Updated
Summary
January 6th Committee hoping to corroborate testimony from former White House aides and DOJ officials by questioning former White House counsel Pat Cipollone behind closed door. Former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark ordered to step out of his house so federal officers could search it in relation to January 6th coup plot. Fox News backtracks after touting Elon Musk as a speech savior. Laura Bassett, who is editor-in-chief of Jezebel, joins Ari Melber to share her reaction and thoughts about all the important stuff, including her criticism and assessment of where President Biden and his administration can go deal with the abortion rights.
Transcript
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: THE BEAT. I am Ari Melber. And we`re going to get right into it because we are actually tracking more than one breaking story here.
There is a major development in the January 6th investigation that`s literally happening right now. The White House lawyer who warned Trump of every crime imaginable is going under oath for the first time today. In essence, this is what losing looks like, Trump White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, testifying under oath.
And when you talk about people losing standoff to the January 6th Committee, there is another sign of another major Trump White House figure, who then was out, planning and plotting about January 6th independently, Steve Bannon. The “Washington Post” crossing a story moments ago that as soon as tomorrow, Mister Bannon may actually fold and find some accommodational route to testify.
He is going to cite potentially a letter from Donald Trump according to brand-new “Washington Post” reporting, and as you may recall, he is awaiting a federal criminal trial that could land him in prison. So it is a big deal that Mister Bannon now is eyeing, according to “The Post,” some sort of accommodation. We`re going to get to that story in a few moments. As I mentioned, we are tracking more than one development.
As for the White House lawyer, Mister Cipollone, well, he went hours and hours, eight and a half hours total. In fact, we`re told that it just wrapped up within the last few moments here. Cipollone arrived before 8:30 a.m. He`s actually visible in the passenger seat caught by cameras there. He was escorted to a conference room to provide this testimony.
There were some shouted questions from the reporters today, this was a dramatic scene when you consider just how long this was in the making. He did not, though, in those hallway shots respond to the press. Mister Cipollone matters because he is someone who`s been quoted more than most as a witness and someone warning Trump aides and the president himself about possible crimes.
There were discussions about seizing voting machines and sending fraudulent letters to state officials. He was also in the West Wing on that fateful day of the 6th. “Punch Bowl” reporting the select committee does not have an agreement with Cipollone about what can be asked, meaning what is on or off the table in his mind, and prior to the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony that made so many waves, the panel did mull an on-the-record interview, then Cipollone backed away from that.
He was, to put it simply, in the room when it all happened. He was in the room giving the explicit warnings according to more than one aide. And as we reported last night, he was in the room in a way that made his criminal warnings so memorable that so many people either wrote them down or remembered them and told the committee about them. As for whether or not some of that is technically hearsay, well, as of today, anything anyone else said Cipollone said is no longer technically hearsay at all because he spent eight hours explaining himself.
Take the January 3rd meeting in the Oval Office, which we don`t know what they asked about but we would certainly expect it was on the list, that was when Trump was talked out of trying to illegally get the DOJ to break laws to help him steal the election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVEN ENGEL, FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: And so the story is not going to be that the Department of Justice has found massive corruption, that would have changed the results of the election, it is going to be the disaster of Jeff Clark. And I think at that point, Pat Cipollone said yes, this is a murder-suicide pact, this letter.
RICHARD DONOGHUE, FORMER ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: And I would note, too, Congressman, that it was in this part of the conversation where Steve pointed out that Jeff Clark would be left needing a graveyard and that comment clearly had an impact on the president. The leadership will be gone, Jeff Clark will be left leading a graveyard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Jeff Clark is the individual who saw his home searched. We have more on that tonight as well. As I said, there`s a lot happening if you get the feeling that the probe is escalating, the legal developments are intensifying, it`s because they are. The other point, though, that I want to make sure we`re very clear on here before I bring in our experts is you heard those senior ranking officials under oath, citing people, graveyard. and the idea that basically, if you go forward with these plans, well, you`ll be committing new crimes.
And you won`t be in office much longer, Mister President. That`s the kind of thing that was cited to Cipollone. Today, again, you don`t take eight hours to simply say no comment or plead the Fifth. We have circumstantial indications today that this was a substantive set of answers. And that means Cipollone would also be able to address, and perhaps refine or fact check any of the many references to him and his testimony in the hearings thus far.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUTCHINSON: Mr. Cipollone and I had a brief private conversation where he said to me, we need to make sure that this doesn`t happen. This would be legally a terrible idea for us.
