Updated
Summary
As indictments hit Trump White House aides and allies, all eyes on January 6th primetime hearings this week, to include airing of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner`s testimony. Kelsey Vidal a first-grade teacher whose survival tips went viral on TikTok joins Ari Melber to share tips for surviving in case there`s an active shooter in the school. Tina Brown author and former magazine editor joins THE BEAT with Ari Melber to talk about her new book called The Palace Papers.
Transcript
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: Thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these extraordinary times. We`re grateful, and I`m grateful to my friend John Heilemann for helming these hours every day last week. THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER starts right now.
Ari, you`ve had an incredible week. I`m sorry that I wasn`t here to see it in this set.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: That`s nice for you to say. We`ve all been very busy. I was going to say, yes, shout-out to your guest host, but can you share with us a non-news question, anything wonderful or great that happened or any insights you drew from your time away from the newsroom?
WALLACE: You know what I like leaving and remembering is that we live in such an accelerated cycle and we are under all these crushing pressures to come on the air with something new, and there is such a lag. You know, there are still things sinking in kind of out there in the real world. So I`m always reminded of that whether I`m home sick or get to sneak away.
MELBER: So shout out to reality.
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: Is that what it is?
MELBER: I think so. Yes.
WALLACE: You tell me.
MELBER: Because this is only a version of it in a box. But great to have you back, of course, Nicolle. So I`ll see you soon.
WALLACE: Thank you, my friend.
MELBER: Absolutely. Nice to catch up with Nicolle there. And as she mentioned, sometimes inside the news it does seem like it`s going really fast. Well, that`s the actual case today. So welcome to THE BEAT.
This week begins with Congress building on the case that got a Trump White House aide indicted Friday. That`s the news Nicolle was just referring to elliptically. There`s also going to be the first primetime hearings by the January 6th Committee this week, and they say there are signs of damning new evidence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): The select committee has found evidence about a lot more than incitement here, and we are going to be laying out the evidence about all of the actors who were pivotal to what took place on January 6th. The idea that all of this was just a rowdy demonstration that spontaneously got a little bit out of control is absurd. You don`t almost knock over the U.S. government by accident.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: And Congress` work on this matter, January 6th will come down for many Americans to what comes out of these hearings. What are the takeaways after a thousand or so interviews, highlights from those will play in these hearings. We have more on that tonight. What do you take from some of the new or strong evidence that may emerge this week? And how will it be understood in a nation that has lived through so much lately and that watched a lot of hype around the Mueller report to fizzle? At least in the public mind if not in the text of the report.
Well, Congress has now tapped a veteran TV journalist to try to present a, quote, “blockbuster investigative special” this week, and many networks are on track to carry the primetime hearing live, which means that tens of millions of Americans will turn on the TV Thursday night and find regular entertainment interrupted to get this government update on the failed coup to overthrow American democracy.
So as Nicolle and I were just discussing and you and I, if you`re following the news, if you watch MSNBC or any other news, we`ve been going through this together. You might already know four Trump officials have already faced contempt in this investigation that as of Friday, two of them were indicted. But that itself may be news to other people. And that`s the tip of the iceberg. In fact heading into this weekend, the Justice Department answered questions we were exploring Friday, which is that those other two aides which were — who were held in contempt by Congress will not — not be prosecuted based on the individual facts of their case. So they`re off the hook.
And I`ve always told you in our reporting we track all of this. That is good news for Mr. Meadows and Scavino. It means, the inference to be drawn is that their cases were not strong enough that, they did not do bad enough defiance to merit the extraordinarily and relatively rare step of being indicted for your dealings with Congress.
It`s a whole another story for Bannon and Navarro, though, who are bracing for criminal trials. Navarro, the first aide who was inside the White House on January 6th to be indicted as he was Friday. And as he put it that day, well, he`s the first aide from Trump`s White House on January 6th to be handcuffed and shackled, his words. Mr. Navarro we`re learning today is now set to appear on Tucker Carlson`s FOX News show tonight. As for his arrest Friday, it was still making news across this weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS JANSING, MSNBC HOST: Former adviser Peter Navarro is at this hour in federal custody and about to make a court appearance.
PETER NAVARRO, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE AIDE: I told them, go negotiate with Donald John Trump.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: Trump adviser Peter Navarro lashing out after his arrest Friday.
NAVARRO: What did they do? They didn`t call me.
ELIE MYSTAL, THE NATION JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: He got outlawyered by Ari Melber on national television, and we all saw it.
