Updated
Summary
Former Trump lawyers now blaming former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows for election plot. New calls to indict Trump amidst evidence he planned the Capitol march in advance. White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, at the January 6 hearing, suggested that Mike Pence should be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his courageous actions. Singer Phoebe Bridgers talks to Ari Melber on choice and women`s rights.
Transcript
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: Thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these truly extraordinary times. We are grateful. THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER starts right now.
Hi, Ari.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Hi, Nicolle. Nice to see you again.
Welcome to THE BEAT, everyone. And we are following a lot of news including this today from the January 6th Committee, quote, “More evidence and more people coming forward.” And witnesses now sharing more just in these past few days. All of this comes with the heat on Trump and the evidence that he furtively, secretly planned that march in advance.
Also new, former Trump lawyer Ty Cobb — remember him from the Mueller probe, he defended Trump to the hilt, but now he says, quote, “I do think criminal,” well, put that back up. I do think, quote, “criminal prosecutions are coming for Donald Trump.” It is quite a story there as he spoke to “Rolling Stone.”
Other insiders looking at the heat on Mark Meadows. Quote, “They think Meadows is going down.” And eight Trump insiders and sources spoke to this issue. One says, he`ll get pulverized. Another, he does not actually believe any of the election theft stuff he was trying to perform for Trump. That is bad, if it was all a lie and he knew it the whole time and other people are dishing on it.
Meanwhile, you have all the evidence from Hutchinson. She was Meadows` top staffer, remember, which puts heat on him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER AIDE TO WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MARK MEADOWS: I perceived his goal with all this to keep Trump in office. When he began acknowledging that maybe there wasn`t enough voter fraud to overturn the election, you know, I witnessed him start to explore potential constitutional loopholes more extensively.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Now what you see in this reporting and what these people are saying is an effort to make him the, quote, “fall guy.” Meanwhile, we have news about this final hearing. Yes, there`s been a lot but the last one is scheduled for prime time which means it will reach many more Americans. Also puts pressure on the networks and FOX to cover it. The Justice Department is also watching while some DOJ veterans are saying Garland is not doing enough.
Indeed, we have Adam Schiff coming up tonight. I am going to ask him about what Andrew Weissmann told us last night about that. And when it comes to experienced lawyers, well, we have one with me right now. You probably know his face. Barry Berke is a nationally renowned trial lawyer and he was counsel for both of the impeachments of Donald Trump.
Welcome back.
BARRY BERKE, FORMER TRUMP IMPEACHMENT SPECIAL COUNSEL: Thanks, Ari. It`s my pleasure to be here.
MELBER: Mark Meadows, in the soup after being loyal for Trump. Anyone who`s followed this knows that pattern. What do you make of those reports of Trump aides speaking to “Rolling Stone” and elsewhere, that they want to push on him?
BERKE: Yes. I do think that most of that attention is coming from those people trying to defend Donald Trump. No, it`s Mark Meadows who`s the bad guy, not Donald Trump. The reality is Mark Meadows` criminal exposure is as a conspirator, a conspirator with Donald Trump to interfere with the elections. And I think the focus should stay on Donald Trump because the last hearings provided even more powerful evidence of his responsibility. And there were others involved as well.
Sure, Mark Meadows may have more exposure because it`s been now said that he admitted that the election was over. There was no evidence of a fraud. But there`s plenty of evidence of Donald Trump, too. So I think if you do see a conspiracy, it is likely that Mark Meadows will be one of those co- conspirators, along with others who may be lawyers.
MELBER: Now this isn`t Trump`s first rodeo. I mentioned that you`ve dealt with him twice in a very real setting. The same article says that Trump is now sounding things out, practicing and he`s telling people, you know, Mark was doing all kinds of stuff that I just didn`t know about. What do you do if you were dealing with a case like this, with that kind of potential defense?
BERKE: See, Donald Trump is a master at obstruction and trying to hide the ball and trying to deflect attention. The problem we have here is because once an independent Department of Justice held Steve Bannon in contempt, all those people close to Trump who saw and knew the truth came in and provided testimony. So typically he`s speaking into a vacuum where there`s nothing direct to contradict it so it confuses the issues.