DONOGHUE: Pat Cipollone weighed in at one point, I remember, saying, you know, that letter that this guy wants to send, that letter is a murder- suicide pact.
HUTCHINSON: Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don`t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We`re going to get charged with every crime imaginable.
[18:05:08]
Pat was concerned it would look like we were obstructing justice or obstructing the electoral college count.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Miss Hutchinson there citing at least two felonies that Cipollone warned about. So, again in these eight hours today, these are things that we would expect he`d be asked about. NBC News has a source who says that he has been, quote, “a cooperative witness” within the parameters of his desire to protect executive privilege in the Office of the Counsel. And then, there is a real distinction here because executive privilege does exist for people who are not trying to commit crimes, who are not trying to do misconduct or steal the election, who are providing privileged counsel or other privileged professional work, for the executive branch, for the president in this case.
So unlike, say, Mister Bannon who I mentioned also is talking about privilege today and we`ll get to that, or Mister Navarro, the White House counsel does have some strong privilege claims. But they are not like attorney-client privilege, indeed there is no person that they have as attorney-client protection for. They are not the personal lawyer for the president. You pay Mister Cipollone`s salary when he serves, and he serves for the Office of the Presidency. Now here`s how one former January 6th panel investigator puts some of this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN WOOD, JANUARY 6TH COMMITTEE INVESTIGATOR: I think Mister Cipollone for some of the information that he has, has legitimate privilege concerns but a lot of the information he has is clearly not privileged, so hypothetically if he said, Mister President, you should not go to the Capitol because here are the reasons why it would be illegal, I think that might be privilege but him just saying to another staffer that he thinks it might violate every law imaginable, I don`t think that that itself is privilege. The comments that Mister Cipollone may have made to somebody like Cassidy Hutchinson probably are not privileged.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Probably not privileged. And that`s super important. If you warned, as we heard in this bombshell testimony, about every law or every crime imaginable being violated, well, that could come out today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUTCHINSON: Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don`t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We`re going to get charged with every crime imaginable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Today is when that will be lined up. And Mister Cipollone can say what he meant and was in rhetoric, was he exaggerating or was he literally concerned that a whole series of felonies were going to be committed?
He grasped what the plot was. The top White House lawyer saw the court project and figured out it was a criminal project. His job is to develop every possible argument and defense for executive power but not to commit crimes. So when you look at the obstruction or the fraud, well, that`s a big deal.
Now what did he mean when he said every crime imaginable? Well, that`s one of the key questions. Then you have this reference to the murder-suicide pact. This matters a lot, and in plain English it matters about whether people who actually work for Trump at the DOJ or Trump himself will go to jail.
What they meant by murder-suicide was legally, not that they would be a murder, although of course there was violence but that legally, it would be the Justice Department`s murder-suicide to have it in writing, on record, trying to break laws to steal the election. Then number three, you have conversations with then chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Hutchinson talked about how those two were discussing some serious stuff on the 6th.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUTCHINSON: No more than a minute, a minute and a half later, I see Pat Cipollone barreling down the hallway towards our office. I remember Pat saying to him something to the effect of, the rioters have gotten to the Capitol, Mark. We need to go down and see the president now. And Mark looked up at him and said he doesn`t want to do anything, Pat. And Pat said something to the effect of, and very clearly, said this to Mark. Something to the effect of, Mark, needs to be done or people are going to die.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Do something, or people will die. And on the 6th, you had Cipollone in the West Wing pleading with Meadows about all of that. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): Jared, are you aware of instances where Pat Cipollone threatened to resign?
JARED KUSHNER, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISER: I kind of, like I said, my interest at that time was on trying to get as many pardons done and I know that you know, he was always — to him and the team were also saying, we`re going to resign, we`re not going to be here if this happens, if that happens. So I kind of took it up to just be whining to be honest with you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That`s Mister Kushner, who was, well, earlier in line willing to testify.
[18:05:02]
You see him on video but you see him basically casting Mister Cipollone as a whiner. And when he said that of course Mister Cipollone had not come out and testified under oath before the video cameras. So it`s kind of interesting, that could blow up in Mister Kushner`s face, if Mister Cipollone has a different view, if he thinks his efforts to prevent a criminal conspiracy, a coup, and a violent insurrection were not whining but were rather him putting his neck on the line, threatening to resign, to try to stop those potential crimes.