NAVARRO: That`s punitive. What they did to me today violated the Constitution.
[18:05:00]
MYSTAL: He is the definition of a person who messed around and found out.
NAVARRO: They put me in handcuffs. They bring me here. They put me in leg irons. They stick me in a cell.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you believe it was a conspiracy?
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): I do. It is extremely broad, it`s extremely well organized, it`s really chilling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Mr. Navarro referencing the federal cell he was in. Those cells might fill up further today. New charges against five members of that Proud Boys militia for seditious conspiracy in a widening January 6th insurrection case. That is the exact group that then President Trump told to stand by and there was talk about how he might handle a losing election outcome.
Mr. Navarro objected to his treatment while arraigned on two contempt felonies. Let`s be clear — sedition is a far more serious charge. If it feels like we`re getting to a more intense place as we go into the hearings, that`s because we are. And if you know anything about Attorney General Garland is that he errs on the side of restraint. His career has been marked by a moderate nonpartisanship.
That was why so many Americans first learned about him when Barack Obama tried to pick him as someone who might — might win over Republicans. Well, he could have won over Republicans in a different decade, perhaps, but we all know that Mitch McConnell wasn`t interested in a nonpartisan moderate.
So when now as attorney general, Mr. Garland, in the last likely role of his career, is bringing these kinds of cases, it is only — only because they have double checked everything and they believe they can win sedition cases against these people name checked by Donald Trump himself to help out in the event that democracy actually triumphs.
This is one of those nights where we want go to an expert and an expert alone, so we can get the benefit of all of his views. Neal Katyal is my special one-on-one guest right now. He was of course the former acting solicitor general in that Obama administration I mentioned. He`s argued many cases with the Supreme Court, he`s an MSNBC legal analyst.
I mentioned, it`s a big legal night of news. Thanks for being our guest tonight.
NEAL KATYAL, FORMER ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL: Thank you for having me.
MELBER: Given what we just walked through in the lead, Neal, what stands out as important to you this week?
KATYAL: Well, this week, I think the big thing, Ari, is of course the hearings beginning on Thursday and the select committee of Congress has a difficult task because they have to compress thousands of hours of testimony and video footage into six hearings. I mean, it`s like the biggest squeeze since they tried to get the presidents` daily intelligence briefing for Trump down to a size Trump could read in one sitting.
It`s a tough challenge. And it`s a tougher challenge because a lot of witnesses are refusing to come before the committee, and so they have to tell the story without some of those witnesses. I mean, Congress probably could have gotten more Trump officials to testify if they swapped their congressional subpoena — their constitutional subpoena power for the authority to grab book deals, like Peter Navarro, but they didn`t do that.
And so as a result, they`re going to tell the story with other witnesses. There`ll be a couple of key ones like Judge Michael Luttig, like Cassidy Hutchinson who was the top aide to Mark Meadows, and I suspect there will be some blockbuster stuff to come in the testimony they provided.
MELBER: You know, Neal, I don`t want to make it about you, but we love legal Neal, we love breaking news Neal, but tonight when we get spicy Neal, you know, with multiple evidence-based quips, we know it`s a big week.
KATYAL: Well, I need that because evidently Elie Mystal says that you`re like outlawyering Peter Navarro, so I`m going to be the other side.
MELBER: Right. You come in with everything. There you go. So we talk about the so-called highlights. And I think this is important and, you know, you always endeavor to get fair legal analysis. The fair and true observation about many Trump officials here is that they did quietly cooperate, and I want to be clear about that. We don`t know the full extent. We`re not throwing them a party. You have an obligation to.
But it`s certainly the case that there are people who did treat this committee as valid and cooperating. Some of that has been understandably behind the scenes. I mean, all the witness interviews are so far still private, confidential, until they`re released by the committee. And so with that in mind, people that might be objected to for many other reasons, and everyone has a right to criticize them.
I just want to show, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner did appear to cooperate. We`ll learn the full scale. I`m going to ask Neal about this but I want to just catch everyone up here. Insiders think this could be gripping TV. Kushner volunteered speaking to the committee for over six hours. He was the first family member to do so. Now he wasn`t present at the White House on January 6th. He was back from a trip to Saudi Arabia.
Ivanka, though, was in the room. The committee sent her a letter in January discussing the conversation that she allegedly observed between Trump and Pence on that fateful day, as well as — and this might be self-serving but it`s also potential evidence — the accounts that she tried to get then- President Trump to stop the violence. Here`s what Liz Cheney said about it at the time.
