MSNBC host Katie tours: it's here tonight.
We will be back tomorrow with more MTP.
"The beat of Ali Melber" is starting now. Hi, Ari.
Host: Hi Katie.
Thank you very much.
Tonight we have a lot of stories about the beat.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi made the news to announce her criteria for impeaching President Trump tonight.
She said, "This is the news.
"Tonight, one of her senior deputies will join me in the live broadcast of this story that unfolds from the mountains.
Later, an insider made a public statement on Stormy Daniels to hide money and confirmed part of Michael Cohen's allegations against Trump.
In addition, Elizabeth Warren has more news in the campaign, including some of the news she broke on the show on Friday.
But let's start with Bob Mueller attacking Trump's two former aides.
This is a crucial week for Mueller's investigation.
You have a federal judge who will issue a decision on the fate and freedom of Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, the two former Trump aides who have been together for decades.
Through their work on behalf of Donald Trump, both are now in this position.
They are all waiting for Amy Berman Jackson's ruling.
She is called a tough federal judge.
She was the first person to strike Manafort and put him in prison even before trial.
Apparently, it was a tougher attack than the other federal judge who gave him such a loose sentence late last week and caused a lot of controversy.
That's crime alone.
Also, at any time, counsel for Roger Stone will formally submit their arguments to Judge Jackson, essentially trying to convince her thatRoger Stone that there is no real violation of her ban
As you may know, he's an instagram robber, and those posts he recently posted seem to violate the ban.
She will also jail him for this week.
Now, I can let you know once the document is submitted and we will report it for you.
We will tell you exactly what it is and what it means.
Although there are some new developments in the Miller project this week.
That's why someone says, someone says, it looks like (INAUDIBLE).
Manafort received the remark Wednesday in Washington, D. C. C. case.
This could lead to 10 sep years of imprisonment.
Counsel for Miller and Michael Flynn then provided an update on whether the men were ready for sentencing.
Then the stone day I mentioned.
This Thursday with JudgeJackson.
Then, on Friday, we will also find out if Manford's deputy, Rick Gates, will be sentenced or if Miller will need more time with him as well.
So there is a lot of action in court.
In addition, it is reported that President Trump privately praised Manafort for not being a mouse or a coward and compared him to a "political prisoner ".
With respect to all the legal issues, I would like to start with two former federal prosecutors, Glenn kilschner and Paul Henderson.
Good evening, gentlemen.
Former federal prosecutor Paul Henderson: Good evening.
Glen Kirschner, former federal prosecutor: Hi Ali.
Glen, what do you think is important during this important week?
KIRSCHNER: You know, I'm actually looking forward to the judgment of Manafortsentencing, because I think Judge Ellis's injustice and injustice to Manafort is far below the guidelines,
Not only is it harmful to Mueller's investigation, but it is also harmful to our criminal justice system.
You know, there are several reasons why a judge can leave office down, that is, below the bottom of the 1/2 Manafort potential sentence.
The judge actually declared that neither of these cases would apply.
He did not take responsibility for his crimes, nor did he effectively assist the government in other investigations.
In fact, we know that JudgeJackson found out that he lied to prosecutor Miller on one of the core issues of Mueller's investigation.
So for them, let Judge Ellis announce that he will drop from 19 to 1/2 years to 3 years and 11 months, and I think that does damage to the system in many ways.
I think Judge Jackson, he's strong, independent, smart, no.
Nonsense, law and order will get the right verdict.
These things are still important for the former professional prosecutor.
Melber: Well, Paul, I was wondering if you could block these two major rulings this week.
She is the center of it.
Roger Stone's arguments, once we get them, we'll cover them in detail, they could be a very simple version of Outkast, sorry, Miss Jackson, hope you don't get sentenced to jail.
What did Manafort say? What do you think happened to both programs?
Henderson: I think the hammer will fall and it will hit Jackson very badly.
I think all the other reports will only make this sentence worse for him.
I think the real problem here and what a lot of people have been talking about is whether these events are concurrent or continuous.
These are different crimes here.
I think it is clear that the judge is moving in the direction of inconsistent judgment.
Melber: what you're talking to Manafort about is whether or not she accepted the four he got in another loose case and added to that rather than merging?
Henderson: that's what it means.
Does she have them run separately or at the same time?
I think she will let them run separately because we have seen all the differences in this case, and frankly, we saw a huge difference with Ellis in the first case.
This is before we start talking about the huge economic and racial differences that we see in federal judgments.
