Transcript: Beat with Ali Melber, October 12, 21

2021-12-14 14:38:01 By : Ms. Lisa Wu

Actor Arian Moayed speaks. Congressman Adam Schiff discussed the January 6 investigation. Senator Mitch McConnell blinked again. Matt Gates collaborates with Steve Bannon.

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC host: The beat of ARI MELBER now begins.

ARI MELBER, MSNBC host: Hi, Nicole. Thank you so much.

Welcome to the beat. This is Ali Melbo.

Our current headlines, new reports on the MAGA riot investigation, today the committee dropped six new subpoenas, including two White House veterans who met with Trump on January 4 to discuss the evolution into a rebellion Rallies.

There will also be a top guest on our headlines. Adam Schiff is in this part of the show, this part is always on call and join us.

We are also tracking these new details about Trump’s lawyer Jenna Ellis (Jenna Ellis) in written form to promote an apparently unconstitutional plan that attempts to simply miscalculate the actual electors Come let Vice President Pence steal the right to vote.

Now they write it down. The investigation cares about this because it may mark the line between the loose speech you hear from all these people and the conspiracy that may be illegal.

Now, back to the tense period after Trump's loss, we report what is happening. We listened to the opinions of members of Trump's legal team and put pressure on them. Now the lawyer in that popular position, Ms. Ellis, well, we talked to her in our report. She insisted that the Trump team has more time to fight, but the official deadline has passed.

JENNA ELLIS, former Trump campaign senior legal counsel: Our strategy is to ensure that we continue to challenge all these false and fraudulent results.

Melber: What's the point of all this?

Ellis: Well, of course, the purpose of this is to get a fair and accurate result, because the election was stolen and President Trump won by an overwhelming advantage.

Melber: No, he didn't. This is a lie. In the United States, this is something you can legally do in public or on the radio. She can lie.

However, the problem here is that they are beyond lies. Did they carry out illegal conspiracies? Did they abuse government property, resources, or any authority to try to track down these lies and turn them into a coup?

Therefore, the committee is moving forward. It also recommended prosecuting Trump allies who ignored the subpoena. Steve Bannon faces imprisonment and trial, which is now scheduled for the summer of 2022. The committee chair also released some details about what they got from Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, Mark Meadows. Facing a contempt vote on Monday started out as a claim of cooperation, and now the committee said it was a blatant resistance.

As mentioned earlier, we will have Adam Schiff broadcast live tonight, but we must first introduce an independent legal analyst, the former acting US Attorney General Neal Katyal.

NEAL KATYAL, MSNBC Legal Analyst: Thank you.

Melber: Let's start with what we have just experienced.

When you see the level of detail in the plot-lawyers can provide advice, people and lawyers can lie on TV. But what does the evidence of conspiracy tell you?

Katiear: It tells me that these people look really guilty.

Your juris doctorate does not give you the right to write a memo, which basically advocates a coup under the guise of legal talks. This is what it looked like, what happened.

Now, all the facts must be revealed. But now these facts, look-what we are hearing looks really very, very serious and worrying. It again emphasizes, Ari, why the investigation on January 6th is so important.

I know people are tired of it, just like they are sick, COVID and other things. But as the Court of Appeals said yesterday, this is an armed attack on our Capitol. As far as our Capitol is concerned, this is the most dangerous thing on our American soil since 1812.

So we must understand it deeply. I believe that these lawyers and others who cooperated and contributed to this attack need to be investigated.

Melber: Yes, you made an important point there, quoting the appellate courts, saying that these courts have filed suits against some of them and are independent. They do not participate in team investigations, nor do they participate in team witnesses or defendants.

And, as you said, they sound more like riot investigations themselves, or at least support how serious and serious this view is.

Regarding these new subpoenas showing their whereabouts-I showed a lawyer there in public-I want to read the committee's content here. They said: “Some witnesses worked hard to hold the rally on January 5 and 6. Some people seemed to communicate directly with the former president about the rally.”

It is important for the investigation to figure out what is important, and are they planning—or even controversial words—quoting—"Assemblies" that they are completely allowed to do? If you want to hold a rally about lies, you can do so in the United States.

Or are they planning something and then marching in the Capitol and doing something more than just legally speaking?

So you-I think what investigators are trying to find out is criminal behavior, what bad behavior happened, and then their criminal intent, their criminal intent, if any. So the assembly is absolutely no problem. No one in the Democratic House said that you cannot hold a rally.