[18:10:10]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: We know, as he was sitting there in the dining room next to Oval Office, members of his staff were pleading with him to go on television to tell people to stop. We know members of his family. We know his daughter. We have firsthand testimony that his daughter Ivanka went in at least twice to ask him to please stop this violence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: She would testify for a reported eight hours. Here`s how the committee chair put it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): I mean, you know, not — not in a broad, chatty term, but she`s answering questions.
GARRETT HAAKE, NBC NEWS SENIOR CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT: Has she invoked the Fifth?
THOMPSON: Not that I`m aware of.
HAAKE: Or any other privilege for that matter, executive privilege?
THOMPSON: Not that I`m aware of.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That`s the summary, Neal, and again it`s a contrast to what we heard, say, from Mr. Navarro Thursday or truly outlandish claims from people who weren`t in the White House at the time like Steve Bannon just saying the words executive privilege, which don`t get you anywhere. What do you see as the import in that testimony? Why are we hearing about that figuring into the big hearings?
KATYAL: So two things, Ari. First, as I take your point that some Trump officials have cooperated at least a little bit, but many have not. And, you know, we`re talking about people who have been indicted. And, you know, having worked on the government, I just can`t understand quite honestly how when Congress asks for information about one of the most dangerous scary days in American history, that they can say, oh, no, I`m not going to bother providing that evidence, I`m not going to bother testifying.
I just — you know, the fact that a few people have cooperated doesn`t to me excuse the massive amount of blame on that administration. And then second, with respect to Jared and Ivanka, you know, I do think that there`ll be some powerful visuals when the committee plays some of that video testimony, and I don`t think it will look good for any of them. And indeed, Jared and Ivanka`s video testimony may be the first time in recorded history that a Trump has been upset about getting more screen time.
But I think they will, and the reason is because they`re in a bit of a bind. The more they — like Jared and Ivanka valorize their own actions, the worst Donald Trump is going look.
MELBER: Right. Let`s get into that.
KATYAL: And so they can —
MELBER: Let`s get into that point because you`re getting into the depth of it. On the one hand people outside of a legal proceeding might say, duh, Donald Trump invited everyone here on the 6th. He gave the speech and he claimed he was going to march with them, which riled them up. He didn`t for his own security concerns, reported by Reuters and others. So, duh. But legally, walk us through why we`ve heard from the committee that it matters and is worse for Trump that someone that he would deem an insider, an ally, a family member and an aide, would come in and put him on notice, affirmatively, this is bad coup violence.
KATYAL: Yes.
MELBER: And after that marker, he doubled down, or didn`t asking them to stop in any way.
KATYAL: Great question. And the reason why I think it`s so important is two things. One is the committee has testimony from General Kellogg, who was Pence`s National Security adviser, who testified that Ivanka was the one person on January 6th who went in to talk to Trump, I think twice, in the testimony. We don`t know exactly what was said. And, you know, that`s important for state of mind. Did Donald — was he warned? Was he told, you know, hey, there`s some violence here, you should do X, Y, and Z, and did he blow it off?
The other piece of this is that there`s also an evidentiary question. There are a bunch of missing phone logs. So which you talked before about the cooperation of some witnesses. There are seven hours of missing phone logs, just nonexistent. We don`t know who Donald Trump talked to during those key 181 minutes, and General Kellogg testified that he and Ivanka saw President Trump pressuring Vice President Pence on the phone on January 6th to withdraw the election certification. That`s all key to if there was such a conspiracy or plot, and so that`s why it becomes legally and practically relevant.
MELBER: Where does Pence figure into all this?
KATYAL: He figures hugely. I mean, there is — the committee has, you know, revealed that they have evidence that Pence`s, you know, top officials went to the Secret Service on January 5th and talked about the potential for violence. So it does seem like there was awareness within the federal government about this, and including at the top levels of the White House, which shouldn`t surprise anyone.
I mean, you know, that Georgia election official on December 1st even told Trump, he said, look, stop this. Someone is going to get shot. Someone is going to get killed. You know, I live in Washington, D.C. I think everyone who, you know, everyone who knew anything knew that there was a potential for violence on this day, and what did Donald Trump do during those 181 minutes? Nothing. And that`s the committee`s challenge is how do you portray that entire missing gap in our history.
And they have an audience, of course, in the public right now, and they have a co-audience in the form of the Justice Department, and Merrick Garland and his team are certainly going to be watching. They also have an audience for history. And, you know, history is watching what happens over the next month.