But in this case, and in particular, well below the standards and guidelines we have seen, I think Jackson, 17 months after dealing with the case, and the 500 motions filed back and forth, and his plea agreement and the bad conduct of manafut and his representative, it is time to deal with all these violations.
These are all factors that increase the punishment.
Melber: do you expect Judge Jackson to attack Manafort because of what happened elsewhere? Or she will keep the laser-
Pay attention to these allegations?
Henderson: I think she will use the laser all the time.
Focus on these allegations, but she has to take into account and think about some larger images such as what happened to the Miller probe and what happened to his colleagues
Conspirators, because this is one of the charges he pleads here, is an obstacle to justice, and a conspiracy to the United States.
He has 10 years on every charge.
So even if she put them together and gave him 10 years, and he was actually 20 years, I think he would probably look at a 14-year sentence.
But even if she rolls them in and takes into account the mitigating factors that don't think she might do because of his actions, in this case, I think it will be about 14 years, not about 10 years.
Melber: Glen, one of the reasons why the country has been having a heated debate on criminal justice and inequality since Thursday night is a good thing, it exposes a bad thing.
According to many, the bad thing is the very obvious inequality revealed in Judge Ellis's approach.
The good news is that we do have transparent federal courts, which means that in our democracy, the rule of law, not only can citizens learn the results in real time, but the judges have to sit there and explain, there may be positive factors here.
This may be part of the accountability process.
I mentioned, looking forward to judging Jackson, because even though she was not criticized as Judge Ellis did, the same transparency put Huron on the record because she said it was no longer done --overs for Mr. Stone.
We all know now.
So I want to know how you see these factors.
I will read here from what she told Roger Stone last time that he was disturbed by the order to punch in.
"I gave you a second chance.
It's not baseball.
You don't have a third chance.
"Do you think she said on the record that the state knows that this really adds to the pressure she is putting on meaningful punishment for him now?
KIRSCHNER: It's a good question, Ari, because she said you didn't have a third chance and she did get herself into trouble.
But I'm telling you, I think she'll see Stone's violation here as a foul.
I have a feeling that, as we said in D, she is not ready yetC.
, Let them take a step back, which is basically to detain him and detain him before trial.
We saw the post he said Who Framed Roger Stone, which seems to be in violation of the modified gag order she made last time.
We did hear that a book was being reissued.
I just don't know if she would think it would be enough to directly violate the gag command that she modified.
So let me ask you.
Isn't that Roger's problem? He had heparin and mist on his way to the border?
I mean, I think both of you are dealing with cases where people are doing less and have been hit more.
Henderson: of course. Melber: andStone.
He did so to attract attention.
I think he got what he wanted.
But I have a feeling that she will treat him like a teenager.
She's taking his phone.
She will ban him from social media.
She will send him to his room and maybe get him electronically monitored at home via a GPS ankle bracelet.
I think she will call this a foul and give him more chances.
Let him step back if he violates it.
But I might be wrong. She`s no-nonsense.
She might say, "Do you know?
I have had enough with you.
Melber: stay with me.
I'm going to be in our conversation, Shelby Holliday, the Wall Street Journal reporter, who is not a lawyer, but has been with a lawyer for a long time, as you have covered the story.
Shelby Holliday, a Wall Street Journal reporter: it's interesting. I enjoy it.
Melber: What do you think about this?
The analogy for foul tips is interesting because if you want to do Mr.
Stone, he apparently lined up over and over again.
If you want to be kind about it, you say it well, and he doesn't go to give a speech or do what we call a traditional violation.
He has been using the Insta story as a way to walk around and fiddle with it carefully.
Holiday: he likes to play with fire.
When you talk to a legal expert, they say it may not be significantly out of scope, but he will certainly be very close to it.
This is his personality.
He likes to do so.
I think the most interesting thing this week is that Judge Jackson will sentence Paul Manafort and send a signal to Roger Stone.
It's not her intention, but regardless of the outcome of the verdict, Roger Stone will be watching closely as his next step is about to begin.
So, I think a lot of people were frustrated during last four years at Manafort.
A lot of Mueller watchers and legal experts are frustrated because it sends a signal to other people surrounded by the Muellerprobe that maybe you don't need to work together.
Maybe you can lie to the prosecutor.
Maybe you can do all these bad things in violation of your injunction, in violation of your bail terms, but still get out of the woods.
Now, four years is nothing.
This is a major sentence of imprisonment. MELBER: Right.
But given what he's facing-Melber: but it's just one piece.
According to what he did and what he wanted, it was a small clip. Holly Day: Yes.