It draws attention away from the circumstantial other evidence. But here, we have people like Pat Cipollone, his loyal White House counsel, saying exactly what happened. So I think those arguments are going to fall on very deaf ears and actually be deflated by the force of the evidence like what we saw about his own decision-making in sending that tweet on December 19th, which I think was so powerful how it was presented after that “Game of Thrones” meeting. And everybody wants to focus on the crazy side of it.
MELBER: Are you saying “Game of Thrones” because of the red wedding reference?
BERKE: I think that is definitely a reference to the “Game of Thrones.”
MELBER: It is a reference.
BERKE: We know what it means. Spoken like a White House —
MELBER: Spoken like a lawyer.
BERKE: We know what it means. So —
MELBER: Spoken like a lawyer. That is a reference.
[18:05:01]
BERKE: It is. Now people want to talk about how crazy those people were.
MELBER: Yes.
BERKE: But remember, both sides of that “Game of Thrones” meetings were dire Trump supporters.
MELBER: Right.
BERKE: And defenders. Pat Cipollone.
MELBER: Right.
BERKE: Eric Herschmann, we saw them defend Trump at the first impeachment trial. That`s where they made their bones. I was there, I saw it. So what to me was most significant was when Pat Cipollone said, sure, make Sidney Powell a special counsel, no one is going to believe her. And a lightbulb went out. Wait a second, I thought I had a strategy regardless of there not being any evidence. But now I`m being told by Pat Cipollone it won`t work.
I am going to take matters into my own hands. That night I`m going to send out an e-mail telling folks, my supporters.
MELBER: Right.
BERKE: Who I know include violent people come to D.C. January 6th will be wild. And that started it all.
MELBER: And I think the hearing yesterday and the point you`re drawing everyone`s attention to is, although it was a separate step, it showed one illicit goal that was so over the line, as you say, the hardcore people were pushing back. Let`s not try to use the military, it won`t work, and you`ll fall apart. And that led to a different illicit goal. And that goes, as you say, to the intent.
Stay with me. This is the lawyer`s side. I want to add some reporting here and we have a great one that I think many viewers know, congressional investigations reporter for the “Washington Post” Jackie Alemany. She`s reporting now on how Trump hid the plan for the march. Hid the Capitol march.
You have something in common with a lot of people watching the newscast right now, which is, you watch these hearings, a lot comes at you, and you try to make sense of it. We showed you a report in the headline because clearly you and the “Washington Post” see something in the hiding of that. Explain.
JACQUELINE ALEMANY, THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTER: Absolutely, Ari. What we — what really stood to us in this hearing yesterday was the secrecy that was behind some of the messages and evidence that the committee obtained.
You saw text messages from Ali Alexander, really the ideological grandfather of the Stop the Steal movement, at least according to him, and text messages between Kylie Kramer and Mike Lindell. All of which said, we are going to marching to the Capitol. The former president might potentially join us. We`ve gotten this intel, but keep it hush- hush. Not too many people can know.
There was a reason for this secrecy. That is still unclear where they got these directives from, though. And I think that`s what`s potentially missing from this hearing yesterday. A direct line sort of tying the former president to the people who were actually involved with the rally. It`s unclear who this liaison might have been. But at the end of the day these people had gotten directives from someone and had a pretty good idea of what the former president`s mindset at the time and his intent. What he was going to try to do and what he was going to say at that rally at the Ellipse on January 6th ahead of the ultimate riot and breach of Capitol security.
MELBER: So on the evidence, you think they definitely landed that furtive secretive approach, which went to some of the written material that looked bad for Trump. We`re going to fake it as spontaneous but it`s not. But you`re also pointing out that, in your reporting, they didn`t necessarily fully land, the ties to the extremists. Do you think that`s a hole for the committee at this point?
ALEMANY: Absolutely. Yes. At least if the committee is trying to convince the Department of Justice to go after the hardest to prove crime which both of you would know this better than me as lawyers, but seditious conspiracy. There were people like Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, who were in touch with people like Enrique Tarrio. People who have already been charged with seditious conspiracy.
But just how close in contact Roger Stone was with Donald Trump and whether or not they ultimately served as sort of the liaison or the intimate intermediary like any sort of good mob boss to those extremists still remains unclear. From our reporting so far, we have heard that there is no silver bullet per se. We`ve also approached many of these people and asked them point-blank. Of course their credibility is to be questioned. And they claimed that there is no there, there.