As for the reference to pardons, well, let me be clear. Even Donald Trump who loves to break rules and do things his own way, can`t just snap his fingers to create a pardon. If you wanted to stand up in court, you do need lawyers involved. The White House counsel is one of the people who would know who was asking for pardons, how far did the process get, and did Donald Trump, again, to the question of jail, did he explore whether he needed a pardon for himself as an admission of guilt because he thought he`d already done stuff that could land him in prison?
Those are just some of the questions we wanted to lay out on this very significant day. We turn for a special exclusive one-on-one interview with someone who`s been a prosecutor and counsel to exactly these kind of congressional probes, John Flannery.
Thanks for being here, sir.
JOHN FLANNERY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Good to be with you.
MELBER: I want to get to the breaking Bannon news. I tried to be transparent with viewers, we are actually tracking equally important news from out of this committee today but let`s start with Mister Cipollone. We covered some of it just now but what do you see as most important to his testimony? What does it tell you that he spoke for this long? What does it do to the case about the insurrection and potentially Donald Trump`s criminal liability?
FLANNERY: I think to put it in a framework, and in eight hours, we have I`m sure quite a bit of information that`s helpful. But one of the most significant meetings of many meetings, I think, is the one in the Oval Office, with the Justice Department officials, and Cipollone, and what you have, is you have the, I don`t know, chief conspirator, Trump, and instead of delegating this entire operation to someone else, he is sitting there and demanding that a letter that contains false information that there is fraud in the election, on a bogus legal theory that people know is not a good legal theory.
And he is prepared to replace the attorney general Jeff Rosen with Clark, who is at the Civil Division without any criminal background. And this, it seems to me, is one of the pieces of the conspiracy. There`s an overhanging conspiracy. And what is it? Well, we`re going to say, we won, even though we lost. We`re going to get false executive pardons. We have a theory about how we can throw this thing up against the wall on January 6th and make Trump president.
We go to the Justice Department to boy up what we`re doing. Barr won`t buy it so then we cooked up this theory with Clark, and then we`re all in the White House talking about it. So who do I see in this conspiracy? Well, Clark is exposed certainly, and Trump is exposed in person, talking about it, in the presence of two Justice Department officials and Cipollone.
It`s dynamite. It`s as good as a tape recording in Georgia that`s going to hang him on the rest of the conspiracy no matter whether it`s tried down there or finally in D.C.
MELBER: Right. And so — and John, I mean, when you look at that, what you have there is you have people in the room who should know better, who are lawyers, you have presumably some contemporaneous documentation, and now you have Cipollone trying to tell his side of the story to the extent that it`s at cross purposes with Trump it would seem to be bad for Trump.
I want to get you as well now on the Bannon news.
FLANNERY: Right.
MELBER: This is an individual who was the first to defy the committee and made a big deal that he was willing to face jail for stonewalling. The “Washington Post” crossing an important story tonight, the way they put it, I want to be clear, is that the headline says Trump could waive claim of executive privilege for Bannon. Now what is interesting here is number one Trump hasn`t engaged on these privilege claims for most of his aides. Number two, Bannon doesn`t have legal privilege because he wasn`t in the White House at the time.
And number three, unlike Meadows or Cipollone, you have someone in Steve Bannon who is facing the very real prospect of a federal criminal trial, which, to bring John Flannery back in, which if he loses, could go to real prison time, and I want to remind people, it doesn`t matter whether the committee still technically exists later, or what happens in a controlled Congress, Mister Bannon could very likely end up in prison, which I think his lawyers warned him.
[18:15:00]
How do you interpret what seems to me to be a pretty major “Washington Post” story tonight, Friday night, John, that basically suggests that as soon as tomorrow, Bannon might fold and try to cooperate?
FLANNERY: Cooperate is where I`d stop because I`d have to see it. Consider the fact that executive privilege is granted by Biden, the present president.
MELBER: Right.
FLANNERY: And so it`s irrelevant that Trump does this, so why does Trump do it? Trump does it because that`s what Bannon has said already and he wants it to happen and why does he want it to happen since they both know what they did together? So my feeling as a prosecutor would be this is a trojan horse coming into spread nonsense and to try to, from inside, blow up the investigation.
