Updated
Summary
Substantial escalation in the January 6th probe as DOJ seized phones from top Trump aides and campaign lawyers. After weeks of confusion, Trump legal team focused on delay tactics, claiming many of the seized documents might not be classified. The New York Times Columnist Michelle Goldberg joins Ari Melber to talk about inflation falling to the number two issue after the democracy crisis and the Democrats` counts on women voters for midterm success. 40 new subpoenas have been issued by the Department of Justice in the last week and they have names including two top Trump advisors, Boris Epshteyn, a lawyer, and Mike Roman had their phones seized.
Transcript
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: Thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these extraordinary times. We are grateful. THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER starts right now.
Hi, Ari.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC ANCHOR: Hi, Nicolle. I was prepping for my show, starting to watch yours on the breaking coverage. You know, we track which Trump aides have been investigated by DOJ and I know you track it closely. It`s been only a handful of top aides until this “New York Times” story which says it`s now approaching dozens.
WALLACE: It really is breaking it open, and again, we know about it from the aides, right? DOJ isn`t telling us anything for better or for worse, probably for better, but it`s really bursting into full view that the three rings are under investigation, the rally, the fake electors and the big grift, the big scam. It`s a stunning piece of reporting.
MELBER: Yes, it`s a huge piece of reporting as you say, and when you start going up the line on those three diagrams and some of them like Venn diagram overlap, you`re getting some of the —
WALLACE: Cross.
MELBER: Yes. Top people around Trump. Big story. I was watching your coverage, and good to see you, Nicolle.
WALLACE: I`m going to get down to my office and watch yours.
MELBER: OK. Nice to see you.
Welcome to THE BEAT, everyone. We begin with this breaking news on the DOJ criminal January 6th probe.
The Justice Department investigation into the January 6th insurrection and coup is substantially escalating. This is a story that Nicolle and I just discussed crossing just within the last hour courtesy of “The New York Times.” The Justice Department count for subpoenas has drastically increased that we know of. This may have been going on privately or secretly, but “The Times” has busted open the story, and you see some of the names.
Two top Trump advisers, including Boris Epshteyn and Mike Roman had their phones seized along with these 40 subpoenas. Boris Epshteyn was the Trump campaign lawyer who was directly involved in efforts that could constitute crimes or fraud. Indeed we have endeavored to talk to every principal or source that we can, and our reporting, and when we pressed him, he admitted to part of the fraudulent elector plans here on THE BEAT.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Did you ever make calls like that regarding what you`re calling these alternate electors?
BORIS EPSHTEYN, TRUMP CAMPAIGN LAWYER: I was quoted in “The Washington Post” in the last 24 hours. Yes, I was part of the process to make sure there were alternate electors for when as we hope the challenges to the seat of electors would be heard and would be successful, part of 12th Amendment of the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That was Boris Epshteyn`s on the record explanation, his view of his defense, and what others may view as a confession. Because while he may have the view that the Constitution supports what he was doing, the seizing of his phone suggests that both the DOJ and an independent judge may not view it the same way.
“The Times” calls this a significant escalation of a probe we`ve known about, but a probe that has, for many months at the DOJ, focused on the ground troops, on the insurrectionists, on the people who physically stormed the Capitol that day. Remember, Mr. Epshteyn and others are having their phones seized. They`re being hit with these subpoenas. These are individuals who are not in trouble for potentially trespassing at the Capitol, or take Jeffrey Clark, his home searched by federal authorities pursuant to this probe.
That was a sign that things were heating up on a handful of lawyers or John Eastman, who had his phone seized. We reported on that here by agents in New Mexico, and we released some of that video. You take this all together and we are witnessing confirmation of the legal steps that honestly until today had never reached a large number of people at the top of the Trump orbit. You have the January 6th Committee investigating over here.
You have the classified documents story at Mar-a-Lago that has been going strong over here. But then when you go to the DOJ and what it is doing about the coup and the planning to obstruct or hinder the counting of the votes, this is — and we have been tracking this since the beginning — this is the largest number of Trump aides who were not on the scene at the Capitol but may have been further up the line, operating what is an alleged coup conspiracy.
