MSNBC host Steve colnach: Sotomayor, Jordan Jackson, Gary glenbach, Dipa hiwaram, and Ben Pu will all meet with the media first andhand.
That's what we do tonight.
We will be back tomorrow and there will be more press conferences every day.
"The beat of Ali Melber" is starting now.
Good evening, Ali.
Host: Good evening, Steve.
I think what we're going to talk about is the love of movie makers doing a little news on your show.
It's always nice to see you.
KORNACKI: Thank you. Thank you.
Senator and 2020 candidate Kamala Harris are here tonight.
We'll be talking live about investigating Trump, talking about her new plans to close the gender pay gap, and why she said she would let Wall Street do more if elected.
What I want to tell you tonight is that Neil Katia is back for the open debate.
Barack Obama's former attorney general has debated more than 30 cases in the Supreme Court, and he will tell you what really needs to be known about Roy v. Obama. Wade fight.
He's in that court again.
He is a perfect man.
So we're happy to have him invited later tonight.
But the first thing I heard was a series of breaking news.
Today, the federal government handed down a verdict on Donald Trump's accounting firm and ordered them to hand over years of financial records to House Democrats.
Also, the White House announced that it instructed former White House lawyer Don mcghain not to testify, that is, they told him to skip the summons that ordered him to testify in Congress tomorrow.
Not long ago, we just learned that Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's former lawyer, is accusing Donald Trump of his current lawyer.
He accused Jay Sekulow, Trump's lawyer, of doing a very serious thing, accusing him of lying to Congress, a felony, of accusing those notorious negotiations.
Look at this.
Sekulow also said not long ago that Cohen's situation was similar.
Although he did not directly deny the substance of these new allegations leaked by Cohen in his testimony following his oath to the House Intelligence Committee.
So with these breaking news, I will go directly to our group.
Pastor Al Sharpton, host of "politicizing" MSNBC.
Richard Stanger, a diplomat in the Obama administration.
Of course, he is also a long-time Watchman in Washington.
He is the editor-in-chief of "TimeMagazine.
Mala guy, member of the editorial board of the New York Times
I'm glad everyone of you is here.
With so many things going on, I want you to be the first to react to the news, including that the Democrats have put in place a strategy to ask the court for help if they say they are delaying.
What do they mean by having the judge order the accounting firm to hand over these materials?
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Stengel: this is Judge Mehta at his 41-
Page's decision, which issued a special statement, said that the Constitution allows Congress to investigate residents of malfeasance, but does not allow Congress to investigate his criminal behavior, is not understandable.
It summed it up with a beautiful phrase.
Ali, I think that's what we 've been focusing on.
This is a challenge and balance between the legal, judicial and congressional areas.
This system is also supported by the judiciary.
Melber: And, Mara, what do you mean when you say to the accounting firm, I think you can try not to obey that.
You will be in contempt soon. Barr and Mr.
Trump has a special job and if an accountant wants to do it, they will be imprisoned on contempt day.
Mara guy, member of the editorial board of the New York Times: of course.
I don't think such extraordinary measures should be taken, but this is especially important given the political polarization that we are in now, because there is a second government department involved and saying, in fact, yes, it is believed that this is the right thing to do-Americans think the judiciary is less political, although this is not always the case.
But I do think that's important, and at a time when American confidence in government really collapses, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, it brings trust to Congress.
But I think this is an important step.
MELBER: Rev, I just mentioned to Steve kornacki that you asked Congressman Cicilline to say in the meet the media daily, look, he's not necessarily at the point of impeachment, but if there's a complete delay, if they pass McGahn's summons again tomorrow, then he thinks it's time to move forward on impeachment.
Do you think this is the next step an outsider or some House Democrats want to do?
Moderator Al Sharpton: I think they're definitely moving fast in that direction.
I think when you see the judge touching on the core issue in real time, I think many people are missing, which is beyond the realm of partisan politics, which side of the aisle is now.
We are talking about the basic structure of the establishment and checks and balances of the US government.
He reminded people that in his decision, Congress had the right, and they were all together.
He spoke at the heart of the issue.
I think that will overlap in other areas as well, because members of Congress and women now have to say, wait a minute, do I now violate the basic principles of checks and balances that now change the tone as a whole.
Because I think what has happened so far, the Trump team has tried to get this party.