MELBER: Let me —
FLANNERY: Now —
MELBER: Let me press you — now let me press you on that, John, and then I`ll let you continue. One, I think what you`re saying is very credible suspicion. Mister Bannon waltzing into talk does not mean that he is there to help the investigative goals of the committee. And yet number two, I want to get your view of the breakthrough because the committee does want him there, even if they find him difficult or even if he pleads the Fifth as Mister Eastman did, the committee`s leadership has said he has this duty.
So they would look at this as a win, if this happens tomorrow or whenever it were to, according to “The Post.”
FLANNERY: Right.
MELBER: How do you view that as Garland actually putting heat on these people rather than sitting back and saying oh, it`s a House matter, I am not going to deal with it?
FLANNERY: Yes. Well, we have experienced prosecutors on the team that is working on the January 6th Committee, and so I think every prosecutor or lawyer, trial lawyer, has the notion that when they stand up, they make a decision, the witness is likely a truth tellers or a liar. In this case, what they`ll want to do is have the kind of information that when he says X, they can say, well, you said not X this other time.
And that`s how you control a witness that you`re very suspicious of, and that you look for those things that you can corroborate or contradict. And that gives you a test whether he is telling the truth or not.
I would think in short order, as skilled as he believes he is, as the deceptor of the first order, that he would be, he`d be caught up and I can imagine him after a couple of hours, cross-examining. I just wish I had the opportunity. But there it is.
MELBER: And my last question — I`m running over on time, but if you have Cipollone now testifying today, if Mister Bannon were to testify, what pressure would that then put on the sole remaining individual from the Trump orbit, awaiting a trial, Mister Navarro? I mean he would then go from one of two to being solo. Would that be an even worse legal position for him if you can give me that in 30 seconds?
FLANNERY: Well, in 30 seconds, he is in a prime position to cooperate and make this all work for him. I don`t know what kind of counsel he is getting, but that would be my first instinct, if I were representing him. And he can corroborate a lot of people because there were a lot of people in the room with him. He would be corroborating conversations where there`s only one other person that might cooperate. And Cipollone is significant because unlike John Dean, he has no culpability. So that`s the way I see this situation right now.
MELBER: Really striking, as I remind our viewers, you both prosecuted these kinds of cases and advised this kind of exact committee, so getting your read on more than one development, really interesting. Thank you, John. Have a good weekend.
It`s a busy night, let me tell everyone what is coming up. We`ve got Joe Biden taking executive action on women and choice. We`ll get into that. Donald Trump wanted to get back on Twitter, well, the hopes of that are in imploding. Late-breaking news tonight billionaire Elon Musk is now formally trying to bail on buying Twitter at all.
And tonight, the power of protests and the anti-Trump raids that takes us all the way back to do the right things, Spike Lee`s classic. I have something very special for you, airing for the first time tonight.
And then what`s coming up next? We have all that coming up later. But right after this break, we will show you that new bodycam video of one of the Trump aides that was just mentioned, one of the DOJ appointees, when his home was searched. New video. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:23:28]
MELBER: Lots of news in this insurrection probe when the January 6th committee will conclude the hearing stage of its work next week with two more hearings including this coming Tuesday, focusing on domestic violent extremist groups. Meanwhile, the Oath Keepers` leader Stewart Rhodes says he might want to testify but he wants it to be live, from the Capitol, not from jail, where he`s stuck awaiting his trial for seditious conspiracy.
As for that other hearing, there will be one more hearing after Tuesday, as I mentioned. Now it hasn`t been announced when it will be but basically we`re looking at the last two hearings in this process. We also know that all of this has made waves, and caught the eye of investigators. Take former DOJ official, Jeffrey Clark, who was pushing that illegal coup plot that I was just discussing with one of our guests, the so-called murder- suicide pact.
Well, Mister Clark who used to oversee big swaths of the Justice Department now had his home searched by the feds who report to the Justice Department, and there is a new video showing how it went down.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let`s step outside and we`ll —
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just real quick, we`ve got to clear the house and you`re safe. Is your wife home?
JEFFREY CLARK, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, nobody`s home.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. So no one is in there?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. You can absolutely call your lawyers, but go ahead and step outside real quick.
CLARK: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ll put you over here behind your car so no one will see you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. Go ahead and step on out here for me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on this way.