Let`s get right to our experts on the breaking news. They haven`t had much time to prepare, but they do know the outlines of the investigation. “New York Times” magazine legal writer Emily Bazelon and former civil prosecutor Maya Wiley, president, the Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights and a former New York mayoral candidate.
Maya, when you see “The Times” report, 40 subpoenas and phone seizures, what`s different about what`s known for this probe today from compared to before the story broke?
MAYA WILEY, INCOMING PRESIDENT AND CEO, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS: Well, I think what we`re clear about is just how extensive the criminal investigation is because we knew that there was an investigation on the fake electors conspiracy, right?
[18:05:04]
That was something that we knew. But the extent to which it extends both January 6th insurrection, but also the place that the Department of Justice has arrived, because it is 40 subpoenas, I mean, what that tells us is how far along the investigation is. This is not something that the Department of Justice does, and a matter of course just sends subpoenas out, is because the work they`ve done over the past months have led them to have reasons to subpoena the people they have subpoenaed in order to get additional evidence.
It tells us that while we don`t know how far along they are — I would suggest there`s still time to go — this isn`t about the midterm elections. It is about the building of evidence and how far they`ve come and just how far and broad the number of people who have been engaged in it may be.
MELBER: Yes. And Emily, as I mentioned, that story just crossed the wire. Like your analysis of what we`re told according to the “Times” sources is one of the subpoenas at a minimum asked about anyone in the executive or legislative branch that you had contact with regarding executing the rally or trying to, quote, “obstruct, influence, impede or delay,” the January 6th certification. As people remember, the January 6th certification was indeed delayed, criminally.
What does it tell you that the subpoenas focus on that?
EMILY BAZELON, LEGAL WRITER, NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE: Well, I think it`s important that the subpoenas are going to people who worked as lawyers for Trump because that gets into the realm of attorney-client privilege. I don`t think the Justice Department would do that lightly. And the focus on people in the executive or legislative branches that might have known about what transpired on January 6th, that is a reminder of course of Casey Hutchinson`s testimony for the January 6th congressional committee where you have her as this close aide talking about Mark Meadows, talking about what the White House counsel knew, and these efforts to stop Trump or to get Trump to stop the rioters, to intervene in some way.
And their statements at least in Hutchinson`s words that if Trump was not interested in doing that, that Meadows in particular had kind of given up. So you wonder if they`re trying to get corroboration for that account, if there are other aspects of that day they`re trying to nail down from multiple witnesses because you wouldn`t want to whole thing to hinge on one person`s testimony. You would want to corroborate that.
MELBER: Yes, and you mentioned what it hinges on. And some of these folks we`ve heard about from the January 6th Committee. Others, Maya, have been a little bit more behind the scenes with their well-known and legal circles and well-known in New York. Take Bernie Kerik, former New York City police commissioner. He was pushing the voter fraud claims. I`m reading from “The New York Times” here. He was doing it with Giuliani who of course has been facing multiple legal problems.
The subpoena to seek information about the plan to submit, quote, “slates of electors pledged to Mr. Trump from swing states that were won by Joe Biden in the 2020 election.”
Maya, I appreciate “The New York Times”` clinical reference. Another way to say it is massive elector fraud trying to steal the votes of the people in those state who is voted for Biden. However you put it, what does it tell you that individuals like Mr. Kerik are now under this heat newly reported tonight?
WILEY: Well, the primary thing it tells me is, you know, don`t do the crime if you can`t do the time. In other words, if in fact there are law violations that — and you are part of it, you are going to get caught up in it. And I want the go back to something that Emily said that was so important in terms of the players, right, and Giuliani holding himself as an attorney for Donald Trump. But also Jack Wilenchik, remember, the attorney in Arizona and Phoenix who was the one who, in an e-mail exchange with Boris Epshteyn said fake electors. I mean, actually made reference to these electors as fake.
MELBER: Yes.
WILEY: Which was one of the reasons why it would be surprising not to see attorneys that were engaged as part of this investigation, because even what we`ve seen in the public eye, whether it`s Rudy Giuliani admitting in deposition testimony that he didn`t have facts to back up some of the allegations he was making about voting machines, or in this case, the Epshteyn exchange with Wilenchik, attorneys who are actually saying and doing things that suggest that a crime fraud exception may exist.