That being said, you know, prosecutors might ultimately decide that most of this was done in plain sight. And that`s why I think the whistleblower from Twitter was such an important voice. That even if that evidence — that explicit evidence doesn`t necessarily exist, it was still clear what the former president was doing and he was well aware of what he was doing publicly, explicitly in his own words directing people to go to the Capitol and watching in real time that activation and galvanizing of these extremists and pro-Trump supporters who ultimately consisted of the mob.
MELBER: Really interesting. And Jackie, you break it down including what could be a potential evidentiary hole. I could tell you because you`re not here in the room with me and Barry, I`m getting strong lawyer rebuttal energy from Barry, and the next time he`s back on the —
ALEMANY: Let`s hear it, Barry.
MELBER: Well, the next — because I`ve got Congressman Schiff waiting. The next time Mr. Berke is back on the program, we will get into that. I could feel it.
[18:10:01]
And Jackie, we always appreciate your straight reporting.
ALEMANY: Thanks for having.
MELBER: Thanks to both of you.
As mentioned, Congressman Adam Schiff is here. That`s coming up. Also, there is a backlash brewing in all this talk about Trump witness heroes? I am going to get into why it is absurd to talk about a Medal of Freedom for Mike Pence.
And by the end of the hour, we`ll do something a little different. Yes, a lot of talk about insurrection and serious news, but we have the Phoebe Bridgers, the Grammy nominated singer and songwriter, both on her music, her lyrics and her activism. It`s her debut on THE BEAT. We`re excited about that. Stay tuned tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: This seventh insurrection hearing covered lots of ground. In MSNBC primetime coverage last night, Rachel was reporting about how it did sprawl out more than previous hearings.
[18:15:07]
Maybe the committee is throwing in some certain items that don`t always fit into one storyline. And that brings us to a breakdown of the unhinged White House meeting on December 18th because it was something of a last-stand for efforts to steal the election which failed and led to Trump`s decision to organize the rally on the 6th. But that meeting has gotten less attention than things that were carried out like the march to the Capitol, where the violent and criminal storming occurred.
This was the meeting that was so shady even in the Trump White House it was off the books, which may go to Trump`s intent. A meeting with such controversial figures, they weren`t allowed to even be at the White House like Sidney Powell, convict Michael Flynn, and a corporate executive. It was a meeting that the most extreme version of a coup, a plan to order the military to abuse its power at the Department of Defense to help Trump steal the election.
Now a draft of that plan was even written down which is why lawyers ranging from the White House counsel to Rudy Giuliani warned Trump don`t try to get the secretary of Defense to do this. It won`t work and it`s a crime.
Now we know this is too much for even Giuliani so we have some idea why there were so much shouting in those different rooms that they moved around to about who was tough or a coward or worse, and how it lasted over five hours. They were fighting over whether to involve the military.
Now how did these people even get into the White House without an appointment or clearance? It`s not like skipping the line at the DMV. It`s something that actually mystified this probe latest star witness, Trump White House counsel Cipollone at the time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You did get to see the president without an appointment.
SIDNEY POWELL, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ATTORNEY: We did.
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: I didn`t understand how they had gotten in. The first thing I did, I walked in, I looked at him and I said, who are you?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: He didn`t get how they were in that meeting. Now the hearing didn`t delve into that part much further yesterday. But we actually do know how they got in. And the link may be telling. The aide to a Trump adviser who was secretly pushing a different plan, what he called a sweep or a coup for January 6th, Peter Navarro, had his own staffer help. And that staffer later admitted sneaking Flynn and Powell in that night, which was such a breach even in the lawless Trump White House that Chief of Staff Meadows revoked that staffer`s ability to ever let anyone else in the White House again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I waived in General Flynn and Sidney Powell on the 18th, on the Friday night of the 18th for which Mark Meadows` office revoked my guest privileges. I could no longer get people into the complex after that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Yes. You can`t get people into the complex after you sneak them in. Sneaking anyone in, let alone those kind of coup plotters. So, one, Meadows had clearly lost some control. Two, notice this, as we pull on the thread, the same guy plotting a January 6th sweep or a coup with Bannon had an aide helping out here, which makes you wonder if that aide just went rogue or was acting with the support of his boss, Navarro at the time.
Now back before this was in any public hearing, we did press Mr. Navarro about this. And notice this, the normally loud Trump warrior suddenly went pretty quiet, saying he had no comment or knowledge about all of that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Was it wrong for your aide to facility that meeting and was that plan to involve the military bad?