The judge was able to go beyond that in many ways, and said, and so on, that they were entitled to conduct an investigation to see if it was necessary to carry out an examination.
I think this is a very important step.
Melber: Well, it's easy to forget when you say that, partly because I think we have a president who wants everyone to forget on Twitter, we are in the early stages of splitting government.
None of the Republicans had asked for everything before.
While Pastor Sharpton doesn't always respond to Republicans and viceversa, what you're saying is similar to what some Republicans are saying in this "political" article published today that we have oversight authority over the government.
One thing is congressional oversight, during which time Republicans are increasingly worried that they don't know that they are two years away from Trump's re-election.
Choose or go back to another world and say it will be an era in which Congress is defined as the whole process of governance?
Sharpton: That's right.
What President Trump and his team are doing is actually weakening oversight.
I think this judgebegan is starting to dial back in another way, and I think it can be very dangerous for the president to look at the financial records if there is anything.
It is clear that there is a suspicion that he has a reason to resist such behavior.
I don't even know if he did.
Sharpton: Well, Melber: Because this is the case, that's why I have to keep an open mind.
In the Russian section of muellerresearch, there have been times when you think they are lying so blatantly that it must be a bad thing.
I'm fair to say that while it's not good to lie, sometimes it's bad for them to be out of habit, either out of hindrance, or out of a desire to hinder, but that does not mean that there are potential criminal acts, at least in demonstrable cases.
So I put this on top of all three of you.
As I mentioned, please listen to Congressman Cicilline in starker's words.
In the last hour of MSNBC. Take a look. (
Start Video Editing)REP.
CICILLINE: If Don McGahn doesn't testify, it's time to start a critical investigation.
The president has been trying to stop our ability to find the truth and collect evidence to get the job done.
This prevents us from finally finding the truth. (END VIDEO CLIP)
So what I want to say is that what we see is the privilege of the institution.
The congressman said it was against me.
Also, what I want to say is that Don mcgang is a citizen.
For years, the White House's aides have objected and said he can testify, but he is no longer an assistant to the White House.
He's a private citizen.
I 'd also like to ask, Ali, Jones Day, his employer.
Washington law firm.
Top law firms, of course.
Stanger: do they want one of their partners to boycott the congressional summons?
As you know, a subpoena means a fine.
He and the law firm will be punished.
Melber: What is he afraid of at this point?
Well, I don't know what he's afraid.
We know what Donald Trump is afraid.
Donald Trump is afraid of the truth.
Donald Trump was afraid that he said, yes, I got a call from the president of the United States at home asking me to fire a special adviser.
If that's not the case for impeachment, I don't know what it is.
Melber: I don't want to talk to you on TV about the power of the TV hearing, but for those who read and report the Miller report carefully, I don't believe Miller did such an incomplete job in interviewing McCann, who quoted the most witnesses, and McGahn would say it was a bunch of new stuff.
I can't say the Trump guy, maybe McGahn, because we have to wait for his news and worry about John Dean doing this
The moment of style, to the Commission, says that everyone hears it, sees it, plays around the United States, and that could unravel some of what Barr did when he misrepresented the report.
Gay: Oh, that's exactly right.
If you compare what my parents said at the water gate event hearing, you compare the Miller report, which is the report of most Americans, and to be honest, I'm not going to sit there and read 400-
Page report, you can really-you can see the difference between this power politics or other power.
I think it's for the modern.
The Kavanaugh hearing is an example.
The whole country was imprisoned for a week, basically a day, looking at this, talking about it, and you don't see this in the Miller report.
So Democrats have a chance.
I think, more importantly, Congress has the opportunity and the obligation to present the findings of the Miller report to the American people.
On top of that, those who testify can tell the American people what happened.
MELBER: because, Rev, there are two types of questions about the obstacles when you look at the allegations.
The first is the fact.
Is Trump trying to improperly fire or expel Miller, right?
Then, what are you going to do about it?
To be frank, I will hold both sides accountable.
So far, Congress has basically said that we don't seem to take any action on this.
This is their campaign representative.
They can decide.
But what even happened in the first part?
You asked Bill Barr to go to "Fox News" and try to say-I think it's shocking, we reported that it didn't happen and he didn't really try to fire Mueller, he was really interested in checking the conflict, but it didn't really happen.