Being an attorney does not shield you from being part of an investigation or possibly being subject to an indictment if you in fact have been participating in a fraudulent conspiracy.
MELBER: Right. And here we are 10 minutes into this breaking news story, and Emily, I`ll remind viewers we`re following 40 new January 6th subpoenas.
[18:10:04]
“The New York Times” saying they reached the upper echelons, quote, “too Trump aides.” We`ve touched on a couple. There are so many in this story that I haven`t had time to mention them all. I turn now, 10 minutes in, Emily, to Dan Scavino, who may not be a household name but the January 6th Committee did bear down on him and because Donald Trump was obsessed with publicity and how to use the internet to get publicity, Dan actually was very close to Donald Trump back when he was allowed to tweet.
Now the January 6th Committee demanded his testimony. He defied them. They held him in contempt, but unlike Mr. Navarro and Mr. Bannon, the DOJ decided not to pursue him. They didn`t explain the reasons, they just said they did an analysis. And that is, if I can coin a very nerdy phrase, Emily, that`s very Garland. You know, they were very careful, they did not overdo it, and at that time we reported that.
In fairness to Mr. Meadows and Mr. Scavino, they did not act on that criminal contempt referral. Now today we learned they are subpoenaing him. And so, I`m curious, Emily, A, what do you think of the significance of that in this investigation? And B, do you think Mr. Scavino has as good a shot evading a criminal subpoena as he did the House subpoena?
BAZELON: So, I would say this is a renewed focus on the events leading up to January 6th. I don`t think I realized before this that Dan Scavino might be someone the Justice Department would look at in that regard, someone who apparently they think has insider information about what happened. But the subpoena suggests that they at least in their view have reason to think that.
And no, it`s harder to evade a criminal subpoena than it is to evade a subpoena from the House committee because a criminal subpoena comes with the possibility of contempt of court and actually going to jail if you don`t abide by it. So I think that really amps things up for Scavino here.
MELBER: Right, and it just, again, shows that there`s so much of the iceberg that`s under water. We`re just not always going to know. Scavino himself and his lawyers may have thought, wow, we got through the whole contempt thing. They may have had a couple of good weeks. This, as soon as they got the subpoena, the story is breaking tonight, we don`t have the date of it, changes everything.
So again, as I told viewers, this is a breaking story. “The Times” calling it the biggest escalation to date in the January 6th probe as far as Trump`s aides are concerned, going up the line.
We`re going to fit in our shortest break. I`m going to ask both of our guests to stay with me. When we come back in one minute we`re going get into this clash over Trump`s stolen documents.
There`s motions now trying to drag out how long DOJ can review the materials. There`s this challenge by the Garland Justice Department to that ruling that was temporarily blocking their use. There`s a disagreement allegedly from the Trump side about what is even classified, but the larger clash is over who will ultimately review the seized documents. Here are some of the candidates for that. Trump and the DOJ basically continuing this clash. Who is going to review what the DOJ still says is stolen material? And Hillary Clinton, who knows a lot about this whole area, and the law saying this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: He`s not the president, and we do have some special exceptions for someone actually in the office. So I do think that just like any American, if there is evidence, that evidence should be pursued.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: A careful nod to the exceptions for even a former president there from his rival, Hillary Clinton, and a larger question about what`s going to happen when all these probes at once. We`re back in one minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: We are back with Emily Bazelon and Maya Wiley discussing this clash over the classified documents. Emily?
BAZELON: Well, you know, I think that there was some prayer, some hope, some faint hope that the Trump team would in some way take this judge off the hook by allowing our view to go forward of these hundred or so classified documents because the Justice Department made a really strong argument that criminal inquiry and intelligence review which posed to national security are linked.
And so some hope here that the judge would be able to quietly save face and allow the government to keep carefully looking at those hundred or so documents. But now I think that`s over. She`s going to have to make a ruling. The Trump team is being very aggressive and arguing that she should keep those documents as well from the government.