PETER NAVARRO, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: I have no comment on that. I had no knowledge of that. He was working off the reservation. It was not at my direction.
MELBER: And was it a bad idea or wrong to pursue the military to seize American voting machines?
NAVARRO: That`s — that I would like to get more to the bottom of. That`s not something that I would`ve put forward by any stretch of the imagination.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That, even for him, is not something by any stretch of the imagination he wants a part of. Again, this speaks to what Mr. Berke raised earlier in the program. Some of this stuff was still too far for people who still wanted to steal the election.
But here`s the link. It was that night when Donald Trump dropped the military plan after the hours of fighting that he first announced the rally and what would be the secret march on January 6th. For the first time. And he began that now infamous tweet by citing Navarro, whose aide was linked in the meeting I just told you about.
Look at it here. Quote, “Peter Navarro released his 36-page report which could swing it for Trump.” This is the first tweet that then announces the, quote, “big protest on January 6th. It will be wild.”
[18:20:04]
This is the link. Now you need more evidence if you`re taking this to court, but what you have here is the dropping of the military plan that was too far even for them, and in the same night, the same hours aways, seizing on the Navarro plan which was ultimately to obstruct or overthrow the lawful counting on the 6th, which gives context to what Trump walked away from which was detailed yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEREK LYONS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY: People shouting at each other, throwing insults at each other.
ERIC HERSCHMANN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: And some comment about like Nest thermostats being hooked up to the internet. And I had it with him. So I yelled back better come over. Better sit your effing ass back down.
LYONS: Yes. It was not a casual meeting.
CIPOLLONE: And we were pushing back and we were asking one simple question, where is the evidence?
RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN LAWYER: I stayed in the Cabinet room, which is kind of cool, I really liked that. All by myself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: By the end, Trump was all by himself with too many advisers saying, there`s no evidence, this won`t work, you can`t go to the military. And that night he goes, all right, take this Navarro thing off the shelf, let`s focus on January 6th.
So we`re going to get into that and that link and that military issue with January 6th Committee member, Congressman Schiff, when we`re back in one minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: And joining me now is January 6th Committee member, Congressman Adam Schiff.
Thanks for being here.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Good to be with you.
MELBER: That hearing had a lot in it. Let`s start, though, with the evidence on that meeting to try to involve the military. This draft order which would seem to potentially be illegal, that would instruct the secretary of Defense to help Trump with that plot to steal the election even after certification. The employment of the special counsel.
One question I had, Congressman, I thought just watching it, a lot of it was laid out really clearly. I was confused, and I don`t know if this is because of the Trump White House or the evidence, about whether the ultimate reality is that that started to happen, that Powell was that special counsel, that that act occurred, which as you know is legally significant or whether this was more of a model. Can you shed any light on that?
SCHIFF: Well, I think we`ve had a conflict in the testimony on that where, as you saw, White House counsel didn`t believe that there had been an appointment, so the paperwork hadn`t been done. Nevertheless acknowledged that the president seemed to be going along with this idea. Sidney Powell, on the other hand, thought that she`d been appointed. And I think it`s unclear.
But what is clear is that the president`s allies were urging him to use the military to seize voting machines, to appoint someone patently unqualified to be some kind of special counsel to enforce this, and he was very receptive to it because they were willing to do whatever it took. And that`s what Donald Trump has always been looking for.
MELBER: Fair. You have been a prosecutor in your role before serving in this committee. They are different roles. I think a lot of people have known the seriousness which you apply to this. And so I`m really curious to get your view of something that former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said, I`m sure you read his piece in the “New York Times” and he spoke about it here on THE BEAT. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: You`re basically saying with regard to some of these witnesses, they`ve been asleep at the wheel?
ANDREW WEISSMANN, FORMER MUELLER PROBE SENIOR MEMBER: I think that is basically right. The Department of Justice has more tools, not fewer tools than Congress to get at the truth.
MELBER: Have you heard back from anyone at DOJ?
WEISSMANN: Yes, I have. And I can`t really talk about it but I`ve heard from people both inside and people who have recently left.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[18:25:03]
MELBER: Making some waves there. That was just last night.