And, you know, don mccohn packed up and called his criminal defense lawyer because he was worried that he would go to jail if he didn't stop it.
None of this happened.
This is the attorney general of the United States.
Sharpton: in fact, they said it didn't happen, which does leave here more reasons why Congress now has to actively deal with looking at the financial records and looking at what has been said.
I'm not going to rush to say that because emmerle has been interviewed for 30 hours by mcghain and others, we know everything because what we don't know if in fact there is a hindrance
As you reported, don't forget that Michael Cohen just said the president's lawyer had him lie.
Who else went in and was taught to lie?
You're telling me not to forget that.
How can I not forget if I don't know, Rev?
But that's my point.
We do not know if anyone has been instructed or for any reason has not said the whole truth or the whole lie, which is based on the obstruction.
So you have to deal with these obstacles in order to really find out if we know everything about collusion.
I think you're talking very well.
This brings us to Congressman Justin Amash, a liberal Republican and a member of the Republican Party.
I would like to read you a little bit of what he has arranged this weekend.
He said, "after a real study of Miller's report, there are many examples of conduct that address all the factors that impede justice.
There is no doubt that anyone who is not the president will be prosecuted on the basis of this evidence.
He went on to say, "impeachment, a special form of judgment, does not even require possible reasons.
"I think it's very important for our goal because Republicans are using reverse engineering for this issue again," we don't care, we do what we want to do.
He's fine in the Senate.
But many Democratic leaders also use it to say, "What's the point ? "?
"So as a journalist and a former diplomat dealing with the credibility of the government, it doesn't matter when talking to you in your role-it's better for Congress to deal with whether or not these obstacles occur, even if we don't know, or do we rule that he may not be removed for that?
Stenger: of course.
This is their investigation function.
I think the interesting thing about Amash is this.
He's a conservative Republican.
In terms of economics, Frederick koyette is his idol.
In fact, what Trump has done to block Justice and over-execution is exactly what traditional conservative Republicans oppose.
They have been holding on.
He may be just the tip of the iceberg, because he is opposed not only on ideological grounds, but also on the grounds that conservative opposition to excessive enforcement.
Melber: Pastor Ritchie Stanger, Mara guy and Al Sharpton, thank you for the hospitality of each and every one of you.
You can also catch Rev at 5: 00 on the political weekend. m. Eastern.
Next, the presidential candidate and Senator Kamala Harris live with me.
She unveiled a comprehensive plan to close what she said was the gender pay gap across the United States.
We're going to talk about this and all the breaking news, the Trump summons, and whether these tax records are going to be forked.
We are a few hours away from the nationwide protests against abortion.
If the Supreme Court gets stuck with some state councillors, what do they actually do?
OK, Neal Katyal is here to prepare the opening remarks and all the answers for you for another edition.
Later, for college graduates, the surprise of 0. 1 billion millionaires may reveal the country's direction in exempting student loan debt. I`m Ari Melber.
You're watching the beat on MSNBC. (
Melber: Thousands of protesters marched in Alabama to protest the toughest opposition
Abortion law in the country.
Eight states passed these laws this year alone.
Now, Republican supporters say their clear goal is to bring the abortion ban to the Supreme Court to narrow the case of Roe v. Roy. Wade.
It's about abortion and women's rights, but it's obviously also about politics.
Look at what the Trump campaign thinks is his "political" story.
When the Democratic candidate vows to protect Roe, the election may open. (
Start Video Editing)SEN.
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Presidential candidates: they tried to overthrow RoyWade.
Wrong. we will fight back. SEN.
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders: women in this country should not control their bodies, which is unbelievable.
They have constitutional rights. SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA)
Presidential candidate: will we not support women's access to productive health care being attacked? (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: So how did America do it? S.
The Supreme Court deals with bills designed to involve the court in the election year dispute?
If the lower courts actually put pressure on the judges to take action, can the judges find a way?
Now let's ask experts about these issues.
My opening remarks are Neil cadal, former deputy attorney general.
He has tried dozens of cases in the Supreme Court as a private lawyer and Acting Attorney General of President Obama.
Have a good day.
Former Attorney General Neil Cardall: happy holiday to you.
Ali, I miss you.
Well, we miss each other.