MELBER: Right. And that`s sort of where they`ve landed. I mean, Maya, the Trump team had a lot of problems even by whatever usual standard you want to use for the lawyering. We just talked about some of his lawyers having their own lawyers because of criminal trouble. But even by that standard it was really incoherent, they were contradicting themselves. They were putting gout things that they`re allowed to lie in public. They said, maybe there`s a standing order to declassify. And there wasn`t. And their own aide said there wasn`t.
Had they argued that in court you might be up for perjury. So they had a couple of really bad weeks in fairness, and I always want to give viewers the accuracy here. They clearly have found in the delay lane a lot more fruitful avenue than in the denial lane because the denials were lies. But in the delays, they found this judge, and I`m reading here from now they`re suggesting well, maybe the documents, maybe none of them are classified or disclosed.
Trump lawyers say the prosecutors have now overstated the national security concerns and say there`s no indication that any classified records were disclosed to anyone so, that`s a claim, Maya. How did you dissect that? Does anyone include the citizen Donald Trump and the people around him who were dealing with the documents?
WILEY: Well, I — look, I found this filing to be nonsensical, and I`ll tell you why. I mean, first of all, on the one hand it says they shouldn`t be able to use this material for a criminal investigation, but by the way, it`s classified but they shouldn`t be able to look at it, but it is not sensitive and it hasn`t harmed anyone.
I mean, it`s all over the map, and it`s not coherent any way. But let`s just make this one point. The crime here can be a crime simply of possessing national security, and how you held it, number one. So there`s already an establishment of probable cause for that crime. The warrant itself at Mar-a-Lago, it had a provision that talked about the treatment of the documents and not only how they were secured but transmittal, whether they had been shared is a word in the warrant.
And what that tells us is that there was probable cause that something did happen with these documents. That doesn`t mean it can be proven. It doesn`t mean that there would be an indictment on that crime. It does mean that an independent judge said there was probable cause. And now to make the argument that somehow that there has been a Department of Justice overreach in a criminal investigation it just sort of strains credulity is my polite way of saying it sounds bonkers to me.
MELBER: I like bonkers. Sure.
WILEY: But I will say that — you know what I mean? You know, that`s my polite TV evening word for this. It`s not a strong brief. It is all over the map, and I look at it and read it more as a PR document, more as a way of ginning up the masses who think this is an overreach by the Justice Department. I think that`s a broader audience than the judges themselves.
MELBER: Right. That all makes sense. We really have our hands full with a lot of legal breaking news to start the week. We got a pretty rare thing, Emily, which is Chief Justice John Roberts actually speaking out, which itself is rare, and then he`s addressing something that many justices try to avoid or evade, which is contemporaneous criticism. I mean, they have this thing, they say, well, we don`t pay attention at all. Obviously they`re aware of something. They`re human beings.
Whether it affects their rulings or not is a more complex question. But he`s speaking out. We know what`s happened with overturning Roe v. Wade. We know that this is a court that is looking at a bunch of other democracy issues that have really hung in the balance with an obvious credibility crisis. Here`s what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Lately the criticism is phrased in terms of, you know, because of these opinions it calls into question the legitimacy of the court. So you don`t want to political branches telling you what the law is, and you don`t want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is. But I don`t understand the connection between opinions that people disagree with and the legitimacy of the court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Emily, he rephrases the critique as if you disagree with a ruling, then you are being unreasonable and attacking the court`s legitimacy.
[18:20:06]
I`ve read many John Roberts opinion as you have. I think it`s fair to say he`s brilliant, but I ask you, is he using his considerable intellect here to conflate or shall we say fuzz the actual genuine criticism in the country which has to do with a bunch of justices who went and swore to the Senate that they honored precedent, that Roe was precedent or super precedent, and then for no external reality reason came in and canceled human rights for half the nation?
BAZELON: I mean, I think Chief Justice Roberts is saying what he has to say here. This is the court with his name on it. He has to defend its actions and so the sort of easy way to make the argument is to say that any criticism of opinions like Dobbs, which overturned Roe vs. Wade is an attack on the court itself in a way that suggests that there should no longer be a court deciding what the law is, deciding what the Constitution says.
And so there`s a kind of ratcheting up of the criticism that makes it sound very untempered and unreasonable, and you know, that`s the way Roberts can try to delegitimate the people who are he views trying to delegitimatize the court.