Melber: then you have all the rumors about whether the lawyer has stressed that there is no collusion other than legal denial, which is a request for pardon.
The White House responded to all these remarks again today. (
Start Video Editing)
Unidentified woman: Paul Manafort will deliver the next half of the sentence this week.
Why does the president not rule out a pardon for PaulManafort?
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: The president has made his position clear in this regard.
He will make a decision when he is ready. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Holborn: It's a fascinating point of view-it's a fascinating point made by Sarah Huckabee Sanders because everyone is watching and even the prosecutors point out that they think Paul Manafort might
The president is very dissapointed on this issue, which makes many people think he will be pardoned.
Some of President Trump's supporters hope he will get a pardon.
But I just think you have to step back and look at the series of crimes that Paul Manafort has pleaded guilty or convicted.
You also have to see the fact that the first president of the United States may forgive those who plot against the United States and have not even apologized to the Americans for that.
I think it's a big political calculation if the president is really considering pardon, whether it's worth it or not, whether it's worth spending political capital.
Glen, at this point? KIRSCHNER: Yes.
You know, it's a man who stole things from the United States, who did not pay taxes, engaged in bank fraud, participated in a conspiracy against the United States through illegal lobbying, and he did witness it.
He tried to urge the witness to lie, so he did not respect the country.
He does not respect the American people.
He did not respect the criminal justice system.
For the president, he said he is not arat, he is not a coward, he is a brave man, it is completely contrary to the information of the law
A law-abiding president will be sent.
Melber: Paul, listen to how Paul Manafort talked about it all on his wonderful days with Roger to toast each other for approaching Donald Trump. (
Start Video Editing)
Did Roger recommend the job to you?
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort: Roger is one of two or three people who highly recommend me, yes.
Even if Roger is no longer Trump's main political adviser, he is still a very important advisor until today. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: Paul, put it all together for us.
You can see these people, a heavily convicted criminal, waiting for a potential sentence of up to 10 years.
The other man defended his freedom even before he was tried.
When you see people flying so high, now even in the best case, how is this compared to other legal cases you are involved in
Case scenario, even facing some "lenient judgment" in a really difficult period "?
Henderson: I think the leniency is out of date.
When you hear the petition that they are making now that is not regulated, I think it will be ignored.
I think all the statements we hear will come back and bite them.
When they consider all the sentences, they will all be used as statements of deterioration.
I can already anticipate the debate that the prosecutor will have in order to get the verdict.
I believe this sentence will be much more severe than Ellis's first sentence.
I think we'll see some serious moments, but it's not a high one.
Tomatter's conduct throughout the course of the trial, his conduct in the pleadings, his association with all the others around him engaged in all these terrible acts.
All of this adds more years.
All of this adds to the situation of not considering setting factors to keep someone or run a sentence that is about to become mainstream.
There will be a lot of sentences and a lot of years here, I believe for Manafort.
We will see this in a few days.
I estimate that these costs are 14 years or more.
Maybe we will see a change in attitude.
I would say, I think it is very important that we do not hear an apology.
We have not heard Manafort come forward and say that he is sorry, that he is sorry for the crimes he has committed and that he is sorry for the crimes he has defended.
I think all this puts the judge in the situation where he will show him-Melber: Right.
Henderson: she's in charge. MELBER: Right.
Henderson: she doesn't appreciate his behavior.
He played games with her.
So that's what's going to happen.
Thank you very much, Paul Henderson, Glen kilschner, and Shelby Holliday.
Next, Speaker Pelosi is here to put forward a new mark on how and when the House impeaches Donald Trump.
I have a member of her leadership team, Congressman Hakim Jeffries, live on the big story.
Later, Trump's insiders who covered up the money scandal broke his silence on Cohen and the "into Hollywood" tape.
Also, after 30 Rock interviews we had with Senator Elizabeth Warren, some major news from the 2020 presidential campaign.
More information about fallout follow upup from that.
Then there is one of the most creative people behind the biography of Song Fei and the comedy and irony of containing the Trump era, all on tonight's show. I`m Ari Melber.
You're watching the beat on MSNBC. (
There's breaking news tonight.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced the new standards needed to impeach President Trump.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Speaker Pelosi said that it was not worthwhile to seek impeachment at this time, and said that in order to pursue impeachment, she needed convincing evidence and bipartisan procedures.
She also said before speaking that it was new, suggesting that the speaker wanted to drop the mark tonight for any reason.
This is another reason.