When you see what is happening here, explain to us what the Supreme Court has done in balancing it with the obvious handling of certain cases, especially if they have to address the problems of the lower courts, but before that, what you told us was that Chief Justice Roberts and the rest of the court were keenly aware that politicians might be involved in an election dispute. KATYAL: Yes.
Therefore, it is often said that the Supreme Court and the laws of the United States, in general, are based on the idea of precedent.
This sentence uses the Latin phrase descisis.
The concept here is that basically the Supreme Court follows the practice of the previous court.
It's kind of like wisdom, how our past generation has handled things or past decisions.
So they really don't want to overturn the rules.
They do it sometimes, but they rarely do it.
So I think the best example is RoeV. Wade.
I think a lot of people think it's not the best.
The ruling, which was executed, involved its legal reasoning, but the Supreme Court issued an opinion on 1992, which included three Republican appointees, Reagan appointees and business leaders, Kennedy, Sutter and Austria.
Wade, should support the precedent behind it.
Therefore, even if we have some problems in decision-making, social expectations are in Roe V.
Wade and it will destroy the dominance of the stadium.
This is the general way in which the courts deal with these matters, that is, we follow the precedent of our past.
However, there is a question in this court, a big question mark, will they do that?
Melber: you see some comments made by Judge Breyer through a fairly restrained and extensive ruling.
But he said, "it is dangerous to overturn the verdict, only because the five members of a later court agreed to earlier opponents on a thorny legal issue.
Then he said, "Today's decision can only make people wonder what cases the court will veto next . "
"What do you think is the point?
KATYAL: it means a lot.
So the case itself is a relatively small problem, no difference from abortion.
This is the case of the Franchise Tax Commission decided by the court last week.
But Judge Breyer, a very, very gentle judge, expressed his concern that members of the more conservative courts would not follow the precedent rules and would not follow the gaze decision.
The first example of rubber meeting the road is abortion.
Will they follow the 1992 decision?
What's going on in Alabama, it's all for this, Ali.
So I mean, our Alabama state lawmaker says we think the Conservatives in the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Roy. Wade.
Of course, President Trump has promised only judges who support him. life justices.
Melber: I ask you, do you think that public politics and strategy are in line with the law here?
Do you think they are smart? Or does this make it more difficult for some of the votes they need in court? KATYAL: Right.
I mean, Thurgood Marshall, who really pioneered the modern Supreme Court proceedings, said, "Look, I have this ultimate goal of removing apartheid in our society, but I can't
If I go in and do it once, the court won't buy it.
"Here, Alabama is trying to get in and do it at the same time.
I mean, it's a very extreme bill that prohibits abortion at any stage, including rape and incest, so it doesn't even comply with Ronald Reagan's test of abortion law.
So I do think that if this is the case of the rise, the Supreme Court might say, well, it's too much and it's back to Roe v.
Wade will be overturned.
But, in other states, there are laws that are being considered
It's called Heartbeat in Georgia and elsewhere.
All of this is a more moderate strategy to bring a lawsuit to the Supreme Court after the election, not before, they think they have a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Of course, this is possible-Melber: Yes.
KATYAL:-no change in the composition of the United StatesS. Supreme Court.
Melber: I also want to buy kawarar, which is what kawarnog meant last year. MELBER: Right.
I would also like to have you at some constitutional fireworks party.
Republican Congressman Amash said Trump's actions could be impeached, a new response from the president. Take a look. (
Start Video Editing)
US President Donald Trump: he opposed Trump from the beginning.
He may want to go to another office.
I don't think he will do very well.
He's been losing for a long time.
Few Republicans vote
Personally, I don't think he is much. (END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: there is no very substantial response to what Amash said.
I would like to know that if you agree with him, potential actions will be prosecuted if others do so. KATYAL: Yes.
So I attended a meeting so I didn't see that clip.
But I think it's basically new. KATYAL: Yes.
So I think-I mean, you can see from Trump that there is no legal reasoning here.
By contrast, there is a letter signed by nearly a thousand former federal prosecutors, and there are not so many former federal prosecutors around.
Overall, this is a small number and thousands of people are moving forward, saying it would be prosecuted if it were not the president.
So the whole idea of the president is that Mueller's report clarifies his idea, that is, the use of the technical legal term poppycock.
If the president thinks he's right to be approved, it doesn't matter, let's have a heart, let's prove it in a way that you or I are accused of obstructing justice.