MELBER: I take your point, and I think you`re certainly correct that what he`s doing is what he thinks he needs to do, is the way you put it. I wonder, Maya, if you want to respond to Emily and potentially me as the questioner, my question would be, though, is that the only option? Because he also his moral authority. And if they`re going to discuss these opinions at all in the public. And you can debate that traditions, norms, or as we say in law school, yada-yada, another way to say it is yes, the court has to very carefully consider when it just completely overturns precedent, because this will happen.
And if the precedent is, well, gosh, the entire understanding of equality has changed in 50 years, so you might need to rethink what is the boundaries for property or marriage, that might be different as an external reason than, oh, we`re just canceling this, and a bunch of justices basically misled the Senate, if not worse. Maya?
WILEY: Well, yes, look. I mean, I certainly agree with Emily that I don`t know how much a chief justice could say other than we do our job, we do our job the way we do it, which is essentially what I heard him say. I think the problem for him making that argument, as you say, Ari, is it ignored several things. It ignores how politicized a process of appointing the justices that delivered the majority in the first ever Supreme Court case to reverse a fundamental right, take it away.
To do it in a context where actually Justice Roberts himself would not have gone quite as far as some on the court, I say that not to agree with him, but we know he has been an institutionalist and he has been more likely to uphold precedent even that he disagreed with personally. That didn`t hold here because, as you know and as many of us know who are lawyers but I think it`s also women feel very seriously that, sorry, you ignored your own rules about where and how you overturn precedent.
That doesn`t smack of just legal disagreement. It does smack of ideology, as did the construction of this very court because, let`s remember, Barack Obama was denied a hearing on a nominee, Merrick Garland, that Republicans had said they would vote to confirm, and not for any good reason. I won`t go through the other nominees but I think this is a fundamental problem for the court that goes beyond the points that Justice Roberts made.
MELBER: Yes. Well, on more than one story, Maya and Emily, thanks to both of you.
Let me tell folks what`s coming up. The breaking news going into our hour was 40 new subpoenas into the criminal probe of January 6th. We actually have more on that later in the hour. While there are signs of a Russian retreat in Ukraine, problem for Putin, but next, President Biden, the road to the midterms and why they say the Democrats now think they have the upper hand. That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:29:00]
MELBER: Maybe you hear about the midterms a lot, but we are actually in the homestretch. About eight weeks out from election day with early voting making it even earlier. And the president is saying that there`s good policy and good politics on his campaign trail. He went to the Logan Airport in Boston saying infrastructure is finally getting the boost it needs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States of America, not one airport ranks in the top 25 in the world. What in the hell is the matter with us? Last year I signed a law, a once in a generation investment into our nation`s roads, highways, bridges, railroads, ports, airports, water systems, high speed internet, et cetera. And it`s the most significant — this is a fact. Most significant investment since President Eisenhower`s Interstate Highway System.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Part of the message there is a lot of the airports suck, and if you ever travel, I think you can relate to that. But that`s the problem. What Joe Biden is selling here is the solution that government can work, that when you come out of a pandemic, and the problems America has you have to spend to get.
[18:30:00]
And maybe it`s just lucky timing because I`ve told you for the past few months, Joe Biden has had all kinds of problems with approval. But now you see these — gas prices coming down. The national average is below 3.75 this week, as low as three bucks in some places. That`s the headline and something people notice every single day.
New polling shows that voters see inflation, the rising costs, as the second most important issue. That`s not ideal for Democrats but looks what`s number one — the idea that we continue to face threats to democracy from the right wing that wants to literally turn this country into some sort of quasi-authoritarian place where Republicans win elections, no matter what.
This is a big shift. Now, this stuff doesn`t come out of the blue, if you watch the news regularly and I can tell that you do. Because, well, if you don`t, you`re not hearing me. If you watch the news, you`ve heard about the problems with democracy for a long time. But that shift I just showed you is a bunch of people were hearing more about it.
And maybe that`s because they have heard one way or the other online on the news, social media people talking what Joe Biden has spent some political capital on pushing the last few weeks. What he calls the semi-fascist threat posed by MAGA Republicans.