The rally has turned into a riot, an armed attack on the Capitol, which is something we cannot have. And, now, does all this happen spontaneously and accidentally? Is this a far cry from what Jenna Ellis and everyone else around Trump think, as well as Trump himself?

I think it's possible that they were all taken aback. But this is exactly what everyone wants to figure out. This is the executive privilege advocated by President Trump. He does not want these documents to come out. He doesn't want to say something to anyone, because I think he is worried.

Melber: Then you have broader questions about evidence. I tried to make people very clear that Meadows was different from Bannon at first.

He talked about things that could be legally valid, such as a privilege, even if they asserted too broadly. He did provide some materials. Then there was the question of whether he left the book, commonly known as just his email, and now, according to the committee, is outright contempt.

I just want to read Politico's report, which states that the archives stated that basically, the presidential record they wanted was not copied or forwarded correctly to his official account. It sounds - although we don't have the complete context, it sounds like a different private email address or other efforts to hide, again, shorthand, but his email.

But does it matter? What do you see there?

Katiear: Yes, so he may have a secret, separate account, which he tried to hide from the American people. who knows?

I think all this is completely predictable. The moment Mark Meadows said he was cooperating, I think it was in your show, and said, yes, when I see it, I will believe it, because when I have to, he won’t want it. Turn over all kinds of information. And this is exactly what happened.

In fact, he rushed into the court and tried to sue the House of Representatives, trying to prevent them from continuing the investigation. That's how scared he is.

KATYAL: This has made no progress for Meadows for two reasons.

One, yesterday’s decision of the Court of Appeals just resoundingly rejected all this nonsense about administrative privileges, for many different reasons, all of which apply to Meadows. The second thing is that Mark Meadows wrote a book on these issues. So he uses his left hand to maintain administrative privileges, and with his right hand, he is actually writing a book on these issues.

There is also something called giving up privileges, which is easy to do. It looks like Meadows has walked into it. Therefore, he can try to postpone the matter in court. But I don't think it will work. Moreover, I hope that the court can do what they have already done for Meadows, that is, act quickly to resolve these false privilege complaints.

And, Neil, this matter is as serious as congenital heart disease. In one hour, we will bring you back to end the week in a relaxed and fun way. So we will see you again in the future.

We now turn to Congressman Adam Schiff, who is today’s news figure, a member of the January 6th committee and chairman of the intelligence committee.

Thank you very much for coming.

What can you tell us about these new subpoenas and the facts you are trying to find?

Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA): Well, these new subpoenas were issued to those who participated in organizing these gatherings in the shopping center that day.

They will go to people who have spoken to the President about what will happen on January 6 before January 6. This really relates to the issue you and Neal are discussing, which means that there are very different issues and the power to overthrow the election wholeheartedly.

The president laid the foundation. He said that you can’t trust any votes counted after election day to lay the foundation for failures that he can explain. In fact, people need to vote to pass absentee ballots during the pandemic, but try to discredit those late ballots.

What followed was a challenge after the court election, a fruitless legal challenge. It was challenged by the president’s contacts with local and state elected officials, such as the Secretary of State of Georgia.

The question is, when all these things fail, is this the last effort to slow down or stop counting on January 6th? Are you considering violence as a last resort?

Melber: Yes. Well, you said it very well and very bluntly, because this is a real problem for the country, not based on political parties, but based on whether democracy is established.

Congressman Schiff stayed because we turned here to see where we can learn more about new developments in the investigation, I just want to explain before we ask him.

This is a detailed letter from the chairman of the committee on January 6, which is making waves.

It noted that former Trump aide Mark Meadows sent investigators an email about the PowerPoint briefing on January 5. Its title is "Election Fraud, Foreign Interference, and the January 6th Choice" and will be used on Capitol Hill.

Now, the committee has mentioned this in the broader conflict about Meadows cooperation, and we have been reporting on it. But this evidence is very tempting. Why should a specific introduction be made? The same letter said it had 38 pages, but the election was over, so a detailed briefing on fraud, foreign interference, and-quoting-"options" might sound like a plan to find options to overthrow an election that has ended.

At this time, the committee has not yet released the PowerPoint or more background information cited here.

Congressman, I want to be very clear about what this letter thinks of the audience. So your committee quoted this email. Does your committee have this PowerPoint itself?