CLARK: Can I put pants on first?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, you got to clear the house.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re going to clear the house.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We got to make sure it`s safe.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And as soon as we clear the house, we`ll get you talk to your lawyer and we`ll get some pants on, OK?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[18:25:01]
MELBER: He will get his pants and access to his lawyer, the agent says, but they`re not messing around. And those are in a sense a type of former colleagues even if they don`t know him personally.
This is how the tables turn. You can see there the feds will usher him outside. They have to clear the house and then of course he does have access to his rights and his lawyer. This is what it looks like when the law operates even against those who clearly thought they were above it. And it`s a sign of just how both in imagery, in scenery, but also in substance, this probe is making waves and breaking through around the nation which is why we turn to a very special guest who has been helping us through this whole process.
Michael Hirschorn is a writer. He`s something of a progressive activist but he`s also an award-winning television producer, and we get his insights when we`re back in one minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: I`m now joined by writer, progressive advocate and Emmy Award- winning television producer, Michael HIrschorn.
Welcome back, sir.
MICHAEL HIRSCHORN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ISH ENTERTAINMENT: Yes. Great to be here.
MELBER: We could start any number of places but I begin with you of the video we just showed of a Trump loyalist being dragged out of his house asking whether he could put on pants, being told no, we`ve got to clear the house as a federal process for this kind of home searches approved by a judge. And how these moments are playing across the country, what do you think breaks through for people when they try to understand whether there was criminality at the highest levels of that former government?
HIRSCHORN: Right, I mean I think that we have entered the kind of clown show point of the hearings, and I think that you can tell that the hearings are successful by the degree to which these people increasingly start to look ridiculous.
MELBER: Explain.
HIRSCHORN: You don`t win an argument against people like the MAGA types, you make them look preposterous and they`re starting to look for prosperous. We`ve entered the crabs in a bucket phase where they`re all kind of clawing at each other, trying to get out, you know, Giuliani is a tragic comic figure. Jeffrey Clark is a pathetic comic figure. Bannon is an increasingly but clown figure, and eventually that`s what`s going to break through.
MELBER: Let`s take your barrel with the Bannon news. Viewers (INAUDIBLE) I think are familiar with him as a figure. He said a lot of things about how he was going to take this to the end. Now tonight “Washington Post” is reporting on a way to cut a deal. That`s a type of surrender, a type of weakness again using his standard of what he claimed it was about. It was about strength.
Well, this will be the opposite of his proclaimed strength and he`s at the bottom of that barrel. Apparently deciding that he doesn`t want to be the bottom crab. He wants to crawl up to some degree. How does that affect the loyalty or lack thereof in this desperate group of people?
HIRSCHORN: Right, I think desperate is the correct word. I think it`s increasingly going to start unraveling. Cipollone is, you know, is a huge breakthrough. I can`t imagine that he has not told them something very useful. Bannon is a kind of unique figure. He`s kind of like a weird nihilistic, narcissistic figure who is sort of desperate to have attention and if the possibility of appearing in front of national television and having his moment in the sun might be worth it for the kind of total collapse that follows.
He`s just a weird or one psychologically to figure out, but I think, in general, we are now seeing how successful the January 6th hearings were. I`m really curious, you know, can they stick the landing? What is the endgame here? What do they arrive at? I don`t know the answer.
MELBER: Well, the endgame is coming, as I mention with two hearings left. As for the sort of self-interest in the splitting here, it`s not, as you say, some logical or moral argument with MAGA world, it`s a question about self-interest in the future. And that brings us to the final thing I wanted to get your reaction to, which is around the country.
[18:30:00]
People keep hearing from Republicans, Bush appointees, Trump appointees, and others saying, well, actually, there may have been crimes here. And that`s a message coming from right-wing validators take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALBERTO GONZALES, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think one might make the argument that there`s certainly the beginnings of a case for seditious conspiracy, obstruction of Congress.
MICK MULVANEY, FORMER TRUMP CHIEF OF STAFF: And what you`re seeing I think is folks, especially in my party are looking at Donald Trump as damaged. And as well, something that might weigh down the party going into the midterms and into 2024.
TY COBB, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: Yes, I think that the president certainly deserves some blame for what happened. I charged up the crowd.
AIDAN MCLAUGHLIN, HOSTS, THE INTERVIEW: Do you expect that we`re going to see Trump prosecuted by the Justice Department on any of these charges?
ANDREW MCCARTHY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I do now, yes.
(End VT)
MELBER: Michael?