Meanwhile, women aren`t galvanized. We`ve been covering more than one way. The impact of the Supreme Court overturning Roe. Democratic candidates are leaning into this issue. Here`s one Pennsylvania Senate candidate Fetterman just yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN FETTERMAN, PENNSYLVANIA SENATE CANDIDATE: My name is John Fetterwoman. Women are the reason we can win. Codify Roe. Codify roe. Right now, we have the numbers to do it. But we`re not. Send me to D.C. to make sure you know. I will be there to be that vote.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: We turn to our friend of THE BEAT New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg on all the above. Welcome back.
MICHELLE GOLDBERG, COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Hey, thanks for having me.
MELBER: Michelle, you cover all of this stuff. So, I`m going to give you dealer`s choice, because I don`t think this is a single-issue election. I just went over some of the reasons why. So, do you want to start with airports, or democracy or women`s rights?
GOLDBERG: Well, so I think that what`s happened is that Joe Biden had a few months of just like, one terrible story after another, there was the chaos and, you know, humanitarian and disaster or pull up (INAUDIBLE), there was soaring inflation, soaring gas price is just bad news, in a sense that things were sort of out of control and the Democrats couldn`t govern.
They couldn`t, you know, pass any sort of — they couldn`t pass any of the elements that go back that our agenda, and there`s been a simultaneous shift on lots of different fronts, right? Inflation is going down. Gas prices are going down. The Inflation Reduction Act passed by a bill that was part of his campaign pledge on student loan relief.
Or Ukraine, which by the Marshall the world to support the Ukrainian government is too, have taken a turn. And so, all of a sudden, the administration looks competent, it looks like it`s governing the, you know, kind of day-to-day bread and butter issues in the country have improved.
And then meanwhile, the election has spotlighted of what kind of what the Republican Party is because in lots of different districts across the country. You have clones of Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and, you know, Madison Cawthorn, running for office and kind of making clear what the modern Republican Party stands for.
MELBER: Yes, and that goes to the polling that`s surprising, and viewers may remember I`ve cautioned against over interpreting any of these polls, but as a broad indicator, right? If you — like I mentioned airports suck as a campaign message. If you see that pop up in top 10, top five, it tells you some people care about it. And conversely, if none, it`s never on there, then people aren`t thinking about it.
So, we`ll put back up the very simple comparison of we know gas and prices and inflation all this has been a big deal this year, and it`s hurting people and it`s not their fault. We`ll put this up here. We have that. That`s democracy. Yes. The fact that the democracy threat is above cost of living.
Even if you flip these, the fact that the democracy crisis, Michelle, is even a top five issue tells you something is breaking through and I`m careful to say it`s not every single person who`s a registered Republican because we`ve found some Republicans are concerned about this. What does it tell you that that surpassed the cost of living?
[18:35:00]
GOLDBERG: Well, again, I think part of it is that people are seeing it in their own district, they`re seeing election deniers run for — they`re seeing election desire — deniers run for all sorts of offices. I think the January 6th hearings have really broken through much more than I expect them to at the beginning.
And then finally, Joe Biden has used the bully pulpit as a lot of democratic activists wanted him to, you know, he made that speech, although I think that speech was made after that polling. But you know, he`s kind of brought up this issue again, and again. He`s made it really salient. You know, some kind of pundits have said that you know, that speech was miss — a mistake because the optics were bad, the lighting was bad.
They`ve harped on him being quote, unquote, divisive by using the phrase semi-fascist, but I think if you`re having a public debate about whether or not the modern Republican Party is semi-fascist, that`s kind of good territory for Democrats to be on.
MELBER: I don`t know Michelle. I think optics and lighting are more important than having a pluralistic democracy. Right?
GOLDBERG: I`m actually not going to say what I`m thinking about.
MELBER: Oh, interesting. I was — I was out of town that week. So, I missed — go ahead.
GOLDBERG: (INAUDIBLE) you for.
MELBER: Say again.
GOLDBERG: Is that I`m not going to say what I`m thinking about what job that qualifies you for.
MELBER: OK, well, I`ll think about it. Sometimes it`s what`s off air. That`s best, but I happen to be out of town during some of that time, quite honestly. So, I wasn`t looking at the news for a few days. And then I saw like a debate over the stagecraft or whatever and I was like, I don`t even know if I need to read into that. I kind of missed that news cycle. Um —
GOLDBERG: Like the suit of 2022.