Schiff: You know, Ali, I can’t get insight into the files we have.

We quoted this information and other information, files, emails, and text messages obtained from Mr. Meadows to show that he has realized that these are not privileged materials. His lawyer has confirmed that these are not privileges.

Schiff: We don't ask for privileges here.

So how do you turn around and say, well, I can't talk about these things that I have given you information?

Let me just intervene, because it is so important. I just want to make it clear to the audience. The legal point you put forward seems to be fair. Neal Katyal did it too. You let Mark Meadows try to own it at the same time.

Let's put it aside legally, and then move to the facts section, which is that this committee-you are a key member of it-it promotes the existence of e-mail and PowerPoint, and some members of your own party mentioned this. , Citing this letter, a 38-page PowerPoint presentation, election fraud, and foreign interference.

Some people publish the so-called Trump plan in public or online. Wouldn't it be better to provide some factual background about this? Does this originate in the Trump White House or elsewhere?

Schiff: Well, Ali, we are still working hard to determine some of these issues.

Compared with the people who organized the rally, how did the White House participate in the January 6th plan? Are they holding hands? What role did the White House play in certain legal strategies to overthrow the election?

As you said, what are the other options on January 6th? So I think we do not have complete information at the moment. But we are collecting it at an extremely fast rate. We have now spoken with more than 300 people.

But this is part of the reason why Meadows is an important witness, and why we should despise him and refuse to appear in court.

Melber: Yes. This is the vote on Monday, which is a big deal.

This will make him legally in Bannon's position. The Department of Justice can then decide whether to prosecute him.

The same letter, because, as I mentioned, it sparked a lot of discussion—I think, because I know how you know you, because I interviewed you before, and I think you might know some of them.

The same letter also mentions documents provided by Meadows, including an e-mail dated January 5, 2021 regarding putting the National Guard on standby. Now, if it supports it, it will be very explosive.

Of course, the language here is about its email. I think my question to you again is that, in order to do my job as a journalist, first, do Mr. Meadows or anyone else in the White House support a reasonable inference to use the National Guard in this way? support?

Second, if you and other members of the committee do not answer this question, is it fair to raise such a matter without a fuller background within the power of your government? Is this fair to the person being investigated?

Schiff: Well, first of all, I can't tell you what inference to draw. As future hearings and other disclosures proceed, we will definitely reveal more information.

But as far as Mr. Meadows responded to his lawyers by pointing out some documents he provided to refute the claims of administrative privileges, the relevance of these documents to the investigation, and the fairness of the facts, if there are any requirements for privileges, due to the very specific nature of these documents The nature and its reference to January 6th are clearly abandoned, so yes, I think it's fair.

I think what is unfair to the American people is that Mark Meadows said he would cooperate and start cooperation. I don't know what has changed. Maybe the former president is upset about his book or the fact that he is cooperating. But now that he is using this indiscreet excuse, I can write about these things in my book, but somehow I am barred from testifying in Congress.

Well, whether you are a prosecutor or a lawyer, I think you are returning to one of your strongest points, because legally speaking, he does seem to contradict his claimed privileges.

I want to push you again. I think the audience will think this must be very important. I continue to do this.

This is what the Democratic Senator Schatz said. He cited the so-called PowerPoint, which has not been released yet, and we have not verified it, but the Meadows e-mail mentioned by the committee cited the PowerPoint and said, look, "Someone explain to me why this is not" This is the only one in the news matter. I respect the fourth level"-he is talking about the media-"but, completely'blank'. 'They, the Trump people,' have a plan to end democracy. "

He again quoted what was cited or proposed by your committee. So my last question, because I also want to ask you about legislation and other things, what should the public and the media and everyone who cares about this matter do?

Because, basically, this letter has raised a lot of dust about the idea that Trump people have a so-called blueprint. This is what the senator said. If this is deviating from the basics or more complicated, shouldn't the committee address this issue now? Obviously, I am giving you a chance.

Or is Senator Schatz right, which is fundamentally Trump’s blueprint, which is a 38-page PowerPoint?

Schiff: Well, first of all, I think how you should look at it, this is the committee's intention on it. This is to expose the hypocrisy of Mark Meadows. In fact, he claims to have privileges on topics that have been provided to the committee and written in his book.

I think you should also understand that some of these documents are very important and relevant to our investigation. This can be clearly seen from the title.