Politically, as you may have heard, her own caucus, her own Democratic Party members are making more and more calls to say that perhaps now is the time to consider impeachment. (
Start Video Editing)REP. AL GREEN (D)
I got up today, sir.
Speaker called for impeachment President of the United States of America. REP. MAXINE WATERS (D)
California: I believe we have everything we need to basically impeach him. I believe that. REP. RASHIDA TLAIB (D)
Michigan: a bully can't win.
I said, baby, they don't do this because we're going there and we're going to impeach [bleep]. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: I am now participating with a member of the speaker's leadership group of the Democratic caucus of the house and a member of the Judicial Committee, which is related to all these reasons.
Member harkim Jeffries, thank you for joining me tonight. REP.
Hakim Jeffries (D-NY)
Justice Council: Ali, it's a pleasure to be with you.
Melber: The bottom line is, is the speaker trying to make news here, raise the bar, and thus raise expectations about what is needed to impeach President Trump?
Jeffries: I think what the speaker is doing is making a clear description of what the House Democratic Caucus is all about.
Last year, we did not run for president, nor did we control the House because of the desire to impeach the president.
We have launched a campaign under the people's agenda to show that we will focus on reducing the high cost of living --
Save prescription drugs, increase American wages every day, make real infrastructure plans, clean up corruption and make our democracy alive.
That's what we did.
This is where the speaker wants to keep our attention as we move forward.
Melber: it makes sense.
I'm going to push you, though.
I think everything you say is basically to support the policy agenda aimed at improving the lives of working people across the United States.
There is no doubt that there is a record in this regard.
But do you disagree with me, the real conversation, the majority of people in your area, the majority of Democratic voters already think that Donaldson Trump has abused his power, and they look forward to it, at least wait until Miller announces his findings and say if there will be a potential impeachment process?
Jeffries: That's right.
I don't think anything the speaker has said is in line with the way we will still take the wait and see, because it has to do with the investigation that Bob Miller is doing, and an ongoing survey in southern New York.
Ultimately, impeachment is the final political death penalty.
It was included in the Constitution due to special circumstances.
As the speaker has pointed out, we should only continue without the findings, this allows us to be sure that we should go down this path. she doesn't just mean what you call a wait-and-see evidence.
As part of the standard, it must be "bipartisan", she said.
You know a lot of people are looking at the Republicans of the Trump era and they say why any of those in power, with the power of the summons running, the House is waiting for them to make their own independent judgment on what Miller may or may not find?
Jeffries: There are two things.
We will continue our active over-visual function as it involves checking and balancing when outof-
Control the executive department.
This is consistent with our constitutional responsibility.
As you know about impeachment, listen, the house is basically a grand jury.
The Senate is the final jury.
Impeachment is like prosecution.
If the evidence is convincing enough, we can sue in the house.
But the ultimate goal for those who think Donald Trump has presided over the culture of chaos, crisis, chaos and corruption is presumably to eliminate him.
The speaker has made it clear that to be removed, you need to have at least 20 Republican senators in another house in Congress.
So let me see if I understand you.
This is what is called reality.
Melber: You're talking about a complicated thing you might know because you're dealing with her every day, but it's not exactly in her statement tonight, and her statement is
You are saying that she has basically set a position where she will not go to the Inuit, and in the absence of a longer period of time there is a partisan battle plan in the House
What is the strategy of this term, you will build this model through events, evidence, any findings about the president, and you will have to build support for this possibility in the Senate?
Otherwise, it's not worth it to get it started?
JEFFRIES: Well, I didn't have a chance to talk directly to Speaker Pelosi about the background of those comments, but I can explain them.
I hear you guys are very nervous. Jeffries: Yes.
That's what I heard.
I heard you guys talking about something.
We are all disappointed with the NDP.
But look, at the end of the day, I know that Jerry Nadler, chairman of the Judicial Council, the Speaker, on other occasions, I and the rest of the House's Democratic leaders believe there is a difference between impeachment and removal.
In order for us to continue in the end, if there is a conclusion that the president has presided over a cult of crime and corruption, completely out of control, and therefore the final political death penalty is worth it, if you are going to get toremoval, you have to do it in a bipartisan way.
We can sue in the house.
But for conviction, it requires the full support of Democrats and Republicans and the American people.
I agree with Speaker Pelosi that this is a reasonable practice.
Melber: It's very interesting, because it's causing a stir, and she's obviously speaking to a constituency that's a lot different about what you're saying about the corruption of this particular president
Congressman Hakeem Jeffries from the leadership, thank you for joining me tonight.
Thank you, Ali.
Thank you, sir.