MICHAEL HIRSCHORN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ISH ENTERTAINMENT: Yes, I think there are two scenarios, one that`s from a progressive point of view, one that`s really positive, one that`s potentially very negative. The positive scenario is a Republican crackup, and the Republican crackup kind of looks like Trump is prosecuted.
There`s a rump faction of Republican loyalists who stick with Trump no matter what while increasing numbers of people peel away from Trump. And that sort of ends up in a kind of weird eclipsed equilibrium, where the party is frozen and incapable of moving forward. The alternative is that Trump becomes martyred. And if the prosecution and whatever happens, don`t follow through in the correct way. Then he is given renewed power.
MELBER: Very interesting. And you`re talking about a dynamic that right- wing grievance culture, as with many pseudo authoritarian movements, has trafficked in. So, it is interesting you mentioned the martyrdom. Something to think about over the weekend. Michael, good to see you.
HIRSCHORN: Great, thank you.
MELBER: Appreciate it. Coming up. We have an update on President Biden`s executive action and a big blow to Donald Trump`s hopes for getting back on Twitter. Breaking late Friday night, Elon Musk is bailing. You may recall this is what we said might happen because he puts profits above people. My breakdown is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:36:43]
MELBER: News breaking late Friday, billionaire Elon Musk wants out of his big plans to buy all of Twitter. It was just three months ago that he agreed to a $44 billion price tag. Musk now formally running from that blockbuster deal that he personally reached and negotiated. He claims now that Twitter breached first. Musk is citing officially business and profit concerns, and as the markets have shifted and the economy has tanked.
The deal that he reached may not have looked as good for him, profit wise. Note that none of that has anything to do with free speech or canceled culture or getting Trump back on Twitter, which is what Musk really propagandized about over and over and trying to whip up support for his deal. He even got a lot of people debating the idea that this wasn`t really a business transaction, but that he was trying to change Twitter for the public good.
That he would deal with these free speech concerns and he would get Donald Trump back on there. It was all crap. It was a ploy though, that worked on many people, including people who fashion themselves. Political experts. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, FOX NEWS: It`s not an overstatement to say, it could be the single most important development for free speech in the modern history of the United States.
LARRY KUDLOW, FORMER U.S. DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: They just put him on the board. I think he`s going to change Twitter, which has suppressed all conservative thought.
PETE HEGSETH, HOST, FOX NEWS: For once, this isn`t about power and money. Musk is doing it to save free speech.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s our Edison. This is our Thomas Edison. This is our DaVinci of our generation.
KUDLOW: Elon Musk to the rescue. I think Elon Musk is helping to save America from the far left.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is not about money for him. This is literally about saving civilization.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: It`s all out there, right there in the open. It was about money and wasn`t about saving America. He is running from his own audacious deal. Whatever that costs him will be worked out in court. But there is a lesson here for capitalism and politics. We live in an era where people want billionaires to be all things to all people and were part of the right-wing political culture, which does celebrate free-market capitalism supposedly has this belief that billionaires will help them.
Well, they got worked. It was not true. And that`s totally separate from the issues with Twitter and free speech, which we`ve covered here. But we also covered the fact that as far back as April when this news was first breaking, it was going to only be about money and free speech was a smokescreen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Business and profit is his motivation and his skill. And it will continue to be what he is about. He has a fiduciary duty to the investors that I told you tonight. He`s pursuing right now. He must maximize profits for them. Even if he takes the company private. That`s a fact.
(End VT)
MELBER: It was a fact in April, it was a fact when the markets might have looked better for him. It was a fact, weeks ago when we did an update on this story. It`s a fact tonight as Elon Musk pulls out over money. So, when billionaires come back to you again and claim that what they`re doing with their billions and their investments and their fiduciary duties is about something other than their own profits and personal enrichment.
[18:40:00]
I promise you. You can use this cheat code. They are lying to you. And I say this to be helpful to some of those poor saps who got tricked. If this helps Geraldo. Well, here you go. Some free advice. They`re lying to you when they say it`s about something other than money. The rest of it, we can still debate. We`re big believers in free speech here on this program, but a lot of people got tricked.
We`re going to fit in a break. When we come back, Joe Biden taking executive action today. And by the end of the hour, something very special about mobilizing outrage against Trumpism in America. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:45:05]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This decision affects everyone. Unrelated to choice, beyond choice. We cannot allow an out-of-control Supreme Court working in conjunction with extremist elements of the Republican Party to take away freedoms and our personal autonomy.