As for the role of the White House in this matter, this is part of the coup attempt. There are some legal basis or so-called legal basis. We are still working hard to ascertain these facts. Therefore, I am not prepared to draw any conclusions or recommend them to you.

Schiff: But what I want to say is that Ali, judging from what has been made public, the fact that the former president continued to use this big lie to campaign.

His promoters across the country are using it to deprive election officials of their duties and to set up individuals or legislatures that can overthrow the next presidential election. We are seeing that if they fail again, they are trying to launch a coup.

Schiff: For me, this should be the center of our attention.

Melber: Well, it's very important. I know you care about this. I-we have discussed it as a non-partisan issue because it is important to democracy, even though the person doing this is a partisan.

So this is a Republican attack on free and fair elections in many places. I know you care about this.

For the audience, I want to make it clear because this is part of my job, and for now, you seem to throw cold water on the many attempts by people to read this letter about the final survey results. Committee, come later. You have said that hearing this letter repeatedly is mainly about legal privileges, and it does not necessarily precede the conclusions shown by all the evidence.

You can add or correct it as needed. I want to ask you one more question, that is, you have been working hard to enact legislation to protect democracy, which will have some evidence of Trump and deal with some of the things you just mentioned.

Tell us about it. How did you pass the Senate?

Schiff: Well, the "Protection of Our Democracy Act" that we introduced and passed yesterday is actually a post-Watergate reform of this generation.

After Nixon, Congress enacted a series of new transparency requirements, new ethics laws, and new campaign finance laws. We are trying to do the same thing because there have been more abuses of power in the past four years than Nixon expected.

Therefore, among other things, this will speed up the execution of congressional subpoenas. It will prevent the abuse of the power of pardon. We hope that this will protect the Ministry of Justice from political interference. It will increase penalties for violations of the Hatch Act and violations of the Remuneration Clause, as well as a series of other protective measures for the inspector general and whistleblowers.

During the post-Watergate incident, Republicans and Democrats supported these reforms, even though they reflected the abuse of power by the previous Republican government. This time, Republicans are too afraid of Donald Trump.

We have a brave Republican who joined us. I hope there will be more people in the Senate. But if not, we will have to get rid of that kind of obstruction to pass these reforms and voting rights legislation.

I thank you for your attention to all of this and follow up here as we try to understand what happened during an important investigation.

Senator Schiff, thank you, sir.

Here comes the tape showing Bannon and Gates and talking about the assault force.

In addition, you heard a lot of excellent news about Mitch McConnell from DC experts, but he just blinked again and contradicted himself. We have a special guest.

Also, bad Christmas puns? Well, we would not end this week without them.

One of our favorite shows is one of our favorite shows, the popular series "Inheritance" that we have been talking about. We have different actors. We will explain why it appears.

Melber: You may have missed some policy news with political implications.

Mitch McConnell succumbed again in the gaze with the Democrats, which kind of broke a lot of the topics we heard from DC experts. Now, Biden is working hard to win spending again in a few months. He is pushing this employment bill.

McConnell blocked his opponents in many ways. He said he was a god of death, and his obstruction tactics are often discussed in Washington

Laura Ingraham, Fox News: Mickey McConnell is a super-he is a super smart tactician.

Paul Kane, "Washington Post": He has always been a strategic tactician. This will always be known to him.

FMR. Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY): I never question McConnell. I work with him. You don't want to mess with McConnell.

Melber: A Republican explained that you don't want to mess with him. Fox News cheered for this tactic. An independent analyst, DC type, said that this is what he did.

Of course he also won some victories. We have covered them.

But not all narratives can last forever. The Democrats are increasingly annoying McConnell. In September, he vowed to fight the debt. He said that Republicans would never help Democrats avoid breach of contract. He said that if necessary, he is willing to trigger a crisis and trigger a global financial crisis.

Sen. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): ... legislation to increase the debt limit.

They will not get help from Senate Republicans in raising the debt ceiling.

The Democrats got help from the Republicans. You see, McConnell blinked. Then many Republican right wingers felt uneasy. Trump said McConnell had folded. Then McConnell rushed over—that's the interesting thing about what happened this week.

He said, oh, well, I won’t do this anymore, and told Biden that he won’t do anything for the Democratic Party when he avoids the next default: “I won’t provide this kind of help anymore.”