[18:15:03]
And I know, you know, we`ve gone through so many things, school shootings and the like, and it`s hard to draw our attention to something like this, but we`ve really got to, because what happened last year was a travesty, and the most fundamental betrayal of America. And so, you know, I do think the committee will tell that story, and it`s going to be important for America`s legacy.
MELBER: Final question. I have about 45 seconds. What do you put as the context on all this? Because people are understandably fatigued of these story lines, and people are living their lives. You know, we`re coming out of a pandemic. Inflation is terrible. It`s eating up people`s salaries. And yet there`s an argument that seditious conspiracy and overthrowing the election is actually legally worse than anything in the Mueller report and anything that Trump was really accused of prior.
KATYAL: Ari, this transcends inflation or even school shootings or any of this. This is the essence of who we are as a country, peaceful transitions of power, about government being not about the individual politicians but on behalf of all of us. You know, it`s why people like my parents come to this country. It`s why we celebrate the freedoms we have. And if you can allow an incumbent president to try and use the machinery and powers of this office to file all these bogus lawsuits and incite a — you know, an attack on the United States Capitol, what can`t you do? I mean, you know, we look positively Russian at this point. It`s ridiculous.
MELBER: Neal Katyal, kicking us off on the big night. Thank you very much.
Coming up, there are new questions about the hearings and whether Trump will actually be held responsible. Are these hearings a venue to accuse him of crimes as we were just discussing? We have a special breakout on that with John Flannery. And what are we asking teachers and students to do while Republicans block gun safety? One teacher reaching millions by explaining the concrete steps she has to take to avoid being more in danger from school shooting violence. She`s my special guest tonight.
And later we have an insider dishing on what the Murdochs have brought across America. Tina Brown, the one and only, makes her BEAT debut. That`s tonight. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:21:35]
MELBER: We`re covering these big first primetime hearings from the January 6th Committee this week. And here`s the question that hangs over them. Did anything in this insurrection amount to Donald Trump committing a crime?
We know the committee is eyeing the whole plot to overturn Trump`s loss. And top Republican Liz Cheney got a lot of attention last year when she drew this link to a specific charge while discussing newly revealed evidence against Trump and his chief of staff.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: Mr. Meadows` testimony will bear on another key question before this committee. Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruction or impede Congress` official proceedings to count electoral votes?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Congresswoman Cheney there was not just free-styling. She was referring to a statute that basically states, quote, “whoever corruptly obstructions, influences or impedes an official proceeding,” faces a lot of prison time. The proceeding before Congress is official, and this is not just coming down to members of this committee where reasonable observers might say, OK, but their whole committee exists to do this and maybe they`re erring on a more aggressive reading of the facts rather than a more understanding reading of the facts, which is a potentially fair criticism of any investigative committee.
But put them to the side. Just this March, an independent nonpartisan federal judge also raised the likelihood that Trump committed a crime, writing that Trump more likely than not attempted to obstruct that Joint Session of Congress. That`s a reference to the same kind of criminal disruption of the official proceeding that Cheney was referring to.
Now that case that I`m quoting you from was about basically documents, and it does not mean anything about Trump`s legal liability, meaning it`s not binding in that way. But the judge was writing that with a narrower assignment. But that nonpartisan reasoning can clearly apply more broadly. Now take the Watergate reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, they have a new piece writing that Trump`s corruption is worse than Nixon`s, that he became, quote, “the first seditious president in our history.”
Well, if an official proceeding is here, sedition is way up here, out above the camera. I mean, the last person you want committing sedition against the country is the person with the nuclear codes, and Bob Woodward is one of the most serious nonpartisan longtime journalists we have alive in America.
So, will the committee get into this? We have a former prosecutor who has been a special counsel to exactly this kind of committees, John Flannery, when we`re back in 60 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:25:33]
MELBER: I`m joined now by former federal prosecutor John Flannery, who has been counsel to congressional committee, making him not only someone BEAT viewers may recognize that we go to for expertise but really uniquely situated for this question.
First of all, welcome back, sir.
JOHN FLANNERY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Good to be with you.
MELBER: Good to have you. When you look at that ultimate question, there`s going to be evidence presented, it`s going to reach more Americans, we know all of that. By the end of these big round of hearings this month, do you think it is right and proper for the committee to take a position on whether or Donald Trump should be charged or do you see a different better avenue?
FLANNERY: No, I think it`s right that they should be asking, should he be charged? You have to question the restraint of a nation that we could be brought to the brink of destroying democracy with these people and a year and five months have passed and they have had no reckoning.
