to the audience. Take a look. (
Start Video Editing)
Andrew natantano, host of Fox country: he can declare a state of emergency, but the statement itself does not give him the power to acquire private property.
It is not allowed by Congress to authorize him to spend money.
So he has to prove that all the assets he now has, including the army, are not enough. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: where did you come from, this professor?
Lawrence Tribe, a professor at Harvard: Well, of course I believe what the president wants to do is illegal and indeed dangerous.
I'm not as confident as some people, because the difference they often show to the President, the court will agree.
But the background is important.
Declaring a state of emergency is the use of proper authoritarian power by Democratic state leaders.
It happened after the Capitol fire.
It happened after the Manila bombing with Marcos.
This happened after a coup between Turkey and Erdogan.
Now, of course, the president can point to the specific provisions of the law.
There's something in America. S. code, 10 U. S.
Code 2808 says you can readjust some money for army building.
This is not military.
We know it's fake.
We know that the president-Melber: we may-Tribe:-there will be no separate rules-Melber: Professor, I will jump in-professor to remind you, we have encountered some complicated difficulties, but we need to understand your point of view.
I think we may have lost you, but you say that there are limits to the law even under the law. Go ahead.
Tribe: Well, there are restrictions and restrictions, whether the judge is enforcing or not, or whether the judge will obey Trump, and will eventually be submitted to the house.
I think the most critical thing is Adam Shiff of the intelligence board, Jerrold Nadler of the judicial board, and I will look into whether the president has expanded power in order to ultimately undermine the separation of powers and the rule of law.
Melber: Professor, let me push you to one piece and then get around it and let the other team members in.
You mentioned foreign leaders a few times.
I think some people will think it is a potential provocation.
Can't a US attorney general cite a large number of US cases? S.
Leaders like Roosevelt and Truman, within the law, will at least try to see where the court will stop them in terms of emergency and military power?
Tribe: there is no doubt that presidents such as Roosevelt, Lincoln and Truman have expanded the scope of the law under actual circumstances.
But in the history of the United States, we do not have a president with a clear political reality. V.
The purpose is to deprive Congress of power.
This is different from any national emergency we see.
This is the president's attempt to exercise power belonging to other branches.
Even if the court does not look like this, Congress may look at abuse of power, serious crimes and misdemeanor at hearings.
This may be the ultimate remedy.
Melber: Vanita, what you think about this-the professor mentioned in his criticism that he could see this as an area where the court might support Trump based on what Trump did.
Gupta: Well, you know, I think we have to focus on what he's going to say tonight and the crisis that's created.
I mean, we have to put in-the media has been putting in.
I think there is a real question as to why the web did this in the first place.
But keep in mind that this is all part of the political agenda.
The president demonized immigrants from the beginning.
This is an election and a political strategy.
Now that you know him, I think that's right, because this Professor Tribe describes authoritarian measures that violate our separation of powers, and declares that this is a national emergency, distracting the state, implement his political agenda.
I think there will be a lot of litigation in court.
This will be constitutional about this, it will be about the right to requisition, it will be about any number of issues.
Congress will play a very important role, and then we will hear from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer.
But again, it hurts the real people in the real community and destroys our democracy.
I think the court will definitely play a very critical role.
Melber: Vanita Gupta, Wesley Clark, and Lawrence tribes, thank you to each and every one of you, and thank you for being with us.
Right ahead, one of the witnesses and potential targets in the Mueller probe was connected to Roger Stone for a long time. He`s here live.
Come up, sir.
Back to the beat, sir.
When we got back, Jerome Corsey(
Business break)
Melber: we are now about 1/2 hours away from President Trump's planned speech, which aims to promote his argument about the wall to the public, and for the first time, the bully Forum, which uses the Oval Office address, is closed.
But while this is clearly an effort to push the conversation to the wall, there is a lot of concern about the investigation of his campaign.
Paul Manafort is under new pressure today and now the key figures in Mueller's investigation are making the news again. (
Start Video Editing)
Host: Jerome Corey-unidentified male: You have Jerome Corey-Chris Matthews, MSNBC host: Corey talks to Roger Stone.
Katie tours, MSNBC host: this electronic
Jerome Corsey's mail.
Host Chris Hayes: Jerome Corsey, assistant to Roger Stone.
Brian Williams, MSNBC host: The Story of Corsi.
Unidentified male: Jerome Cosi, author and political commentator.
Female: Jerome Corsey, Conservative
Jerome Corsey, Roger Stone's colleague: I realized I might be in jail for the rest of my life.
I'm 72 years old.
I might die in prison.
But I still have to make a decision. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: that's Jerome Corsey, Miller's witness, and after publicly refusing the plea deal, he said the Miller team provided him with allegations of lying to investigators.
He took a break from his ally, Roger Stone, and filed a federal lawsuit against Bob Miller himself, returning to the news.
With all this news, Jerome Corsey is back and he has a new book no longer silent.
Thank you for coming back on the beat.
My pleasure. Thank you, Ari.
You sued Bob Miller in court.
You-what would you like to achieve in court with this?
CORSI: Well, this is a serious lawsuit.