Well, this is not true. The tactician redoubled his efforts on something, then blinked again, and reached a deadlock over the relative mystery of funding the government through the debt ceiling. McConnell and 13 other Republicans will make this request and support Biden's victory, but they have not received any concessions in return. By the way, this is normal practice. You should not get concessions for not taking hostages.

This is what an independent media said: "McConnell blinked at the debt limit," saying that he would never help the Democratic Party. He only did it twice, and McConnell blinked. Senate Republicans also lost to Biden in other areas, including infrastructure construction, McConnell voted for Biden after vowing 100% opposition, and certain aspects of COVID relief.

So in life, of course, one thing you must do in objective news reports is to put the narrative aside. If they come from the ring road, you may put them aside, and then pay attention to what actually happened in real time.

The representation, narration and hype about Mickey McConnell is that he knows his strategy, especially if it is about mysterious legislation, he will eventually win, and he will definitely stick to his position. He has neither.

This reminds us of Thomas Jefferson’s famous saying: Don’t believe the hype.

Here comes Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times. Maybe when we come back within 60 seconds, she will tell us who really said this sentence.

Melber: Michelle Goldberg, a columnist for the New York Times, is now joining me.

Michelle Goldberg, MSNBC contributor: Nice to meet you too.

Melber: In a lot of this financial hostage hijacking, some Republicans want it. Mitch McConnell's flickering is more than just a flash. This may actually be a responsible approach.

But I should say that at least some recent D-DC clichés show problems. If you want to show that he is blinking, just look at Tucker Carlson's reaction.

Donald Trump, former President of the United States: Mitch McConnell, he is a disaster for the party.

Tucker Carlson, Fox News: ... the Senate, but in real life, everyone in Washington knows this. On important issues, Mitch McConnell is a tool of the left.

Goldberg: Actually, I saw Tucker Carlson's paragraph, and he was also very angry about other things, that is, Mickey McConnell apparently intervened and got one of the planners of the rally on January 6th. Kick out Bob Dole outside the plan, some kind of commemorative event.

Maybe this is his funeral or Bob Dole's memorial. Therefore, from the point of view of Tucker Carlson, and perhaps the point of view of others on the right, Mitch McConnell has betrayed them twice in a row.

In other words, I don’t want to be overly grateful that Mitch McConnell didn’t blow up the world economy because of partisan hatred, right? I think what he did is logical, that is, now, Joe Biden-logic other than moral logic, because I think moral logic does not apply to Mickey McConnell.

At present, Joe Biden's approval rate is very low, and its impact on the economy is also very low. If Republicans did something that caused economic disaster, and it was obviously the Republicans’ fault, that would not bode well for what I think McConnell wanted most in the world, the Senate majority leader.

I think it’s interesting that if he becomes the leader of the majority party in the Senate, if he can do something like this again, to some extent withdraw the most extreme demands in his party, yes, because, in order to do this, what he needs Help-he obviously didn't get the help of most of the core team, but he has at least a big piece to get him-through the obstruction bill.

Many of the people who helped him have retired, right? They will be replaced by people who are not suitable for trading, they are not suitable for long-term strategic thinking, they just want to immediately adopt a fringe policy to make Biden's presidency fail again, even if it fails-I think we have been with other types of Republicans in the past Saw this.

You see this in Newt Gingrich, if it means they can strike some blows on the Democratic president, they are kind of willing to watch the whole world burn.

Melber: But is there anything that I can learn from the fact that the halo around Mickey McConnell’s endless tactical brilliance does not match the facts, when staring, for the reasons you said-not every time , But under this set of conditions, it turns out that he can collapse?

Goldberg: I ​​think it really depends on the type of hand he holds, and it also depends on the Democratic Party.

I think the willingness of the Democrats to unite is very important here. This is a very important lesson for the Democrats to keep going, because on the other hand, you can imagine the Democrats saying that, as I just said, Biden's evaluation of the economy is very bad. We cannot risk economic disaster. We cannot risk the stability of the US economy on the world stage.

On the contrary, they are united together. I think McConnell is even worried that they will enact some kind of exemption for obstructing the bill, which is a way to prevent them from doing so.

Goldberg: Technically speaking, this is also an exemption from the obstruction bill, because they passed this law, stipulating that the Democrats can raise the debt ceiling with 50 votes, but they did it for the Republicans. It did not set a precedent for Joe Manchin and Kelsten Cinemas to join the Democratic Party. They said, basically, enough is enough.