Congressman, this is a bit of a compliment to your committee wrapped in a concern or alarm bell about the DOJ. And I think it is fair what he wrote that we haven`t seen this kind of — he called it a breakdown. You might put it different but whatever it is between the Justice Department and the committee, but it also reflects that you`ve gotten some witnesses first.
Do you share Mr. Weissmann`s concern? Could the DOJ be doing more quickly?
SCHIFF: I very much share his concern and have been expressing a very similar concern really for months now. It is so unprecedented, and I`ve been a part of many congressional investigations that have been contemporaneous with Justice Department investigations, but it is unprecedented for Congress to be so far out ahead of the Justice Department and the complex investigation because as he was saying, as Andrew was saying, they`ve got potent tools to get information.
They can enforce their own subpoenas in a way we can`t. We have to go hand to them to enforce our subpoenas or to enforce a criminal contempt. And the idea that a year and a half after these events, they would not have talked to these witnesses, that even the Fulton County district attorney is way ahead of them. It`s I think cause for great concern.
MELBER: Are they afraid —
SCHIFF: And I do think —
MELBER: Are they afraid of the answer? In other words, if the answer becomes overwhelmingly criminal evidence against Trump and they have it, then it puts more onus on them in the eyes of people inside the department who are going to know it, and potentially history. Do you think they`re afraid or is there some other reason?
SCHIFF: I don`t think it`s that they`re afraid so much as a desire after — you know, honestly, terrible leadership by Bill Barr. Look, I`m glad Bill Barr finally found the light he wouldn`t cross. But he crossed a lot of lines before he got there including intervening in criminal cases implicating the president to reduce Roger Stone`s sentence and make Mike Flynn`s case go away completely.
And I think there`s a desire for Justice Department to restore the independence of the department to avoid controversy. And while I appreciate all of that, I think that if they take that too far, that is the desire to avoid controversy, and they somehow in practical effect immunize the former president because it would be controversial to investigate a former president, that`s a political decision and I think a very dangerous one.
MELBER: Yes. I think —
SCHIFF: So —
MELBER: Yes, I think you put it very well there, sir.
SCHIFF: Well, thank you. I think that if the attorney general is going to follow the evidence where it leads, then we`ve already seen evidence leading to the former president.
MELBER: Yes.
SCHIFF: And I don`t think that you can simply wait until you exhaust all the investigation of those that have attacked the Capitol that day when there were multiple lines of effort to overturn the election.
MELBER: Right.
SCHIFF: And those multiple lines need to be investigated. And they don`t necessarily start out with the people on the ground on January 6th.
MELBER: Right. And then finally, before I lose you, what everyone thinks of Mr. Bannon, the pressure got to him. He is trying in some way to get out from under the trial that stems from the contempt that your committee and the Congress found. The other person who`s gone down that road is Mr. Navarro. Here`s what he`s saying.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NAVARRO: I am stuck here where my duty and honor says, I can`t waive the privilege. What I need to do is respect the law, the Constitution and my former commander-in-chief. The reason why I think Mike Pence is guilty of treason to at least President Trump and perhaps in his country is that he acted on the basis of a flawed legal opinion concocted by his own general counsel that he did not share with either the president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: And yet now, Congressman, Donald Trump has waived the privilege that didn`t exist for Bannon and that according to your committee he never invoked. Is it still the case that there was never any invocation in writing of a privilege for Bannon or Navarro, under the recent developments in your view meaning that both men should comply fully, that is to say testify and give up the documents?
SCHIFF: Well, I think yes. And not only the recent developments ought to compel them to testify, they should have testified to begin with. And you know, the fact that Mr. Bannon is a part of what looks like a pretrial ploy, suddenly shows interest in coming and testifying, you know, I don`t think demonstrates anything but a desire to stay out of jail.
MELBER: But you would take his testimony?
SCHIFF: We would take his testimony but we also want there to be justice. It cannot be the case that someone who is in criminal contempt of Congress can suddenly on the eve of trial escape accountability by saying well, OK, I`ll come in now. So, yes, we would like his testimony but we need there to be justice served as well.
[18:30:00]
MELBER: Understood. And in a busy time, I appreciate you joining us on THE BEAT, Congressman Schiff.
SCHIFF: Thank you.
MELBER: And when we come back, why Mike Pence and some of these other witnesses are not heroes. Next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: This series of insurrection hearings have revealed all kinds of new evidence and testimony from Trump veterans. The results are good for gathering the facts. But some beltway elites have begun just heaping all kinds of praise on Trump officials for the bare minimum, like testifying at all which is literally he required under these subpoenas by law, or for people who simply did not commit crimes to stage a coup.