MELBER: Good to see you, Michelle.
GOLDBERG: Good to see you too.
MELBER: Absolutely. Kicking off our Monday right. We have more on the breaking news coming up. This is where we started the hour with 40 subpoenas in the DOJ criminal probe. The New York Times is calling it the most substantial escalation today. People right at Donald Trump side having their phone seized, including former BEAT guest Boris Epshteyn. We have an update on that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:42:03]
MELBER: Tracking breaking news that the Department of Justice`s criminal probe into January 6th is escalating. The New York Times cross this story late in the day coming into our hour. 40 new subpoenas have been issued in the last week and they have names including two Trump top Trump advisors, Boris Epshteyn, a lawyer and Mike Roman had their phones seized. That`s a big deal.
The Times also reports on the emails that were sent to Epshteyn from a lawyer in December 2020 about pushing the fraudulent elector`s plot. The email refers to alternative and says that would be a better term than fake votes, including the smiley face emoji that we reported on when that email first surfaced.
Mr. Epshteyn has publicly defended what he says was, in his view, a plan to legally put forward a way to overthrow the election. We discussed this. I interviewed him about it and he in a sense defended and confessed to the fraudulent elector`s plot.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BORIS EPSHTEYN, ATTORNEY: Everything that was done was done illegally by the Trump legal team by according to the rules and under the leadership of Rudy Giuliani. We fought for the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Words like truth and elector and vote while they all are getting pressed. Mr. Epshteyn according to the New York Times did not issue comment today he may need his own lawyer. And you take it all together. And this is an inflection point. Indeed, we began the hour discussing this with my colleague, Nicolle Wallace.
What four months has been focused on the people who criminally trespassed on January 6th, has now officially moved to subpoenaing a lot of Trump aides who were never physically there may have had a lot to do with efforts to overthrow the election. We`re going to fit in a break when we come back, we turn to Ukraine where forces are seizing territory and putting Putin on defense. That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:48:26]
MELBER: There is stunning and somewhat embarrassing news a setback for Putin in front of the entire world. Russian troops are officially in retreat tonight. After this surprising counter-offensive by Ukraine. Russia has lost hundreds of square miles of territory now in the last few days. Ukrainian flags are actually raised in towns that were held by Putin forces.
There are reports of Russian soldiers dropping rifles and running off and retaliation though Russian missiles have now continued to go and hit those civilian targets that we`ve reported on before including civilian infrastructure. It is a setback for Putin. Pundits on Russian T.V. even discussing the unthinkable.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BORIS NADEZHDIN, FORMER STATE DUMA DEPUTY: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: I`m joined by Evelyn Farkas a Pentagon official who oversees Russia`s foreign policy of the Obama administration among other portfolio items and as director of the McCain Institute. Welcome back.
EVELYN FARKAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MCCAIN INSTITUTE: Thank you, Ari.
MELBER: What is happening here?
FARKAS: Well, I think the Ukrainians have finally figured out how to use the weapons that we finally provided them. Of course, they would like artillery that goes longer range and they were swift to provide a new list of items that they need but they basically have used the intelligence that we provided them, and it sounds like we have been providing real-time actionable intelligence.
[18:50:00]
The equipment we provided them. The training we provided them, including all the special operations training, which had a healthy chunk of psychological operations included. Because the way the Ukrainians really manage this feat, this military feat was in part largely because they misled the Russians about where they were going to take their offensive.
MELBER: Let me read from some of the New York Times coverage here. Russia is retreating Ukraine pokes holes in Putin`s projection of force and undercuts the image of competence and minds that he`s worked on for two decades to build Putin`s penchant for misleading his own people catching up to him. You know, we can`t be too grandiose when we think about all the lives lost and the horror over there and a land war in Europe.
And yet with that understood, instead, there is something almost sort of, you know, Shakespearean or — or something very classic in the sheer hubris, leading to something that undercuts as the Times wrote exactly what he`s always tried to project. Where does that fit in and what do you see as the next phase or potential endgame?