In the face of Republican obstruction, we will enact an exemption for the obstruction bill, because I think McConnell knows that once they do this once, it will be easier to do it again.

This involves all the things that are produced, where you talk about who is running Washington, especially the Republican Party. Although Wall Street has an influence on both, you don't want to sit back and watch the destruction. Therefore, if they need it, they will open up the Republican orthodoxy of obstructing the bill within a second.

Michel Goldberg, thank you as always. I hope you have a nice weekend.

Goldberg: Thank you. You too.

Here comes why Matt Gates switched from his own federal investigation to talking to Steve Bannon, who has his own federal prosecution. They are together again. We will get an in-depth understanding of everything and will also conduct fact-checking.

Melber: The rise of authoritarianism is a current problem in the United States.

This is a large part of the theme of the Republican Party. It started and was dominated by Donald Trump, but as many others emerged, it continued to develop rapidly.

This is the serious aspect of something that seems stupid or funny. Matt Gaetz, who is under federal investigation, is playing Steve Bannon’s podcast. As we reported, Bannon is now awaiting trial because of his second criminal prosecution. What is it.

Now, Gates has many reasons to change the topic, but the topics they focus on are also worthy of attention. When you think about the rise of authoritarianism and the public promises to abuse power when these people form an alliance with someone, the former president who abused his power,

Steve Bannon, former chief strategist of the White House: This is Trump in power. This is the purpose of our 4,000 assault troops. We must have this force to prepare them now, right?

We are going to the beach. When President Trump wins again in 2024 or before, you have the landing team and the beachhead team, all the terms they use.

Melber: Or before, Bannon was referring to more and more right-wing things, first of all QAnon’s conspiracy theories, but now to a certain extent—especially when you talk about people working in the White House or incumbents. The Congress is a way of showing how shameless and open people are trying to seize power without holding or overturning elections.

Both of these things are anti-democratic. They are authoritarian. We must call them by name.

Gates publicly talked about abuse of power to punish government officials.

Representative MATT GAETZ (R-FL): We will target this administrative state, and we will start with the Department of Justice and the FBI. This is the job I want.

Send me to the Judiciary Committee and their sphincter muscles will tighten because they did a lot of corrupt things there.

Melber: John Flannery, a former federal prosecutor, joined us. He is an advisor to Congressional investigations.

How do you distinguish between brazen and pathetic political drama, which is not new in the United States, and what looks like an open and open conspiracy against mainstream authoritarianism?

JOHN FLANNERY, former federal prosecutor: I think this is not just a public conspiracy. It is indeed and is opening up for drawing.

-Both guys have history. According to the investigation of the mountain select committee, we have Bannon, who is advising the president on how to actually launch the uprising and had contact with these people on the 5th and 6th.

In May of this year, we asked Gaetz to tell people, do you know what the Second Amendment is for? It is used to use it. This is to oppose the government. It was for the uprising.

So what kind of dialogue do we have here? They did not just say that we should oppose the government. They don't just say that we should go out and vote.

We got it from Bannon and he said that we will go to the beach with the landing team and the beachhead team and all the nomenclature they used when President Trump won in 2024, as you said, or before. That was—he was talking about 4,000 assault troops. He was recognizing it—it sounded like a stormtrooper.

This reminds me of my uncle, who was a prisoner of war in World War II, and what my family thought of what happened in Germany. It is here. As for the fascist stormtroopers, they were affiliated forces of Hitler's rise to power.

Flannery: Now, a similar language from Gaetz. Gaetz started-he said, raise your voice. Cause a commotion.

Melber: I would say...

Melber: I want to play another piece for you. I would say that they might invoke this, just as the Charlottesville marchers invoked their version of modern neo-Nazism.

At this moment, I certainly will not report on things that have reached the level of Germany. But I'm talking about authoritarianism, because this is another part I want to play for you. Bannon talks about hunting down opponents, abusing power, in their opinion, if and when they plan to do so when they return to the federal government. listen.

GAETZ: People don't like Donald Trump raising his voice, but sometimes, you have to raise your voice to cause commotion and form an army of patriots who love this country and fight for her.

If we get more of them-this is exactly what we are going to do. We will implement performance, following the compulsory vaccination, the enrichment of ourselves and the people who betrayed the country.

Melber: That was Gates talking to Bannon.