I mean, we already have allegations about electronic illegal electronic surveillance, illegal disclosure of grand jury information to the media, and allegations that I believe in criminal prosecution misconduct and how I was challenged
We want to hear about these issues in court, and that's why we bring a lawsuit.
Melber: so most people who are threatened or warned by a lawyer that may be prosecuted by a federal prosecutor will not respond as you do.
Does this mean that you are no longer worried about being sued?
Did you receive that letter about 42 days ago?
Have they indicated what they are going to do?
CORSI: I have not heard anything from the Office of the special prosecutor-the Office of the special counsel, and there is no indication of what they will do.
I think-Melber: Do you think you are clear? That's why you're more aggressive in court. CORSI: No.
Anyway, I'm going to be aggressive.
I'm not sure I know.
I'm not going to predict this.
I do think that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks made a statement this week that, in fact, I did not contact Julian Assange during the campaign or when I posted the stolen DNC email
The email proved that I didn't lie, which helped my case.
Melber: While you have worked fully and accurately with Mueller's team, you do claim that. CORSI: Yes.
Melber: how many hours did you say you talked to them?
40 hours, 6 times.
It's been more than two months. I went in.
I provide all my computers, my backup devices, my phonemail accounts.
I have provided all of this because I believe, still believe that I have done nothing wrong and I am willing to-I want to be honest and I want to work with them.
MELBER: Let's put it in context.
You say 40 hours.
Yes, 40 hours.
Melber: Steve Bannon, who has a close relationship with Trump and is involved in the general election, came in within 20 hours, Michael Cohen, 70, don mccohen tried to fire Mueller's 63-year-old Flynn higher within 30 hours.
If you're right, you're on the list now for 40 hours.
Why have they been with you for so long?
What are they asking you?
CORSI: Well, I think the key issue, which I highlighted in the book "silence no longer", details the 40-hour interrogation and discussion.
Strangely, the Office of the special prosecutor believes that I can establish a connection between Roger Stone and Julian Assange.
Roger Stone will go to Jerome Corsey for all, and then to Julian Assange.
Melber: So they spent more time with you in a theory that you thought you might be the key to contacting the collusion evidence of Roger Stone, the Trump campaign and the Russian middleman.
CORSI: of course, this has been the main focus in the last 20 hours.
Melber: 20 hours.
Corsey: that's all.
Do you think you gave them what they wanted on the stone?
No, because I have no contact with Julian Assange.
I have never spoken to him, and I have never communicated directly or indirectly with anyone from WikiLeaks or Julian Assange.
I still think that in my own calculations, I found that the electrons of Assange in the dust were exported from July 20 to August. mails.
I don't have any sources.
He gave me this message-Melber: that's-I have to tell you in your last interview BEAT-CORSI-yes.
Melber: When you say you are achieving this through divine intervention. CORSI: No.
This is you. -This is (INAUDIBLE)said.
This is her charge.
You mean (INAUDIBLE)
Prosecutor Miller called it a sacred invention, but you said it was in flight to find you.
Corsey: Well, no, I said it through a process of deduction. MELBER: Right.
But no one told you.
I have to tell you that of all the words you said during your last interview, someone is most concerned about those who think you claim this is ridiculous.
I think-I want to revisit it because you raised the question when you said you came to you by deduction. CORSI: Right.
MELBER: this does not match the written evidence that is now open-I am reading your email
When you write to Stone, the Mail "word is a friend of the embassy and plans to throw another garbage twice.
"Word sounds like a reference to a Word on the street or something you hear.
I saw it.
MELBER: You usually say a word before you share an idea that belongs to yourself?
CORSI: normally, like you have a hard time believing right now that I infer this 1. 1, it is very difficult and I will try to put it where it is.
If I had gotten these directly from Assange, I would not have hesitated who said Julian Assange had told me.
The word I'm using is really a buffer, you can or can not believe it, but I came up with this inference myself, and I'm sure Julian Assange affirmed it this week.
But why not just say "I think so" instead of "yes ".
CORSI: Well, throughout my life, when I was a kid, my father said, Jerry, when you come up with these are often the right deductions, you will be in trouble to convince people of them.
I think it's Mr.
Corsi is like this. CORSI: True.
Melber: this is true.
Your new lawsuit against Mueller is another interesting thing for many people who are concerned about the case, and it releases new information that journalists and observers are interested in.
So at the hearing you 've just heard, there's a reference for you and your stepson to discuss "scrub the computer.
"Corsi and his step son discussed computer scrubbing in electronic information based on your statement.
What do you mean by scrub?
Are you trying to delete the evidence in relation to this case?
Corsey: Well, the 40-year-old FBI appeared at my stepson's house and knocked on the door.
They had a text message and I asked him to scrub the computer.
It was an old computer sitting on my desk.
Memory is full.
My wife needs a computer for her business.
I said why don't you recycle this old one.
Melber: did it receive a message from his-CORSI: No, it didn't.
This is an old computer that has not been used. MELBER: OK.
Interestingly, however, in the draft Miller indictment you shared with the world, it says that during the period January to March 2017, you deleted all your emails
Mail before October 2016Why?
Because of that machine-I have a 17.