(End VT)
MELBER: The president speaking today, an outlet that focuses on women`s rights and related issues. Jezebel said that he made some fair points, but the action falls short. Meanwhile, the fight has played out in the midterm`s races, takes — the swing state I should say of Pennsylvania. Democrats blasting the Republican governor candidate Doug Mastriano as very extreme on this issue with ads like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Doug Mastriano scares me.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Even to protect the life of a mother.
DOUG MASTRIANO, REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR CANDIDATE: I don`t give a way for exceptions either.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And Doug Mastriano will criminalize abortions and put doctors who perform them in jail.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Doug Marciano is too extreme on abortion.
(End VT)
MELBER: We are joined now by Laura Bassett, who is editor-in-chief of Jezebel, which I just mentioned. Thanks for being here.
LAURA BASSETT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, JEZEBEL: Thank you for having me, Ari.
MELBER: What do you see going forward on this issue, where the decision is law of the land, the president criticized in your outlet and other places for his approach while Democrats do something that may be good politics but also feels a little short, which is campaigning again on the issue while people need help.
BASSETT: Right. I — Democrat`s playbook seems to be telling people to vote, vote, vote. And of course, I would never say voting it`s not important. It`s extremely important. And Biden specifically mentioned today, if you give me two more pro-choice senators and a pro-choice house, I can codify Roe v. Wade. I — the problem is, Democrats already voted.
They put Biden in office, they gave us a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House, voters in Georgia stood in 12-hour lines amid voter suppression to deliver Biden that majority. And people want to see more than just words and rhetoric. People want to see them fight. They want to see them do something. If you think about it, Republicans don`t have control of any chamber of Congress.
So obviously the Supreme Court is conservative right now. And they have the lower hand on abortion. Two-thirds of the country supports Roe v. Wade. Wants abortion to be legal. Democrats have the upper hand in every possible way. And yet they are losing on this issue. And I think people want to see them fight. They want to see them do something. Right now, they`re playing by a different game. Playing by different rules than the Republicans are. And I think people are frustrated by that.
MELBER: What do you think they should do?
BASSETT: Well, so, you know, a lot of suggestions have been put out, especially by progressives like Elizabeth Warren, AOC, they could start providing abortion on federal lands, for instance, I think Biden needs to be stronger in his calling out specific senators that are holding up carving out the filibuster to codify abortion rights. He hasn`t called out person Sinema. He hasn`t called out Joe Manchin.
You know, the executive order today needed to be more specific, it needed to lay out specific actions that he`s going to do instead of just saying, I`m directing the Department of Health and Human Services to create a report. The fact is, we knew six weeks ago after the leak that this decision was happening.
And the administration was caught flat-footed, it seems like they weren`t prepared for it. Even though way before the decision was leaked. Many of us knew that Roe was going to fall, it felt like Democrats didn`t have an action plan. And people want to know what the action plan is.
MELBER: Yes, understood. Also want to get your reaction to an important story to a lot of people. Newsweek, noting that Arizona is looking at a provision that would try to give rights basically, to embryos, fertilized eggs, that they would be legally tantamount to people.
And this, according to some would open the door to something that even the pro-life movement has claimed it doesn`t want to do at least its main advocates, which is actually start prosecuting and imprisoning women. Where does this fit in, in your view to the issue, and is it something that is being underestimated, as we still process how the fall of Roe will play out?
BASSETT: Yes, Ari. And you say start prosecuting women, start imprisoning women. I mean, they`ve already been doing that. And they`ve been pushing these so-called personhood laws for over a decade. I`ve written about them dozens and dozens of times. This has always been where it`s going. They will not stop at the overturning of Roe.
We`ve already seen, since Roe was overturned, a hospital system in the Midwest stopped providing plan B. to raped survivors because now they`re starting to talk about how maybe certain forms of birth control like emergency contraception and the IUD work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and therefore isn`t abortifacients.
And this is just the beginning. A hospital system in New Orleans is saying if you come in bleeding from miscarriage, we`re telling our doctors to report you. The criminalization of abortion and even miscarriage, any kind of negative pregnancy outcome is already happening. And the push for personhood is already happening. I think people are just starting to pay more attention now that Roe fall.
[18:50:00]
MELBER: All important stuff, including your criticism or your assessment of where this president, this administration can go. Laura Bassett, you`ve been on before. I hope you`ll come back.