John, I have one minute left.

Melber: What is your legal opinion on how these people defend the difference between it, that is, he is arrogant, he is noisy, he is talking about congressional supervision, which is effective, the supervision part, and what should be When you look at the entire context, does this really sound like an abuse of power?

Flannery: In his own words, the tight sphincter belongs to him and Bannon.

He wants to take over, what, the justice and the FBI. why? For self-defense. Both of these guys are counting on taking over the government, so they don't have to be responsible for what they are saying now, because they have already done it, and we hope they will do it again.

If I were the attorney general, there would be a grand jury investigating that conversation and everything before it. You have to ask yourself, why doesn't the FBI visit each of these people and say, what do you mean to solve this problem, in their way, oh, it's just talk?

Well, this is more than just talking, because they have combined this kind of conversation with action before, violent action. What is happening is that we let me hitchhiker to build their people, their 4,000 storm troops, because this radical takeover was not successful last time, but they said that MAGA will succeed next time.

Well, you just found what we mentioned in public. But, usually, Mr. Flannery, you should go back to the topic. We are looking at two people on the defensive end of the investigation. They have sent Mr. Gaetz’s friends and long-time allies to long-term imprisonment. Mr. Bannon is studying the real prison time in his second prosecution.

Gosh, they have great opinions on the FBI and the Department of Justice. It goes beyond conflicts of interest. This is a kind of hierarchical hypocrisy. But people listen to them, so fact-checking is needed...

Melber: ...that's why we need a bow fact checker.

Nice to meet you, John.

Flannery: Nice to be here. Thank you for inviting me, Ali.

We need to take a break, but next, I will discuss a few important issues, the right to vote in the United States and the difference between your right to self-defense and the growing culture to beautify guns in the United States.

Melber: Today is the Friday of the beat, so you know it's time to go back.

And boy, we have two great guests tonight, Arian Moayed, actor, writer, director, but now the most famous one is playing Stewy in HBO's award-winning "Inheritance."

Actor BRIAN COX: I am surrounded by snakes and (expletives deleted) idiots!

Actor ARIAN MOAYED: Right now, I don’t care, but even high-level whispers in local TV deals can make people so angry at you that they pee at you on the street.

Actor Alan Luke: I am not saying that I will become a better CEO. That didn't say.

JEREMY STRONG, actor: It's not that you didn't say it when you said it.

Look, we are friends. We go back, I can trust you, right?

Melber: Maybe we have a fever here, because, for full disclosure, we are lucky to say that Ariane is the second "inherited" actor to join us this week. We just received a letter from J. Smith-Cameron, who played the CEO of a lawyer on the show.

J. SMITH-CAMERON, actress: The show business is also a place where there is ruthless misogyny and a lot of effort to keep a foothold.

And—but I think, in fact, women in all companies are involved in this.

Melber: Who will take over the company?

Smith Cameron: Well, we know who should take over the company.

Smith Cameron: I don't know. I mean, I think I have a feeling that we haven't thought of yet.

Melber: She plays an excellent lawyer.

Now we have a truly outstanding lawyer, Neal Katyal, who is known as one of the leading lawyers in the country. This is why Obama appointed him as the acting attorney general. He has heard 44 cases in the High Court and occasionally acts in his own 1% series of cases.

Here, he is among the billions of "Showtime".

Well, here he is. That is the video, Neil.

Melber: We don't need to watch the clip because you are here.

Welcome both of you. How are you all?

MOAYED: Thank you for inviting me. amazing.

Love this show, Ali. I love you.

Melber: Oh, that's great. I like "inheritance". I think the audience might figure this out. I love Neil. I like you being together.

Let's start with "inheritance" and then the boss moves here. You use this Stewy character to guide someone, he is really bad, I mean, like the worst banker in the room.

Melber: However-but people like you, anyway, some people like your character. They think you are so passionate about him.

An example, just in Internet love, here is one of these memes, these things that people make and kick. They will accept something you say, and of course they write it very well, but how do you do it.

Let's put this up. This is Stewy, your character. This is circulated on the Internet. I think we have. And I think you are saying something similar: "I think I took a'blank' at the Guggenheim, all of you."

How do you guide this character?

MOAYED: I mean, writing is incredible.

I mean, look at this now, I mean, he is basically - Logan is outside the door, watching our board meeting outside the room. It’s like, I feel like I’m accepting a Guggenheim museum that you all know.