Neil Katia, it's always a pleasure to get your insights.
I want to remind you that you can go to msnbc.
Com/openingarguments can see this and other fragments.
Just like the free law school here.
Senator and 2020 candidate Kamala Harris are live. (
Start Video Editing)
Harris: has anyone from the president or the White House asked or suggested that you investigate anyone?
William Barr, Attorney General of the United States: the president or anyone else. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: question Bill Barr's holding of Trump's White House account and a new plan to get equal pay.
We need to make everything clear. That`s next. (
Presidential candidates and American presidential candidatesS.
Senator Kamala Harris has launched a new plan to close the gender wage gap. (
Start Video Editing)
People are working.
In order to put the food on the table, they did two or three jobs.
In our United States, no one should work more than one to put food on the table with a roof on the head. (END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: these proposals make headlines tonight. toughapproach.
Harris will force companies to prove that they pay equally between different genders, or face public humiliation and strict fines from the federal government.
On 2020, Senator Kamala Harris, the candidate, joined me. Thank you.
It's a pleasure to be with you.
Thank you for coming. Absolutely. Hi Ali. MELBER: Hi.
Let's start with this.
What is your plan to close the gender pay gap?
First of all, it's just a fact, right?
So the reality is that we don't have to argue about the fact that women earn $0 on average.
$80 for men.
If you're talking about Africans
American woman, that's $0. 61.
If it's Latin, it's $0. 53.
So there is a clear question that we are not only around the controversy, but also around the pay for fair and equal work.
So let's go beyond that because it's not a controversial point of view.
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
I think the goal that we all agree with should be that people should be paid equally for equal work.
But we haven't reached that level yet.
We have to create momentum to get there.
So my suggestion is that we shift the burden from that working woman, but to that company to prove that they are paying people equally.
Because this is the truth, Ali, there are women in the United States every day, working with one of their colleagues at the water dispenser, doing the same work they are doing, and then, they might start talking about what they bought their kids for Christmas, or what you know, what the new car is, or what the new washing machine they bring in, for that woman, obviously they were not paid the same.
What about her?
She will go to the supervisor and if we get the same amount, the supervisor may tell her that we can't disclose the situation of others.
So what should she do?
Well, Xie Kan complained to EEOC.
She can try to look into her salary by herself.
She may be, you know, in terms of litigation.
But why should she and her burden figure out that she is not getting the same pay?
This will be the work of the leaders of these companies.
Melber: Well, let me-let me get to know this in depth because you call it a burden.
This is what President Obama is working with Congress.
Let's take a look when they go through LedbetterAct. HARRIS: Yes. (
Start Video Editing)
Former US President Barack Obama: Lily could have accepted her fate and moved on.
She could have decided that it was not worth shouting for what she deserved.
But she believes that there is a principle that is worth fighting. (END VIDEO CLIP)
I think it's interesting to see your plan today.
You said it was a good start, but the burden of individual prosecution should not take years as you said.
Why is it important for the government to step in here?
Harris: First of all, I applaud the president of the Obama administration, Barack Obama, and Lily Ludham himself, who and they provide extraordinary leadership on this issue, but now is the time to take the next step, that is to shift the burden from that woman to prove that she is not paid the same, instead, focus on the company to prove that if they are a good business, what they do is the right thing to do is to pay people equal pay for equal work.
That's what we need.
What will eventually happen is what you call humiliation.
I don't think so, but what we need is that they will do that-Melber: well, but you don't think that's a good thing.
You have this plan and you will have them show publicly what they are doing or they fail.
Isn't it a shame if they fail?
Harris: sure, but I think it's a positive incentive.
Harris: But I want to tell you why, Ali.
I want to tell you.
Because look, when they know they have to start reporting publicly, you know, there may be people who haven't looked into this. MELBER: Sure.
Harris: But some people do.
I mean, you see, the sales guys are doing a good job.
Microsoft has been doing a good job. (INAUDIBLE)
I did a good job.
So there are companies-Melber: So, let me give you an example-have you been to cities like New York? Where will they provide A, B or c for the food?
Harris: I have, I 've been walking all the time-just walk past it with something less than A, that's right.
Melber: If you-if your score is too low, then-there's a bit of a regret whether it's important or not-Harris: Well, there will be results.
But there should be an order, Ali.