[18:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can`t tell you how grateful I was that Mike Pence was there, it could have been someone else, it could have been someone who would have succumbed to MAGA and Trump, but he didn`t.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There may be a hero in the story that they`re telling and it sounds like it might be Mike Pence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: There were heroes literally in the story. The police officers, brave public servants, people who took actual risks at the time to try to stop what was the most organized violent attempt to force the peaceful transfer of power in U.S. history. That does not apply to virtually all of the people we`ve been hearing from in these hearings. And the Trump aides have been providing testimony under subpoena.
So, they had to choose between following the law and facing the risk of prison. Even those who shared concerns did not blow the whistle at the time or resign. As for Pence, he did the bare minimum. He follow the law rather than join a criminal coup. Taking an act, his own lawyers warned was illegal. Meaning and this is important, he acted on his own self-interest and yet the latest Trump appointee to finally offer this tardy testimony under legal pressure.
The man you see here, White House Counsel Cipollone, went on yesterday to make a frankly embarrassing claim for any rational lawyer. He said that the act of not committing crimes is ground in his view, grounds for receiving the nation`s highest civilian honor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: I think the vice president did the right thing. I think he did the courageous thing. I have a great deal of respect for Vice President Pence, I think he did a great service to this country, and I think I suggested to somebody that he should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his actions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Come on. I guess I`ll just take it apart real quick. By that standard, hundreds of millions of Americans would warrant the same medal because they did not join this criminal coup. Pence did what was required by law. And he did so after double checking whether there was any legal cover for maybe trying something else.
Which is why we had to hear from all his lawyers because they spent a lot of time exploring this. So, at this moment, when so much seems upside down, it is worth realizing that all of this beltway canonizing of people who did the bare minimum is backwards. And it can be dangerous in the way that it normalizes the idea that these are choices to make or tough calls.
You are not a hero for declining to join a coup, and then wavering and ducking about the details and your own political loyalties to the person who staged the coup while withholding information and testimony. Now, since it`s just Cipollone brought up the idea of that medal.
Here are some people who were actually awarded the Medal of Freedom, by presidents in both parties by the way, like people we should look to as doing more than the bare minimum of not committing crimes, but people who showed civic courage like the late John Lewis.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: John R. Lewis has dedicated his life to shattering barriers and fighting injustice.
JOHN LEWIS, FORMER UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE: Was it in the head of state trooper with a nightstick. And I had a concussion at the bridge. I thought I saw death. I thought I was going to die.
GEORGE H. W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mr. Mandela, a man who embodies the hopes of millions. Mr. Mandela, you said many years ago before the first of your 10,000 days in prison, that there is no easy walk to freedom.
RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mother Teresa is a heroine of our times.
MOTHER TERESA, NUN: The work is only a means to put our love for Christ into action. To work for the poorest of the poor.
REAGAN: We add with deep affection and endless respect, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That is what Medal of Freedom recipients look like. An act like and what they events. So, to Trump`s White House counsel, tonight, I say this – – to paraphrase 36 mafia, keep the Medal of Freedom out your mouth until you learn a bit more about what true civic courage entails. Which apparently serving as a loyal Trump aide to the bitter end did not do for you, Mr. Cipollone.
[18:40:00]
You were late, you were not on the job. And now, having been pressured into testifying under the threat of jail because they subpoenaed you. You don`t get to lecture the nation about who gets the Medal of Freedom, and you`re out of power. So, thank goodness for that.
Now, I will tell you women`s rights leaders have been mobilizing around America. And next, we turn to a special guest making waves and leading a new generation in this pivotal fight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: Biden administration pushing new measures to protect abortion access after the Supreme Court decision that ended protections in Roe. That includes executive actions and new guidance, like this week asserting some abortions must still be provided in red states that banned them because of a health law already on the books while many are speaking out and demanding even stronger action.
[18:45:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Supreme Court.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gasby (PH) for women`s rights. They judge you. They judge Christ.
PHOEBE BRIDGERS, SINGER: All these are relevant old (INAUDIBLE). Trying to tell us what to do with our (INAUDIBLE) lives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That last voice is Phoebe Bridgers, a 27-year-old singer, and songwriter who`s already drawn a committed following and a Grammy nomination for her piercing, thoughtful songs and really an earnest beguiling style. She also has shared with her community and fans that she personally chose to have an abortion while on tour.