BASSETT: Thank you for having me. Anytime.
MELBER: Thank you and have a good weekend. We`re going to fit a break. But then when we come back something special. I mentioned how protesters have been channeling anti-Trump energy to do new things in new ways. That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:55:08]
MELBER: Protests continuing this week over the police killing of Jayland Walker. After police fired 60 rounds. It`s another police fatality and a trend that continues at the same rate since those 2020 protests over the police killing of George Floyd. Just as that incident followed many, many others across American history like the 2014 police killing of Eric Garner, an unarmed man who was killed in a controversial NYPD chokehold.
Which eerily echoed a police chokehold killing that was depicted in the 1989 film, Do the Right Thing by Spike Lee. That film showed tensions in one Brooklyn neighborhood over a hot summer day. The Oscar-nominated movie seemed to reflect and predict America`s continued policing and racial problems.
It was art in pursuit of truth and maybe change just as the soundtrack`s original Public Enemy song, Fight The Power, which you probably remember. Has become such an iconic protest anthem, remaining relevant today. Well, the music outlet Complex invited me to discuss some of the top protest anthems across all of hip hop, along with music journalist Brian “B.Dot” Miller. Well, of course, that song did come up.
And we want to share with you right now a little bit of what we talked about. Airing here on THE BEAT for the first time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: It`s one of the most iconic protest songs in any genre, period.
BRIAN B.DOT MILLER, MUSIC JOURNALIST: Go back and look at Public Enemy. They`re in the streets, they have the signs, flavor, flavors, flavor, flaming. Elvis was a hero to most but he never met — meant anything to me.
MELBER: When you look at where it`s playing, it`s a lot of cities with police still killing innocent people, overwhelmingly black and brown people. We have the data, that song is for not just Trump or Trump-like conservative candidates, it`s for who`s in power. Oh, this new mayor said it`d be different, but the rate is the same. And that I think applies as an anthem in a way that`s different than something that, as you said, has an expiration date.
MILLER: All right, well, Fight The Power, that`s going on to the final round.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Fight The Power, protest is playing that song to challenge oppression, racism, and as I mentioned, politicians in both parties. Then there are some anthems that focus on one target, like a iconic track by Y.G., and the late Nipsey Hussle. Which bluntly reacted to Donald Trump when he first ran for president and was sung by protesters for years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) you.
CROWD: Donald Trump.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) you.
CROWD: Donald Trump.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE).
CROWD: Donald Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That`s clearly how some people felt. The song is called the F. Donald Trump. And as an anthem that has come up over and over for so many people in politics, it came up in this discussion that we had about political music.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: FDT is the most important contemporaneous rebuke of Trump. The song went back on the charts when he lost.
MILLER: Right, it did.
MELBER: And the Nipsey verse on it come from a place where you probably can`t go.
MILLER: Right.
MELBER: There`s some steam building. And it`s probably about to blow.
MILLER: That`s a fact.
MELBER: And then they said, our beef is not racial, our beef is with Donald Trump because of what he stands for. And there`s a bar in there about white people like my next of kin, which really harkens back to a lot of the promise of hip hop, which is if we share respect if we actually fix the world around us, then races don`t have to be the dividing line that they want to make.
MILLER: Right.
MELBER: So, to me, FDT is just — is just super important that way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Sometimes a song really does capture how people feel better than anything. We wanted to share that there, shout out to Complex and Brian “B.Dot” Miller, who you saw on camera. He`s actually also been a guest on THE BEAT. Because that discussion really reflects something important, we think not only in politics and news, but really in how we see the world.
And I want to share with you, you can look it up the full discussion there of protest music by searching Melber Complex on YouTube. Search Melber Complex in YouTube and you can find the entire interview with Mr. Miller. If you`re looking for me, you can always connect with me at AriMelber.com. That`s AriMelber.com, the best way to find me.
If you want to say anything on social media as we go into the weekend, well tell us any songs we missed or your favorite protest anthem @AriMelber on any social media service. @AriMelber, you can tell me what is the most important protest anthem in America, in your life, or one that`s made you want to shout along just like we showed FDT.
Well, thanks for spending time with us. I wish everyone a great weekend. I will be back with you on Monday including as part of MSNBC`s hearing coverage. Next week, we`ve got a lot coming down the pike. But until then have a great weekend and “THE REIDOUT” with Joy Reid is up next.