FARKAS: Well, this is the thing with Vladimir Putin, he`s become obsessed with this Neo, you know, Neo — Imperial idea of taking over Ukraine, and, frankly, the whole former Soviet Union space, if you will, the countries that used to comprise the former Soviet Union. He`s — he`s become as obsessed with destroying democracy in Ukraine, and frankly, now really destroying the Ukrainian state and the Ukrainian people.
And this is blinded him to reality. I don`t know what his intelligence people have told them. As you know, Ari, you know, right from the beginning, there have been all kinds of failures on the part of the Russian military and the establishment, in assessing the Ukrainian capabilities and the Western resolve.
This now is a whole another level because the Russians could have seen, I mean, President Biden has authorized I think about $15 billion and counting since he`s been in office for Ukraine. And we know the Europeans have done a lot as well. So, the Russians clearly have been, as you said, really arrogant.
And the only way that they can take this back is to call for mass mobilization, which could actually lead to the downfall of the Russian government, because this war is not popular in Moscow, St. Petersburg, you know, he`s sending poor people from eastern parts of rural parts of Russia to fight this war.
MELBER: What portion of this phase and this Ukrainian resurgence has to do with what you just said, the miss — the mismatch in the people the resolve of the invaded, again, something we`ve seen throughout history, and one portion has to do with a Russian army that maybe more decrepit than many realized.
FARKAS: I think it`s both — yes, it`s both, Ari, I mean, of course, I was in the Pentagon reading all of our intelligence about the Russian military and their modernization. And we didn`t question it enough. On the flip side, we`ve been training Ukrainians for eight years. And I have overseen you know, from Congress, and also the Pentagon.
Lots of training programs that we conducted for foreign — for foreign militaries, but nothing focuses the mind like actually being at war. And so, I think the Ukrainians really took every scrap of the training we gave them, and they put it to good use. And I think what`s important is this special operations training.
And then now this artillery, the long-range artillery and the combination of all of the things they learned from us. The ongoing weapons intelligence, and I guess some advice that we`re providing them have really helped the Ukrainians take advantage of the Russian weakness.
So yes, they needed a weak opponent. But they have now shown that they can take advantage of it. It`s still going to be tricky, Ari, to continue to take more territory and then to hold it. But, you know, right now the momentum is on their side.
MELBER: Yes, it`s really fascinating. It`s a war that of course, has consumed much attention and focus on the way that the western allies have tried to help them. At times Ukrainians have said not helped enough and then here you have them going forward at times on their own Evelyn Farkas, thank you so much.
Farkas: Thank you. Ari.
MELBER: Absolutely. We have more to tell you about. We`re going to fit in a break. But Bill Gates is my special guest tomorrow on THE BEAT. I want to tell you why. And what`s going on, on the issues of global poverty, something so important and near and dear to so many people. That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:58:33]
MELBER: I want to tell you about our guests tomorrow. You can see on the screen it is Bill Gates, I have some personal connection because I grew up in Seattle where of course Microsoft was big, and Bill Gates was a big figure. But that`s not why he`s joining us. He remains the largest philanthropist in the world.
And while some may treat him as controversial, he predicted, in a sense part of the pandemic and has found himself along with Dr. Fauci as one of the chief targets of conspiracy theories and lies. He continues to spend a great deal of his immense fortune on trying to tackle some of the biggest problems in the world both for now in the future.
Global poverty, health crisis, and climate change, which is we`re going to get into in the interview actually affects global poverty. One of the things that I can tell you is part of Mr. Gates` still embargoed report that we`re going to get into is a larger topic, which is, is it fair that poor countries have to bear the brunt of so many policy choices of rich countries and global capitalism.
So, this is we think, an important interview. Mr. Gates has only been on THE BEAT once in the five-year history of our show. Tomorrow is his second interview. We`re going to get into all of it from global poverty. And how do you fix the world to politics, to technology, Metaverse A.I. That`s Bill Gates tomorrow on THE BEAT.
As always, you can mark it and put in your calendar and join us live. You can DVR the show which we encourage. You can always check us out on YouTube as well. Bill Gates on THE BEAT tomorrow I wanted you to know about it it`s an interview we are looking forward to. “THE REIDOUT WITH JOY REID” is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)