And she`s clearly been speaking out on these issues before and after the ruling, even finding some concertgoers have left when she talks about women`s rights and health care, which is something we discussed in our new interview. I`ve got an excerpt airing for you right now for the first time.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MELBER: At your shows, you`re very open about your views of the world. You`ve said you`re totally fine with people walking out when you advocate for health care for choice for women`s rights. How often does that happen, what does that mean when you`re like, oh, you have fans, but they can`t handle you saying that from the stage?
BRIDGERS: I`ve only actually seen it a couple times. People walking out. But it always — it always is validating in some way. Like I think I get pretty self-conscious of having a fan base that it can feel like when I talk, I`m preaching to the choir, you know. So, it`s nice to know that — that a message is getting to somebody that disagrees with me, I guess.
MELBER: Do you think younger people out there are in touch with how endangered these rights are and the legal footing for Roe v. Wade?
BRIDGERS: Yes, I think people are terrified. But they`re like — we have $1 of each ticket going to the Mariposa Fund, which is an abortion fund based in Santa Fe. And there`s like all kinds of things we can do. But it just I hate that the responsibility is — has been thrown on these, like grassroots organizations, instead of the government. Like I think I`ve just been raised my whole life thinking everything`s moving up and like it can only get better.
MELBER: Do you think also younger people today are perhaps understandably surprised that this might be the — this is a right, that`s taken away, rarely does the Supreme Court retract human rights?
BRIDGERS: Totally. I mean, I think as a 27-year-old, that`s how it feels to me. But I definitely talk to like 20-year-old people who are like, what do you mean? It`s been a trash fire since I was washing — watching the news with my parents.
MELBER: Bummer.
BRIDGERS: Huge bummer.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MELBER: Trash fire. It`s a reminder how events do define generations and cohorts, just like Vietnam and civil rights shaped our past generations. Bridgers is connected with some young people who see as she put it, this nation, not only in decline facing Trumpism, and the uncertainty of living today but with even younger fans, younger than her who say, this is all they know, this political trash fire.
Now, whatever the premise Bridgers has been connecting with this generation. Composing much of her current album before the pandemic, yet with a style that also has really met the moment and drawn on some of her idols, that so many music fans love, like David Bowie, which we also discussed. While some music writers have dubbed her the voice of the pandemic. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIDGERS: It was very interesting to put out music when nobody can leave their house. And it was very interesting to not leave my house.
MELBER: You have songs, although they may have also been written during this pandemic that are kind of about being alone or ending up feeling lonely or being at home.
BRIDGERS: Totally. Yes, I mean, I — the last tour I got home from before COVID I like didn`t leave my house at all for like 10 days. And it was scary. And I don`t know, you — I can scare myself sometimes when my job is being in front of people. And then when I`m left to my own devices, I can really, really isolate in a dark way. So, it did kind of shine a light on that.
MELBER: David Bowie talks about being scared or unsafe artistically as a place that you know you`re going to do good work. We were thinking of you with that. So, let`s take a look at that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID BOWIE, SINGER-SONGWRITER: If you feel safe in the area that you`re working in, you`re not working in the right area. Always go a little further into the water than you feel you`re capable of being in. Go a little bit out of your depth. And when you don`t feel that your feet are quite touching the bottom, you`re just about in the right place to do something exciting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[18:50:00]
BRIDGERS: Yes, that`s awesome. I love that.
MELBER: Is there an example that you can think of in your work?
BRIDGERS: Um, you know, my first album, my producers and I, Tony Berg and Ethan Gruska, we really butted heads, like the entire time, I wanted to make a folk album. And Tony was like, speed it up, speed it up, speed it up, speed it up, we did a rock song. And I was just like, I don`t know, it`s like, selling out like, I hate this. And it was so fun.