If the company does not pay people equal pay for equal work, there should be consequences.
Women should be taken care of as much as men, but this is not the case.
This has not changed for decades.
So we have to change the way we deal with it.
The way I propose that we change is that companies have to look into and analyze how they pay to employees, and then they have to report that information as their business.
Then, when they applied for a job, the woman, even the man, and anyone-Melber: Yes, it's gender, so it's not fair at all.
Harris: But no matter who applied for the job of that company or the consumer of that company's products, they can look at the company and decide whether to encourage good or bad behavior.
Melber: Now, if you don't mind me going deep into the written plan, there's one more thing about the details.
Harris: Yes, please. Yes.
You have one-for-
One thing you said is, well, 1% off, if your gender equality ratio is reduced by 1%, you will give up a part of the profit.
Harris: That's right.
Now, I want to get your answer on the command.
You know, people say something about you as candidates.
Sometimes they say, oh, well, she's "bold enough. ”HARRIS: OK.
I don't know what that means. Harris: I don't know.
But I saw it one by one and I thought it was really bold.
I mean, if a company has a pay gap of 15%, as you told us just now, they will give up 15% of their profits?
Harris: Yes, they will be fined a profit of 15%.
Melber: That's a lot.
I mean, did you hear from a donor on Wall Street?
Are you true? I think what I'm covering up is true?
Harris: that's true, because look, Ali, that woman is paid 80 cents for every dollar. that's true.
The salary of another woman is 61 cents, which is true.
It's true that other women are paid 53 cents on the dollar.
She sat at the kitchen table in the middle of the night trying to figure out how she would pay the bill.
The next morning, when she woke up at the same time, was the person who worked in the cubicle next to her, and she did the same job, but she was not paid the same.
This is true, too.
MELBER: very, very strong, very interesting.
I want to tell you some other breaking news. HARRIS: OK.
Michael Cohen told Congress that the president's lawyer had told him to lie to Congress.
Do you believe that? If so, what do you want to do about it?
Harris: I think we should look into it.
I think people need to respond to the summons and show up in front of the US Congress so that we can figure out what's going on as supervised.
I have made it very clear.
I think there is no doubt that the Muellerreport outlines which are-possibly indictable offences, but they are not-and the indictment has not been returned, because I believe they rely on the memo from the office legal counsel and there is still a lot of work to be done to let the American public know exactly what is going on.
Melber: Does the president promise that the president has blocked it?
Harris: Well, of course, when you look at the outline in Miller's report, there is good reason to believe that he has done it, and we need to have Congress do its job and then respond to the American public.
Hayes: I want to buy you a few other broken items.
Bill Barr, the attorney general you struggled with, just gave a new interview to The Wall Street Journal, followed by an interview with Fox News.
In the Wall Street Journal, he said he had reason to do so even if Trump looked very protected.
He said, "I feel that the rules have been changed and hurt Trump, and I think it is harmful for the presidency.
Just a while ago, Donald Trump came out from white roommates and made very similar statements about why they were blocking Congress. Take alook. (
Start Video Editing)
US President Donald Trump: As far as I know, they are doing this for the presidential office of the future president.
I think this is a very important precedent.
Lawyers say they're not for me, they're for the president's office. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: is this for the president's office, in your opinion?
Harris: I believe that the attorney general of bar has proved himself that he thinks his primary duty is to the president, not to the American public.
I believe that I think there is clear evidence that he made the decision with priority rather than as a people's lawyer, which is not a priority for managing the Department of Justice of the United States, it should fight for justice for all, not for the president, to exclude the American public.
I would like to know what you think about his Fox News interview.
Let's play a few for your reaction. Take alook. (
Start Video Editing)
William barr, Attorney General of the United States: we should be concerned about whether government officials are abusing their authority and putting their thumbs on scale.
So I'm not saying this has happened, but I am saying that we have to take this into account and do research against such as this, especially a study that has many obvious errors on the surface.
It would be a strange development for them to use this as a strange means to carry out counter-intelligence.
If you were the President, I think he would think it was a witch. Hunter and prank. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Harris: I think we all know very well that justice is getting in the way and there is good reason to believe that this administration is not in contact with the US Congress or the American people.
It is also clear, I believe, that when the attorney general makes it clear that his prejudice against the president and his disapproval of justice, he is not in a position to talk about what is biased or disapproving.