Ahead, AOC set off a wave of liberals and moderation at the Southwest Conference.
But first of all, the lawyer who insisted on the confidential money transaction of Stormy Daniel, who was all involved in the transaction, did not speak, well, he broke the silence.
We have more information when we return to the age of 30. (
MELBER: That's the headline.
This is political.
That's what stomi Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougall's former lawyers have said about these controversial claims that he initially negotiated.
There are a lot here now, but you may still remember the name.
Keith Davis is a former lawyer for Michael avenati.
He said it was the release of the now infamous "into Hollywood" tape that changed everything. (
Start Video Editing)
Keith davidson, attorney for hush money: in this case, the "get into Hollywood" tape is a key factor in really solving the problem.
It overthrew the argument that it was purely for personal reasons, and it was for political reasons, because after the "into Hollywood" tape something like this could be a straw that crushed the back of the camel. (END VIDEO CLIP)
You might say, of course, whether it's a political issue or who cares.
But it's all important now, because it goes back to the crimes that Michael Cohen admitted.
Donald Trump continues to defend, claiming that these payments are personal, not political, meaning that you will not be disturbed by campaign law.
Now Cohen is going to jail because he has admitted to violating campaign finance regulations.
This is not necessarily clear to Cohen and Davidson on the other side.
Congress wants to hear from him.
He's here now.
The House Judiciary Committee is investigating the famous list of 81 people.
He also faces separate charges that he initially colluded with Cohen with his clients.
He denied the claim.
We already reported it on the show.
But in the new interview, he was dissatisfied with how friendly he was with Cohen.
Davidson said Cohen revealed to him that he didn't even play a role in the White House, which is certainly interesting, because no matter what everyone thinks of Michael Cohen, that's one of the questions about whether he's honest or not. This is a problem. (
Start Video Editing)
Davidson: he confided to me that he was right by his side and said in his words, "Can you believe that he didn't take me to Washington after I did everything. ”(END VIDEO CLIP)
Can you believe it?
Well, a lot of people say yes, you work hard for Donald Trump and don't necessarily get paid off.
Now, how important is "into Hollywood" tape?
A former "Fox" reporter also tried to withdraw from the NDA after reports that "Fox" had killed Stoyan before the election, because Rupert Murdoch tried to get Mr. Trump to win a statement saying, "The public has the right to know the truth.
Fox News denied it.
Davidson was also telling ABC today that the "Fox" reporter called him immediately after the "AccessHollywood" tape aired for comments, which contained specific details that might have informed the story that was not originally played.
Now with me is a lawyer for former Fox correspondent Nancy Erika Smith, a leading civil rights lawyer and a former Fox News CEORoger Ailes sexual harassment lawsuit
David dosen has also joined me as a former SDNY prosecutor and former chief counsel for the Senate water gate incident Committee, who is very knowledgeable about investigating political crimes.
Thank you to everyone here.
Nancy, before we go into the details, what is your opinion of Mr. Smith?
What is the core of what he said?
Does this help to oppose Trump, as it seems that another person has confirmed that this has something to do with the campaign?
Lawyer Nancy Erika Smith: This is absolute and so is the time.
When you're talking about mid
On October before the election, you are talking about something that will obviously affect the election.
It is clear that Trump thinks so, and there are witnesses who told Jane Mayer in the New Yorker that Murdoch also knows this, according to Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, that's why the story was killed.
Although they deny it.
They deny it, but it's really easy. This is simple.
Maybe the female host should call my client and all her records, and then we can see exactly what Fox News has.
Melber: have you been in contact with your client through family justice or supervision?
Smith: Not yet, but the summons will exceed the NDA.
Melber: So you have some news here, which is why we like exclusive guests.
You mean Diana farz, your former Fox journalist.
MELBER:-subject to the law of the contract under this NDA, except with the consent of the court.
Or she received a subpoena.
Or the legal summons you said you would receive anyway.
Melber: So you're saying, if-you know, we just had a member of Congress on the show.
If one of these members of Congress wants to summon your client with the power of the house, what would you say about delivery?
What value will this add?
Smith: It will increase-it will increase the investigation into whether Fox is really a news organization, and it will also increase the investigation into whether it is Donald Trump's campaign Department.
Or is it worth doing illegal campaign contributions to just kill this story?
Obviously, they think it's worth it if things happen.
He won the Electoral College by 78,000 votes. Would 78,000so-
People known as evangelists have different ideas about him if they know one thing and a return from a porn star.
Melber: I almost feel like you're an effective lawyer with a long-term strategy.