And the key to a reckoning is that it`s just like a child. If they do something wrong, there should be an immediate response. In this case it would be a process, a charge, and so forth. There`d be grand jury questions, and that hasn`t happened. And I think in the absence of that, this committee has a special obligation to follow wherever it goes. And it doesn`t surprise me that Congressman Raskin says, what we hear will blow the roof off the Capitol.
And I think what he`s talking about is like you take Butterfield who was testifying in the Nixon case, and he came in and they were surprised that he talked about a tape recording system which led to 18-minute gap. Now we have seven hours, eight hours, and it`s all during this period of time when the rioters are taking over or trying to take over the government? So that`s something that cannot be let stand. Not if we believe we are a democracy, not if we believe no man or woman or person is above the law.
And the head of the snake, for the hypothesis of what we`re looking at is no less than Trump. He`s the beneficiary.
MELBER: Right.
FLANNERY: He`s the (INAUDIBLE). And you cannot do this and ignore him and his role.
MELBER: Right, and John —
FLANNERY: We see a circle —
MELBER: John, you remember — someone they always teach in law school. You remember Learned Hand.
FLANNERY: Yes, absolutely. Freedom.
MELBER: Who famously said there`s a difference between a conspiracy and a dumpster fire. I`m kidding. He didn`t say that, but the point stands, which is a piece of chaos, a dumpster fire, is different than something orchestrated. And I thought it was striking that Jamie Raskin seems to be going towards this point. Again, however terrible the dumpster fire may be and however much you might disagree with the politician who benefits from it, you don`t indict someone for a dumpster fire that happened outside. If they didn`t light the match and they didn`t tell anyone to, but it occurred at their rally. You don`t.
FLANNERY: Right.
MELBER: But boy, if they were on the phone about, yes, get the militia with the gasoline and we`ll get the other people — yes, have them meet there. Yes, I`ll meet you there. You start to get into this question of orchestration. Here`s Jamie Raskin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RASKIN: The committee has found evidence of concerted planning and premeditated activity. I think that Donald Trump and the White House were at the center of these events. That`s the only way, really, of making sense of them all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: John?
FLANNERY: Well, I like how he understates the most powerful statement, that is no adjectives or adverbs, he just goes straight to the facts. And the facts are very telling and I know one of the questions is, will we hear from Trump at the hearings? But we will. There are his own statements seen on live television. We have his conversations down in Georgia trying to derail that investigation.
All of it fits to a man with intent. You know, it`s not a fire that`s smoldered because someone didn`t take care to keep that area safe. This was done all with intent, starting with — well, at least one thing we know Rudy Giuliani saying the night of the election saying in his cup somewhat and saying to Trump, four words, just say we won. And that`s it. That`s the whole conspiracy. And we have enormous evidence of this. And to not look at it and not think it matters is ridiculous.
MELBER: Right.
FLANNERY: Yes.
MELBER: Relatedly, I mentioned the only White House aide who was inside on January 6th to be indicted, Peter Navarro, objected to his treatment. Tonight he will go back on TV, but he`s going to a different venue, to FOX News` Tucker Carlson. Your reaction?
[18:30:00]
FLANNERY: My reaction is that he finally figured out that he didn`t do well when you asked him questions, and he was forced to make admissions and the strongest evidence in this case, and I guess it`s a combination of hubris and arrogance and a belief system, that sooner or later Trump will come back and pardon them for all the crimes they`re committing, whether it be lies, or to help Trump take over the government.
But I guess he figures he`ll go to a friendly person who`s going to help him somewhat, and they`re just going to use him because they`re going to let him say stuff. And he`s — all of these people are disposable to Trump. You know, and I hope that this show that they put on, I don`t know what it is god fill — god — goodfellas or meets Lonesome Dove or meets some other story that people see this the way we saw more.
If you remember, there was an understated experience of what we expected from him, what could he say, and he said two things. One is he said the obstruction stands. And he didn`t say it as forcefully as I just have. But that was the way it was taken. And the second thing he said it was we`re in the middle of elections coming up. And this is quite pertinent because this hasn`t gone away.
This is not going to be like that, this really will be a blockbuster because we`ll have the details and facts that fill in what we`ve seen publicly already. So, we have a framework to put this information on. And I think that`s going to be devastating in the midterm elections.
MELBER: Yes. And just to button up here, sometimes the article ends with the quote. So, it ends with the summary. I`m going to attempt to summarize, Councilor Flannery. You think it`s going to be more effective if they find a way to present the American public? The evidence that Trump committed a crime if there is, and if they have a view that he did, they should state that view, we`re hearing different things out of Washington.