Melber: So when you say that, I think a lot of people are moved by your very precise lawyer's questions.
Barr and he were unable to answer some of these questions directly after the oath.
Why do you think we haven't met Sir?
Miller spoke to the Senate Judicial Committee?
What's going on there is, at the end of the day, it really belongs to Democrats, or Mr Obama.
He was lying when Bal said he didn't stop the testimony?
I really don't know, Ali.
But I firmly believe and have always said that Bob Miller should be able to come to the US Congress and tell us why he ended the investigation in his way.
I think those of us who used to be prosecutors, those of us who were able to read OLC, the Office of Counsel for advisory opinions is very clear, and nearly 1,000 former employees of the US Department of Justice are very clear, these are actionable offences, but the office of the legal counsel believes that they will be charged for prosecution.
So we need to get Bob Miller to clarify this for the American public.
But Ali, even if he doesn't, I think everyone knows this very well. I really do.
When you look at this letter, you will see a non-partisan group of nearly 1,000 former prosecutors, they work with the Justice Department as professional lawyers. these are actionable crimes. I think we should believe them.
Melber: You're also talking about abortion and women's rights. Harris: Yes.
Melber:-from your-to your other candidates in this game.
Do you think this is a problem with any difference in this field?
For example, Senator Joe Biden also serves on your regional committee.
He voted to confirm Scalia to the court.
Is it wrong for him to do so?
Will you do that?
Is there any difference in Roy v. Wade? Or you're basically the same.
Harris: I mean, I haven't done a full analysis of where the variable scan date is, but I'll tell you what's going on in Alabama, what's likely going on in Missouri, Georgia, have a completeAttack, all-
Once women are attacked and they have access to reproductive health, we will have to be vigilant and we will have to fight.
As you know, I am traveling across the country, and both men and women are very worried and worried about the consequences of these laws that are being passed that violate the Constitution, but there is also a clear design spirit, women are denied the right to make decisions about their bodies.
You will remember-you will want to talk about the hearing, and you will remember the kavanaugh hearing when I ask him if there is any law telling a person what he should do with his body.
There are a lot of basic issues with Playright right now, and we all have to be vigilant.
I am proud to do what we can to encourage people to support folkson, Alabama, to get resources for women there and for supporters there.
This is a key issue.
I'm thinking about the arc here.
We start with some of your plans in economics about gender equality, and now we're talking about gender equality in medical decision-making.
I want to get used to a 30-
The second break, which we did on the beat, came back 30 years later, including our Lightning Round with Senator Harris. HARRIS: OK. (
Mayber: It's the United States that came back with me. S.
Senator and 2020 candidate Kamala Harris
Thank you for waiting 30 minutes with me and I hope most of the audience is listening to you.
You also looked into a topic before the lightning wheel, but there was a big debate about what is the best way to deal with police shootings and so-called police brutality?
As a prosecutor, you already know very well that you want to stand up and deal with this, but you sometimes take a different point of view from some.
When there is a reform proposal for independent investigation, I would like to read some of what you said.
You said, "I don't think it's a good public policy to get discretion from the elected DA.
Where there are drawbacks, we have designed a system to solve these problems.
As you know, after many of these events, some people think that independent investigation is better, and they make D. A.
Investigate the projects they work on every day.
Have you changed your mind or what is the best way?
Harris: I think the best way is to conduct an independent investigation.
So, I was wondering what changed your mind.
Are you seeing these cases?
Ali, I can explain if you have time.
When I was a district attorney in San Francisco, I encountered a case where I refused to accept the death penalty and some people disagreed with my decision and wanted to take over the case from me.
So I have a very real personal experience and I have to try to keep my case.
My argument is that I was elected to exercise my caution and no one will take my case from me.
Frankly, it is this personal experience that tells me the principle that these situations should not be obtained from those elected to exercise their discretion.
But on this issue-Melber: But you think it's different.
Yes, but I think it's a different question. MELBER: Right.
Harris: This is a question about what we need to do in these shootings, and I think we all know very well that it has to be taken from the first moment of the incident, in this way, we can determine and be sure that a thorough investigation has been conducted and is not informed by prejudice, so that all people will be treated fairly.
So I'm definitely-Melber: copy.
I know there is a lot of experience in this area.
I want to have lightning with you and we treat all candidates fairly.