SMITH: Thank you.
David, you know a lot about the congressional investigation process.
Nancy knows a lot, but there is also a client here, so she has an agenda and interest.
In your independent analysis, do you think this is the right and productive path for House Democrats?
What did you do with what she said and the story?
David Dobson, former assistant attorney for the Senate water gate incident Committee: Well, of course.
I think this is a very important part of the photo.
I think this is also a very important part of the southern part of New York.
I think that's the direction of action.
There is a reason why, as a prosecutor, I can get an income tax return.
So the southern part of New York could sit with Trump's income tax returns.
What's going to happen next-when Trump pays Cohen to pay back Stoke Daniels, he lists this as an offer, presumably deducting those payments.
You know, I was excited when you started talking about taxes, didn't you, David?
Dodson: Well, it's a topic that gets a lot of people bored, but when Donald Trump talks about it, it's probably part of his failure, because he deducted the money from Donald Michael Cohen.
Melber: But, are you basically imagining an AlCapone situation where after everything happens, it gets stuck because of tax cuts? Dodson: maybe.
Because on the one hand, Trump can forgive himself, but he can't forgive himself for violating state laws.
The income tax return he filed on behalf of the state is false because he may deduct the money to Michael Cohen.
Melber: Well, David, listen to the way the White House is dealing with the Cohen issue, it doesn't seem like it's going to go away. Take a look. (
Start Video Editing)
Unidentified Woman: Why was Michael Cohenfor $35,000 written by the President in August 20?
He testified about it.
He specifically accused the president of conspiring to conceal campaign funding violations.
He showed the check.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: The president has made it clear that there is no campaign violation.
On top of that, I was unable to find unidentified women: The president also said he was not aware of the confidential money.
Sanders: beyond that, I can't-unidentified woman: his story has changed.
SANDERS: I ask you again to review the president's comments. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: David, your point of view that they are trying to explain is confirmed that they are suing Stormy again for these payments, which is evidence of their payment.
Dorson: Well, I really don't know what they're talking about because the payment is now recorded by check.
I think they cook well in the water gate incident, we are confidential, money is an important part of the photo and in the end I think it's the decline of the cover --up.
I think these meetings will be very, very important.
It's fun to see from your water gate experience and SDNY.
Nancy, I did want to make sure we were here before we left because it was an argument.
I want to read to you what Fox executives think about this, that is, "Daniels and her colleagues are actually playing a strange cat-and-mouse game with Fox News and other media without enough evidence to publish fingerprints.
"Isn't that a fair defense for the news media? They say they need to be sure before they take action.
Smith: If the news media want to know the truth, they don't have to leave the journalists who keep the story secret, do they?
Presidential candidates should not hide information from the American public in a confidential agreement.
Melber: So you're saying it might be valid if this defense is true.
Your formal argument here is not that they don't have a good argument to discuss, but that they actually try to block the discussion.
Smith: Sure. MELBER: Yes.
I think it makes sense.
I think your point of view about the house is certainly interesting.
Thank you both, Nancy Erika Smith and David dosen.
SMITH: Thank you.
Dorson: Thank you.
Melber: in front, Senator Elizabeth Warren made a big stir when talking about what the Free Voters think about the so-called free voters.
Called the potential socialist agenda.
Statement on "moderate.
"Later, I was very excited about it, the comedy of the Trump era, and the man behind Song Fei. (
Start Video Editing)
M: Sorry, I think you forgot my bread.
Man: bread, $2. 00 extra.
Man: $2. 00?
But everyone in front of me has free bread.
Do you want bread?
Man: $3. 00.
Unidentified male: Nothing for you. (END VIDEO CLIP)(
Start Video Editing)
Woman: great shock
Position in the field of science and technology.
Unidentified male: It's big, bold and hard to achieve.
Can she really force this breakup?
Can she really do it? SEN.
Elizabeth Warren (D)
Presidential candidate: You bet.
Melber: What is the answer?
The answer is yes. (END VIDEO CLIP)
The answer is yes.
Senator Elizabeth Warren is here on Friday night.
She has launched a comprehensive plan to try to break the hot tech giants like Google and Amazon.
Now, she is sending a message to denbeas, a well-known technology lion, because she has attended one of the country's leading technology conferences.
You may have heard of it, south-west, as did five other Democratic candidates in 2020.
Let's start directly.
Mara guy, member of the editorial board of the New York Times.
Nice to meet you.
Mara guy, member of the editorial board of the New York Times: Thank you for inviting me.
Melber: they all went there because it was a new meeting place.