And I think anyone who`s followed the Democratic Party in Washington, sometimes you`ll hear, you know, three views for one position sometimes. And I think it`s interesting given that you`ve counseled these committees, as I emphasize that you think that because the end of the day, we`re going to cover these hearings, we`re going to cover the facts.
I`ve always tell people, if there`s facts that are in favor of certain people in administration or whatnot, we`ll cover that too. But that your expertise says take a stand, don`t leave it up in the air. Mueller, as you alluded to left certain things, at least the appearance of being up in the air. Mr. Flannery, good to see you.
FLANNERY: Good to be with you. Thank you, Ari.
MELBER: Absolutely. Later on, tonight, we`re going to dig into the Murdochs. The heat they are under for indulging some of Tucker Carlson`s hate and lies. We have renowned journalist Tina Brown on that. But first, millions of Americans are now hearing directly from a teacher about how to protect kids from this vicious series of classroom shootings. She`s my special guest next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KELSEY VIDAL, FIRST GRADE TEACHER WHOSE SURVIVAL TIPS WENT VIRAL ON TIKTOK: So, this is the inside tour of the backpack. I have my safety backpack for an intruder or an active shooter. This is bulletproof.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:37:13]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VIDAL: This is what I have to protect my kiddos. So, this is a metal bat that I have here. And then this is called the Barracuda. Now this part goes over the door handle. So, it just slips over like this. It just makes it really easy to block the doors —
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: If Congress continues to face Republicans blocking any votes on gun safety legislation, what is that leave teachers to do? Well, as you saw there, they have to improvise, talking about bulletproof backpacks, tourniquets. Kelsey Vidal is a first-grade teacher in California. She`s sharing these videos on how she has improvised to try to protect herself and her students.
And it has caused some great interest because other people are obviously in this situation. She posted these online after Uvalde and they went very viral. One has over four million views on TikTok, which is a — of course, youth-oriented platform these days, where a lot of younger people and their parents and others can share information.
She came up with a safety protocol when she started teaching three years ago when she saw that — well, it`s easy to get guns, and many classrooms were largely unprepared during the training exercises that imagine what would happen if god forbid active shooter did enter those classrooms. This is what teachers are up against. This is the reality.
And while we cover Washington a lot, tonight, we move beyond Washington, at what our teachers must step up and do in this environment. I`m joined now by first-grade teacher and making her BEAT debut, Kelsey Vidal, thanks for being here.
VIDAL: Thank you so much for having me.
MELBER: Just tell us, you know, in your own words, not only what you`re doing in the classroom now that we showed, but why you thought to share this online, I — who could imagine millions of people would watch it. It`s grim but clearly useful to people.
VIDAL: Yes, originally, when I made the videos, I didn`t think so many people would be interested in it. I made it for the five people who asked me about what I have in my classroom to help protect my students. I decided to get these materials three years ago because unfortunately, schools are just a high-risk target.
And it`s really unfortunate that I have to say that and then I have to have these things in my classroom. But that`s why I posted the videos to get the conversation started about what we can do to protect our students.
MELBER: You`re absolutely right. That it`s unfortunate. And we go through the grim aspects of this and the political obstruction, the political hostage-taking. There are some stories that cut both ways I cover that. This is one where there`s a minority of Republicans in the Senate who are preventing even an up or down vote. Obviously, people can vote against gun safety rules, if that`s what they think their constituents want.
But we`re not even having that happen. I want to play a little more from your video because that`s the darkness of all this. And yet, we all know there`s so many ways that people with indomitable spirits, face down the darkness and do something and you`re clearly every day you`re doing your work, but you also shared this. So, here`s a little more for viewers who may not have seen what you posted online. A little more of what you said.
[18:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VIDAL: This is the inside tour of the backpack. I have my safety backpack for an intruder or an active shooter. Front part, I have all the tourniquets inside of. Basic life-saving stuff in here. A metal plate. This is bulletproof. I`m going to go ahead and put it on. So, super easy, slide right over my head. So, I got it from bulletproofzone.com. They are currently sold out of their backpacks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Sold out. Are you hearing from any other educators, parents, or people since you`ve shared this? And since we do have a chance to speak with you. What are you telling your kids about the balance of being prepared while respecting, of course, their developmental age and not trying to scare them too much?
VIDAL: Yes, I mean, a lot of parents have commented on the videos saying, oh, I need to get this for my, you know, son or daughter`s teacher. This should be part of like the back-to-school shopping that we do when we`re picking up pencils, papers, glue sticks for the following year, maybe we should get a barracuda bar for the teacher as well.