I mean, when you write such works from Jesse Armstrong and those great writers, I mean, you just have to stand a little further and let this happen, really.

Your character is-do you like any aspect of him?

First of all, you can't—as an actor, you have to love the role you are playing. Otherwise, it will be painful.

Yes, I mean, he never lies. He always tells you exactly how he feels. He is—he said, can we trust you? No, you can't believe me.

MOAYED: And, at the end of the second season, he was basically like, I will make more money than you Roys, which is very important to me.

MOAYED: So, in this regard, you have to respect him because-he is good at his job. He is good at his job.

Melber: You made a very interesting point, and that is his immoral frankness.

Someone like Neil we can trust. Now we move to the "Backup" section.

Neil, what's on your "reserve" list?

Katiear: Man, there are a lot of games this week, Ali.

I really want to-name these Republican holiday cards with people like Boebert and Massie, and their families are posing with guns as if they want to turn this country into Afghanistan or something. So I am very tempted.

But I have to say that this week the Texas Legislature, I just need to give them an advantage, because if-you have to consider what they have achieved, Ali. Just this week, they were sued by the Department of Justice for a crazy redivision plan that reduced the number of Hispanic majority areas from 33 to 30. At this time, Texas has more Hispanic residents. 2 million.

Therefore, the minority areas left behind are much less than before. This is a bit like Hollywood. For each "eternal race", we will be given three "Cities of Philharmonic" or something similar. I mean, this is a real step backwards.

Well that is one thing. The second is that today, they have lost that crazy abortion compulsory policeman rule in the Supreme Court. They tried to allow individuals to sue to stop abortion and said the federal court could not review it. The Supreme Court rejected this today.

Texas is a bit like a fifth-grade student throwing a paper airplane at someone they are obsessed with. We got it. Do you want to be equal to the federal government? Well, let's see where your attention is. Today did not let you go very far.

Ketiar: They passed all kinds of absurd voting restriction laws, and the ID law made them prosecuted by the Ministry of Justice.

Katiear: So it's all just - the Texas Legislature is now taking over the cake.

Melber: Good point. Not surprisingly, your list is very detailed, very thoughtful, and Arian, including a little sick burn from Neal.

Now, what's on your list?

MOAYED: My list is real-I mean, it was a crazy week. I will give Neil that.

I mean, my list is indeed this guy from, who basically fired 900 people on the Zoom conference call. I mean, it's like the worst version I've ever heard, like "The Voice" or "American Idol".

It's like-in the middle of it, he said something similar, and this is the second time I have done this. I cried a lot the first time. This time, I won't cry so much anymore. I will become stronger.

Then, all of a sudden, he fired—he was like, if you were on a Zoom call, congratulations. you are fired.

Yes, I'm sure he won't really let this down. I mean, this is crazy to me. It's a bit like I guess he really wants it-I guess he had a lot of meetings that day and really wanted to finish it in one fell swoop.

Melber: Well, Arian, even if it’s a "trapeze", George Clooney plays a man who makes a living by firing people in the play. He thinks this must be done in person.

Well, it's 2021, Ali. Maybe the Zoom version is what needs to happen. I guess there is-George Clooney has a movie now. This is what I heard from you. George Clooney has a new movie. complete.

Arian, finally, before we lose you, this weekend is the finale of the season. Can you tell us anything?

MOAYED: I can only tell you that Stewy is still cool.

MELBER: Why is your show better than Neal's "Billions"?

MOAYED: This is not something I am going to touch with a 10-foot pole at all.

KATYAL: No, I mean, these shows are great. Of course, I prefer "billions."

But this is a real privilege for Arian. He is just an amazing actor. Thank you so much for coming, Arian.

Melber: We like it. we love...

MOAYED: Neil, hey, you can "inherit" next. Is this what you want to ask?

MOAYED: I mean, we can do it.

Okay, we will see.

Katiear: I got the SAG card.

MOAYED: However, we may need to grow a beard.

We may need you-you may have a beard or an accent. We will think of a way. We will think of a way.

Melber: We will like it.

You may not record it until the end. If we click next year, we will see Maya Wiley and Neal Katyal, we will be very excited.

Arian and Neil, thank you.

We will be back soon.

MELBER: Thank you for watching the beat of ARI MELBER. You can always find me online @AriMelber on social media or

I wish you a nice weekend.