OK, but can I go back to one thing and then I do the lightning ground?
I dropped the lightning just now. we were so excited.
Yes, of course, there is one more thing before Harris.
I just want-and I want to stress, too, that the issue of pay equity, the issue of women's choices, is about women's values.
This is about the value of women.
That's-you know, if you want to find a symmetrical line, it's about giving women value, it's about their ability to make decisions about their bodies, this is about their right to equal pay for equal work.
Okay, Lightning wheels. I`m ready.
Okay, she said the Lightning went around. Here it is.
If, as your perfect running mate, you could let anyone live or die, who would that be?
Harris: What do you think?
I like it.
You like cooking. We did read it.
What do you want to do when you need to relax or relax?
Harris: roast chicken. No question.
I just-I have some herbs in my garden, chopped, chopped some garlic, put it there, let it sit for a day, bake it, you know, put a lemon in it, it is the best dinner and comfortable food.
Melber: I can-at least on the East Coast, I can feel people saying, maybe that's what we're going to do for dinner. Favoritealbum?
Harris: my favorite album, which I think is the song in the key to life.
Steve Wangda, beautiful album.
Do you remember which reggae star you quoted in your speech?
Melber: Why did you cite it in that speech to stand up?
Because it's all about defending our rights. Shall I sing?
Yes. do you want it?
No, I won't do that. I was joking.
I don't want to do this to your audience.
Hayes: that's okay.
Biden said he asked Obama not to support him.
Have you ever asked not to support you like Oprah, Taylor Swift, or George Clooney?
Harris: I will accept, you know-no, I won't refuse if they provide endorsements.
Melber: If you can get the support of Obama, you will accept it.
Of course I will.
I think we have done a lot of work.
You have made a lot of policies, but at the end of the weapons and equipment, you also had a great time playing with us.
Harris: Thank you.
Senator Harris, I hope you will be back in the game.
Harris: Sure. Thank you, Ari.
MELBER: Thank you.
We will be back soon. (
Start Video Editing)
So don't try to shut people out.
Don't try to close them, no matter how much you disagree with them.
Oprah Winfrey, an American executive: you want to dominate your life because life drives you if you don't.
Comedian Alan dejeris: I haven't been to college at all, and I haven't been to any college at all.
I'm not saying you're wasting your time and money but looking at me.
I'm a Celebrity. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: From the commencement speech to the great moment of the season.
This weekend, another star is speaking to another house College student, billionaire Robert Smith, who goes beyond wisdom or jokes and promises to pay off student loans for every senior student there. (
Start Video Editing)
Robert Smith, chairman of vista equity partners: we will put a little fuel on your bus.
I have alumni over there.
Alumni, this is a challenge for you.
This is my class, 2019, and my family is giving grants to eliminate their student loans. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Students and relatives were surprised in the crowd.
Now, expensive universities are nothing new, but it is a crisis. Consider this. U. S.
Student loan debt reached its highest point in history, surpassing the debt of credit cards and credit cards.
Now, many people are praising Smith for his generosity, but his contribution also highlights a key issue for young people.
They took on so much debt in a system without a path of forgiveness.
So some people wonder if this is not only something to celebrate but also a policy consideration.
Now, a Republican lawmaker says Trump's actions can be impeached.
Next, we will show you the response. (
Start Video Editing)REP.
David Xilin (D-RI)
If Don McGahn does not testify, it is time to initiate an impeachment investigation.
The president has been trying to stop our ability to find the truth and collect evidence to get the job done.
This prevented us from finally finding out the facts. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Melber: You 've just heard a member of the committee who has the right to initiate the impeachment process say it's time.
After the ad was released by billionaire Democratic donor Tom Steyer(
Start Video Editing)
This is a message.
Unidentified woman: leader of the Democratic Party.
The president broke the law for more than two years.
Unknown man: nothing happened.
Unidentified male: You told us to wait for Miller's investigation.
When he showed obstruction of justice-unidentified male: nothing happened.
Woman: Now you tell us to wait for the next election?
Man: really? (END VIDEO CLIP)MELBER: Really?
It's not Jerry Seinfeld, it's Tom Steyer, who will go all out tomorrow to explain why he's spending so crazy, a recognition of the Democratic backbones of Congress.
This is for me.
"Now the hard ball begins.
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.