You think Senator Warren is one of the toughest technology agendas in this technology field.
I think this is a politically wise move for her.
I think there's a lot of anger at these tech companies being unregulated.
I think you know, they 've been arguing for a long time-they're the biggest disruptors, and they're trying to be a good citizen in a way that most companies you know don't think they are.
In a sense, I think this is a requirement.
So you know this is a moment of anger because they didn't take action, for example, in Amazon's 2016 election, Facebook lets cities compete and let them know the company's giveaways.
MELBER: Most companies are not considered red or blue.
But before that-the 2016 scandals you define, the tech industry is considered to be close to the Democrats, and is considered new --school.
I mean, Amazon is not considered Exxon, and I think that's fair.
As you have pointed out, this may become a reality.
When I asked her a word to define these companies and some other things, it was her in a hurry . . Take a look. (
Start Video Editing)MELBER: Amazon. Too big. MELBER: Google. Too big.
Facebook. Too big.
Warren: It's amazing.
Melber: the most popular member of the Fed Council.
Melber: your dream partner, whether alive or dead.
You can choose someone who runs with you.
Teddy Roosevelt. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: She also cited the example of Teddy, who happens to be a Republican for taking over big companies.
Gay: Trust vandals.
Yes, that's right.
How many of these are likely to be mistakes in the Democratic primary?
Look, this is a warning shot.
In fact, I think the real flaw in the Democratic Party will be-the core issue for Democratic voters and other voters will be how these candidates deal not only with Donald Trump, but also with income inequality.
The technology department will certainly have an impact on Amazon to some extent.
But I don't think that's the core issue of the election. MELBER: Right.
Before I let you go, Speaker Pelosi made it very clear that we were not on our way to impeach him.
Some of the grassroots and 2020 candidates seem to resonate differently.
Guy: You see, the impeachment case should be extreme-sorry, the threshold for the impeachment case should be very high.
This is a drastic move.
But I think that when you see Michael Cohen, the president's former lawyer may be involved in more than a dozen crimes.
We have crossed the aline that needs serious consideration, and we can wait for the Muellerreport to see what will happen, but I think-I think you know Speaker Pelosihe is going to be in a tough place and I just want to give myself a little time, that's fine. MELBER: Right.
Like you said, I think what she said and Congressman Jeffries hinted was that they didn't want to be confused about it until they found out what Miller had, but I'm sure there were people, we interviewed some of them and they would say she went too far on the purchase time.
We will see.
I mean, look, there's some-if the president feels guilty about some of the things that he's accused of doing, then you know, some of these allegations are impeachment crimes. MELBER: Right.
So the question is, as they say, whether they are waiting for the Senate and saying that we have no reason.
This is the argument of jeffries tonight, or you have an obligation to deal with it.
We will continue our dialogue.
Mara guy, thank you as always.
Guy: Thank you for inviting me.
Melber: ahead, can you laugh these days in a tight news cycle?
Well, the legendary comedians behind Song Fei and the curve have more people at the table. (
Melber: If you look at the beat, you'll know that sometimes we're going to be a lot of fun on this little successful show.
But tonight, we're going to get some help from Larry Charles, author of T. V.
He won an Emmy Award for the sitcom Song Fei.
He also directed Larry David's HBO series, your passion, and the famous mockumentary Borat.
Now that he has his own Netflix documentary Larry Charles dangerous world of comedy, he's starting to do a mission around the world to see what makes us laugh. (
Start Video Editing)
Unidentified male:-The world of comedy is not just a comedian, it's also something that makes it a dangerous world, a murderer, a terrorist, an extremist, and something that they laugh.
We will explore comedy in places where there is nothing interesting, where it does not belong.
By learning about a country's comedy, you will know its past, present and future. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Thank you for coming, Larry.
Larry Charles, comedy writer and director: My pleasure.
Thank you for inviting me.
Comedy is the window of the mind. CHARLES: Yes.
MELBER: It's something you believe in, or it's just a gimmick for you.
Charles: I learned something.
In any case, I am not in favor of this agenda.
I'm really starting to think that I'll meet people who do what you know, what The Daily Show is doing here, satirizing corrupt governments, trying to survive, and that's really a lot around the world.
But there is a lot of comedy being used to heal these traumatic areas that are going through massive trauma and these war zones.
In this case, people are killed, injured and injured, families are destroyed, and laughter is used as a tool for treatment.
Melber: Because Seinfeld is so popular, it's one of the last shows the whole country has listened to, and of course, its jokes are mainly about what everyone didn't say, not only that, we can all connect these little things. CHARLES: Right.