The final product is my favorite thing to play live. I`m so glad that I was pushed in that direction. So, then the second record, it was just like, we`re experimenting. Everything is scary. Everything is different. Everything is the opposite of how I wrote it. And I`m so grateful for that. So, I`m like a lot used to be. More used to being scared now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MELBER: We`re just talking to us here for our new “MAVERICKS” series. And there`s a rock tradition that I bet you know about. It dates back over 50 years, which she engaged in. Bridgers smashing her guitar last year while performing on SNL. We`re showing you Hendrix doing it there too. It`s a standard move in rock but it`s suddenly drew all kinds of criticism. When a woman rocker, did it.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MELBER: There`s one more question we have to ask. It`s obviously very serious. And that is if men who play music can smash guitars for decades. Can women or is that not OK for women?
BRIDGERS: Well, that`s my favorite thing ever. No, I think women should stay away from it.
MELBER: Because they`re women.
BRIDGERS: Yes, I don`t know.
MELBER: We didn`t want to go —
BRIDGERS: Our little arms can like really get in there, so.
MELBER: We didn`t want to go in-depth on it. But I will share with you since you`ve shared so much. I mean, I went to Jimi Hendrix`s high school, and they (INAUDIBLE) of him in the library and he`s a big inspiration for us, as you can imagine, in many ways. And you know, he was pretty rough with the guitars.
BRIDGERS: I know, next time I`m definitely going to set it on fire, for sure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MELBER: Set on fire next time, which would be fire. Finally, I want to show you some other quick highlights from our conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIDGERS: A lot of my favorite lyrics have kind of started as a joke. I`m like, I can`t actually say this, and then I do. It`s almost like tweeting but really sad. MELBER: Sad tweeting?
BRIDGERS: Yes. If I were doing this, I think I`d be a music journalist.
MELBER: Journalism is dying. I don`t know if you heard.
BRIDGERS: Who cares? I`ll go down.
MELBER: You`re not only doing true. You`re doing true and rare.
BRIDGERS: I`m trying to look back at some of my earlier music with like radical acceptance. It`s like capitalism, brain, or something like you just have to monetize it. So that all the pain was worth something.
MELBER: If something is hard enough people will then remember it more fondly.
BRIDGERS: Like it was all worth it. Totally wasn`t.
MELBER: No?
BRIDGERS: No.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MELBER: Totally wasn`t. What was worth it for us and that`s just part of the interview with Ms. Bridgers, you can see is really something. This is airing for the first time. I will mention that after we finished that sit down of those discussing the work and her lyrics. She then tweeted that day quote, lyrics are embarrassing, which kind of shows her in-the-moment approach to sharing with her community.
And by the way, we found the lyrics interesting. So, these were excerpts to see the full thing. As always, you can go to MSNBC.com/Mavericks. That`s MSNBC.com/Mavericks and see that full longer half-hour conversation or if you use YouTube, you can search Melber-Bridgers on YouTube and watch the whole thing. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:58:19]
MELBER: You hear so much about Rudy Giuliani it`s easy to forget Sidney Powell, who was more extreme than Giuliani as we learned at the hearing, and she was being pushed for this government role to oversee made-up voter fraud.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Certain accounts of this meeting indicate that President Trump actually granted Ms. Powell security clearance and appointed her to a somewhat ill-defined position of special counsel.
SIDNEY POWELL, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ATTORNEY: He asked Pat Cipollone if he had the authority to name me special counsel.
CIPOLLONE: I think she may have been of the view that she had been appointed and was seeking to, you know, get that done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: So, Trump`s like, can I do this? I know I`m four years in but I don`t know what I can do and then Cipollone`s like, you can, but he didn`t think it really was done. Congressman Schiff told us tonight there`s basically conflicting testimony about it, which happens. But here`s what`s important. She wanted to seize the voting machines with the help of the Pentagon.
She went on this tour hyping election fraud that didn`t exist and had literally her walk that back she was sanctioned for it. She tried to push this on other governments and foreign countries. That executive order though was going to make her, quote, special counsel to investigate the 2020 election. Wild. Was not ultimately issued and whether or not she really held the job for any amount of time, might be worked out in court.
So, that`s our final update on the insurrection tonight. I also want to remind you as mentioned, you can find that full interview with Phoebe Bridgers, the rockstar we heard from a few moments ago at MSNBC.com/Mavericks. That`s MSNBC.com/Mavericks or search Bridgers-Melber on YouTube to get the whole thing.
And you can tell me what you think about any of it or who else we should have on from the music and culture space @AriMelber on any platform, @AriMelber or AriMelber.com. Who else should we be talking to in the culture, let us know. And keep it locked because “THE REIDOUT WITH JOY REID” starts now.