So, parents are starting to get really interested in it. I have teachers messaging me from the U.K., Canada, Switzerland, even Australia, saying, you know, we`re so shocked that this is what you have to do to feel safe in your classroom. And it`s sad that this is what you`re doing. But a lot of them are thanking me for having a plan being prepared.
And again, I would much rather have a plan in place now. Practice using the materials that I have now, instead of it being too late wishing I had something. So, it`s — yes, it`s crazy to — It`s crazy to have.
MELBER: Can I ask you a dumb question?
VIDAL: Yes.
MELBER: Do you think this level of preparation would be less necessary as part of your life as a teacher if weapons of war were somehow regulated or barred, so they weren`t as easy to bring into schools?
VIDAL: I think that`s a major issue that we need to be focusing on is the gun laws, the gun reform, it`s too easy to access guns. And I think, you know, putting the hand — putting a gun in a teacher`s hand is not the solution, I think we need to be focusing on the mental health system, I think we need to be focusing on changing the laws and how easy it is to get a gun.
And then maybe I wouldn`t have to have all these things and look like I`m going to war when I`m in a first-grade classroom. And my students know what I have in the classroom, they`ve seen it, it`s out, it`s easy for me to use and access if I ever needed to. They don`t know to the extent. Again, because they`re six, some of them are seven.
They don`t know, the extent of what`s in the backpack. Like they don`t know that I have tourniquets in there to stop major bleeding. And because again, they`re so young that I don`t need to tell them these details. But I do have it in case I ever needed it.
MELBER: Yes, that`s — I mean, final question to echo off what you`re saying. You teach first grade, but you feel like to do it responsibly right now you have to have defense systems like you`re reporting to a battlefield.
VIDAL: Yes, I mean, you know, when I became a teacher, I did it because I wanted to work with kids. And I wanted to make a difference. And I should be teaching them reading and writing and math skills. But here I am, in the back of my mind, preparing for if there`s an active shooter on campus, what is our game plan? Where do we go? Where do we run? What do I tell them?
So, working on a plan, and having that in place is really important. And I think all teachers should have that conversation with their staff with their admin so that they can prepare for something like this because unfortunately, it is a reality of teachers.
MELBER: Right. Well, thank you for what you`re doing. I hear the rooster in the background, Kelsey Vidal, and I just hope that means America can wake up.
VIDAL: I agree. I think that we made a change and this should not be happening over and over.
MELBER: Yes, thank you for telling us more about what you`re doing. Thank you for teaching first grade. We`re going to fit in a break when we come back. Tina Brown is here on THE BEAT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:49:03]
MELBER: And now we turn to my next guest, the iconic journalist Tina Brown. You know her as the forefront of the media landscape. She has done so much work in journalism, in the magazine industry, and now as an author, leading some of the world`s top magazine and blazing a trail for other women leaders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tina Brown is the former editor-in-chief at Tatler magazine, Vanity Fair, and The New Yorker.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tina Brown who is Vanity Fair`s editor-in-chief. She has covered four royal weddings since Prince Charles married Princess Diana in 1981.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think she was always absolutely Dotty (PH) about Prince Charles.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Diana had a brilliant natural instinct for the camera she always did.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She has been at the forefront of the Women`s Leadership movement.
TINA BROWN, AUTHOR, FORMER MAGAZINE EDITOR: The best strategy for beating the boys club is success.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: And here we are with a little success at the table. Author of the new book The Palace Papers, Tina Brown. I`ve known about your work. My whole career I`m so thrilled to meet you and have you here.
BROWN: Delighted to be here with you, Ari.
[18:50:00]
MELBER: Fantastic. So, the book, why this book, why now, and what more is there for us to learn?
BROWN: This is the Platinum Jubilee. It is the last Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. That seemed like a great moment to evaluate the 25 years that have passed since the death of Diana which left so much scorched earth, and the House of Windsor had to regroup and reinvent itself. And that`s what The Palace Papers is about.
MELBER: So, you look at the Diana history, which you`ve chronicled. In the book you write, ever since Diana`s death in 1997, the queen had made it clear it could never happen again. Her explosive celebrity, the monarchy drowned out by one, dangerously popular member of the family other than the Queen, or the heir to the throne. Explain.
BROWN: Well, the fact is that Diana`s popularity has celebrity, her huge blazing, personality and humanitarian, you know, excitement that she generated. It just began to unsettle the House of Windsor, it completely destabilized, essentially, the power balance in which the royal families essentially is supposed to be scaffolding to uphold the monarch. And Diana had a power base, you know, that was over and above, and in some ways bigger than the House of Windsor when she was alive.