Melber: What is the handling of plane food?
The problem is very reliable.
I won't let you guys comment on this, but you'll have a little bit of a comment on delvea-Charles: you're actually doing Gilbert's impression of Jerry Seinfeld.
Gilbert Goldfried's impression of Jerry Seinfeld
Melber: Well, I'm nothing if it's not a hopeless derivative.
You work with Larry David. CHARLES: Yes.
Because Bernie Sanders is back, we are all politically prepared to see more Larry David.
Let's take a look at this impression. (
Start Video Editing)
Comedian Larry David: people like me.
My personal donations are more than any candidate in history and I don't get them from millionaires and billionaires.
Average donation amount-unknown woman :(INAUDIBLE)
Everyone knows. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: Isn't that an impression, or is it just Larry David?
Charles: I think Larry David is unique.
Not that much Philip.
Bernie and we are from the same neighborhood, so I think we know Bernie.
We have people like Bernie Sanders everywhere in Brighton.
Melber: Have you ever thought that one of them would go so far in presidential politics?
He was second last time and he came back.
Charles: Well, I don't want to tell you that I'm the head of Trump Village in Brooklyn, although I'm still overcoming the pressure of Bernie Sanders running for president, Trump being elected president, this is something I will never get used.
Melber: Well, what was the view of Trump at that time?
Charles: First of all, Trump Village was built by his father. He was like a 14-year-old. year-
The old kid is wandering around and still wearing a suit and his hair is weird, you know, he's the one who's considered a joke.
He's a comedian.
He finds himself interesting and his audience is in danger now.
That's a dangerous comedy.
Melber: before I let you go, I want to play some of your work in contain your anger, do something that no one really asks for, trying to make the Holocaust surviveCHARLES: Yes.
Melber: it's clear that people have a strong point of view to some extent, and culture also has room to participate in things, and you're Jewish. CHARLES: Right.
Melber: Let's take a look at this clip from the side of the road.
Charles: Let's have a look. (
Start Video Editing)
Have you seen the show?
Have you seen our show?
This is the so-called Holocaust.
All I know is that I'm close to millions of dollars.
Everyone has been supporting me behind my back all the time, vandalizing me and trying to get me kicked out of the show.
Unidentified male: You know nothing about survival.
I'm a survivor.
I'm a survivor. (END VIDEO CLIP)CHARLES: Funny. MELBER: Funny?
Charles: It's not true-Melber: It's interesting if it's bent.
Charles: It's not using the Holocaust.
This is the interpretation of Melber.
Who is the target of the joke?
Charles: the object of the joke is really the one on Survivor.
He does not know what the Holocaust is, and he will even have a highly competitive dialogue, with Holocaust survivors showing his forgetting of history.
Because of this, we have no victims of the Holocaust. MELBER: Right.
Charles: It's totally interesting and credible.
Melber: If you don't know anything about history, is this old saying gone? You are destined to be teased on premium cable programming.
Charles: That's how it works.
This is the proof of the pudding.
What's more biting than sarcasm?
I don't know.
You tell me, man.
You tell me.
Charles: I haven't figured it out yet.
Hey, I'm here to ask this question.
Charles: Well, I think this is the next step.
I really don't have a good answer to that question.
What's more than sarcasm?
Are you kidding?
I don't know what the answer is.
Melber: You're kind of like Andy mckebe I 've interviewed, he's not -- Charles: because he's not straight.
No, I'm not going that far.
Sometimes there is good reason not to answer when he does not want to answer.
He's probably waiting for Miller's report.
He repeats the question when he doesn't want to answer it, or what are you really asking?
Charles: I'm waiting for Miller's report, too.
Larry Charles, I think you have something in common with a lot of people.
This is my last question. CHARLES: Yes.
Melber: When you watch comedy in the Trump era, you are special, and in your opinion, comedy is a useful part of getting through the hard times you describe or just shifting your attention?
Comedy is essential.
Comedy is a vital force in our lives.
Comedy is like breathing and eating.
Laughter is an important part of survival, so I think we need a very serious and very important topic now than ever before.
Larry Charles, we'll be back soon.
Charles: Okay. (
Melber: We told you that Miller was an important week in the survey this week.
Tomorrow, I am pleased to inform you that Richard Painter, a former white Houseethics lawyer, will be here with a lawyer who also faces the former federal prosecutor Jim Walden
It should be interesting.
This is all our time, though.
Then I will find you.
This is a report card in a hurry.
This copy may not have the 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.