Dying inch laptop in the new space needed.
I also opened the time machine application with hard disk backup of all electronic devices
Whether I delete them or not, I know they are all there.
I want an old computer to go on because I like that 17-inch.
I had to delete the email in order to do thismails.
Deleting evidence is not a plan.
Melber: your position is that you have provided these to them now?
Yes, I gave the whole backup machine.
In fact, the prosecutor said in this investigation that they were able to recover the email.
Mail in the Time Machine
Melber: You and Roger Stone are advisers to Trump and people who talk a lot about Assange, WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton and Podesta.
You communicated with him in public, and as we know now, you communicated in private.
We can put your video back together.
Now it seems that something has suddenly changed.
He is now saying to you that you are now working with Mueller to be very picky about his sandbag handling on forgery charges. Is that true?
Okay, that's not true.
I mean, what Roger believes is not true.
I don't want to fight with Roger, nor do I.
Roger has his own opinion.
Rogers has the right to know what he thinks of me.
I don't want to refute him either.
It doesn't bother me that someone belittle me in public.
This often happens.
Melber: Well, we have to solve this problem.
That's part of my job, and I said-of course.
I say this not to belittle you, but to give you a chance to respond.
This is a question of fairness.
I have no problem.
Melber: he is saying now that after we have just shown you together, you are communicating, and it seems to be said fairly in the same team, at some point in time.
Now he says, "you're starting to make Cohen, Michael Cohen, look like a position --up guy.
Then he said you were a "cunning liar ".
Then he said-Sir, Roger Stone claimed in your answer, "How much wine did Jerry drink, or how hard did the prosecutor try to get him to talk nonsense?
"Is this true and fair? If not, is he trying to tamper with your identity as a witness?
Corsey: I'm not going to have a dispute or debate with Roger Stone.
That's all he wants to say.
He will do it.
If he wants to put me down, that's it.
I will not respond, and I do not intend to have such a discussion with Roger.
Melber: I see.
I want to give you the benefit of this response.
This is a very fair question.
I appreciate it.
Melber: As for the progress we have heard from the Miller investigation, they are now asking Congress to provide testimony from Roger Stone.
Some of them are misleading, you said on the show.
If they search his testimony, do you think he has a problem?
I don't want to judge his case either.
I testified that I wrote a cover story and I testified truthfully.
It seems to me that if Roger had a different view, he might have, and Roger would have to express his view on that.
My testimony was established and my testimony has not changed since I spent the first 20 hours in the special prosecutor's account.
The last question I give you is-of course.
I admit it may not be answered. CORSI: OK.
Melber: You are not the first Miller grand jury witness to have a connection with Roger Stone to come to this table and shoot him like the old Muhammad Ali rope --a-
No paint for counterattack.
Why do you think many of Roger Stone's confidants come out and even if he hits them they will back down?
You have to ask them.
I can only tell you that my own sense of integrity has more to do with my beliefs and how I express my beliefs and include my beliefs.
It has nothing to do with answering Roger Stone or anyone else.
Melber: I see. Mr.
Jerome Corsey, 40
One hour grand jury witness, now the plaintiff who sued Bob Miller, thank you for coming back.
My pleasure.
You asked me when I 'd be back.
Thank you, sir.
Let's stop work.
Nancy Pelosi took her first step as a priority for the Speaker and the Democratic campaign. (
Business break)
Melber: Thanks to Donald Trump for going to use his first Oval Office speech to promote his arguments about the closure and try to divert a lot of attention from his own issues, but it's also important to note that everyone is discussing another House majority that is a whole new one for Democrats, they unveiled a major gun control bill here on Gabby GIF Fords's anniversary of the shooting attempt to fulfill their medium-term commitment. (
Start Video Editing)REP.
Anna Presley (D)
What I offer is a vision.
We can break through and address the public health epidemic and crisis of gun violence.
Unidentified women: Gun violence is one of the reasons that prompted me to run for office. REP. LUCY MCBATH (D)
Georgia: At the time of the parklands incident, the children were the same age as Jordan was murdered.
That's why I want to win for them in Washington because we have a better lifestyle. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: Every candidate you saw just now is in the office, including Congressman Lucy mcbass, who lost her teenage son Jordan seven years ago for gun violence. (
Start Video Editing)
My son Jordan was torn violently from my life.
Today, I work with my colleagues to prevent more families from facing the horror and heartbreak of gun violence. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: The Democratic Party's new legislation will expand the background checks on most gun purchases, and Democrats say they have a vote to pass the bill in the new house count, which could create some pressure in the Senate. Why?
You may have seen the polls.
As many as 92% of Americans support such background checks.
Yes, a large percentage of Americans do want stricter gun control, according to the medium-term exit poll.
These are voters in the medium term.
House Democrats said today that no matter what happens in the Russian investigation and the president's speech tonight, they will continue to use the mandate of the mid-term elections to push these policies forward. (
Business break)
This is a report card in a hurry.
This copy may not be in final form and may be updated.
Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC.
All materials here are protected by US copyright law and may not be copied, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC.
You may not change or delete any trademark, copyright or other notice in a copy of the content.