MELBER: A lot of people in the United States as you know, think that the Murdochs have been a real negative and toxic force on the discourse in American politics. Rupert Murdoch, of course, had outsized influence in England. Lachlan now appears to be on board with and cheering on some of the worst of what we see out of Fox News, and I tried to be as precise as possible here.
There`s some stuff on Fox that relates to news and discussion and opinion. And then there`s Tucker Carlson pushing right-wing French anti-Semitic racist replacement theory, which is really something else. Reading from some of the coverage. Murdoch — Lachlan Murdoch gave Carlson, the green light to promote these conspiracy theories. Anyone who wasn`t comfortable with that has already left. Is this a new chapter or the same old Murdochs?
BROWN: Well, it`s the same old Murdoch. And in fact, there is a chapter in my book called Snoopers, which chronicles what the Murdoch press did to the royals, and it`s really kind of — it`s deeply shocking when you read it, and it does explain why Prince Harry is so bitter because they hacked him, they stalked him, they told lies about him.
It was just brutal, essentially what they did to the young Prince Harry when he was just a teenager, essentially. And it scarred them. It wasn`t only the Murdoch press, but they were by far the worst — the worst perpetrators of what the coverage was.
MELBER: Bottom line. Do you think someone like Lachlan Murdoch has a responsibility for what Tucker Carlson is pushing, which is being also cited by mass shooters?
BROWN: Of course, he has a responsibility, both Lachlan and his brother, Rupert have a huge responsibility for destroying, denigrating, blowing up, you know, civil discourse really in three continents. But nothing really does seem to impact people with major fortunes and power. It`s stunning to me that, you know, the abuse that kind of people feel about Fox never really gets lands a punch on the Murdochs.
MELBER: Before I lose you, let`s talk about magazines. Do you like them?
BROWN: I`m a magazine junkie, I always have been. Magazines, however, are feeding as an art form. You know, they`re feeding, feeding fast. And I`ll have to confess that I pretty much read everything on my phone these days which I never thought —
MELBER: You don`t read — whoa. You don`t read — so, we do have a scoop here. You don`t read — I still get Vanity Fair imprint, for example, you?
BROWN: I still, of course, get my Vanity Fair. And I still get my New Yorker which I adore. But I read mostly on my phone.
MELBER: I have to ask you about what the CEO of Conde Nast is now saying, quote, this is no longer a magazine company, as they see a difficult time for print. When you see them say that, is that fair or is that poppycock, as we say in Texas?
BROWN: But I`d like to know what they are instead, quite honestly because it`s all about content. I don`t really care how your content appears as long as it`s brilliant content. OK, so just do brilliant content, and I`ll find you, but I don`t think just saying that you`re not a magazine company anymore quite hacks it.
MELBER: Fair. Will there be physical magazines in 10 years?
BROWN: Probably not. Not a — not likely actually, unless there`s a kind of retro sort of younger people suddenly hankering for something that for them is exotic and new, which is print. But it`ll always though I think be a kind of a small niche thing to be in print. And everything is going to — is obviously digital. I mean, even newspapers, which I, you know, I used to have my huge pile of newspapers in the morning, (INAUDIBLE), I still buy them. But I wind up reading it on my phone.
MELBER: I will say this, as I say at the end of every broadcast here on THE BEAT, god save the queen.
[18:55:00]
BROWN: And save her from her kids.
MELBER: Even better edit but you are a good editor. Tina Brown lovely to have you. I hope you come back on THE BEAT and I want to tell everyone, the new book that you`ve heard so much about is The Palace Papers.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: We ended last week following the surprise indictment of Peter Navarro the former Trump White House aide after he joined us on Thursday night. Well, he`s back on T.V. tonight but not on MSNBC. Fox News is saying he will join Tucker Carlson tonight at 8:00 p.m. Eastern.
Which brings us to a final question as we end the hour. You can always find me @AriMelber. I asked you, should Mr. Navarro in your view go back on air, and if so, where? He has to than three interviews here. He`ll be on Fox tonight. You can let me know @AriMelber.
More important than that is, “THE REIDOUT WITH JOY REID” is up next. Hi, Joy?
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: How you doing, Ari? My favorite of your Navarro questions was, you do realize people can hear you, right? Classic, I cannot believe he said —
MELBER: Which is true.
REID: Which is true. Thank you very much, Ari. Have a great evening.