but according to him, government work is tougher. maybe it's time for another biopic. ben carson in hud work. it's not brain surgery, maybe? who knows. the beat with ari melber starts right now. you've got a good show. >> thank you, kate eie, and we begin tonight with breaking news. sam nunberg is here with me live. he is here after he made some news today, saying he received a new subpoena from bob mueller and plans to defy it. he is the first witness to publicly say he will not cooperate with the mueller probe. that shook the legal and political world as just about anyone with any stake was assessing the meaning of a former trump campaign aide

vowing to avoid the special counsel which could mean jail. >> he just said on msnbc moments a i think he, meaning the president, may have done something during the election, but i don't know that for sure. your reaction? >> i definitely think i doesn't know that for sure, because he's incorrect. as we've said many times before, there was no collusion with the trump campaign. >> sam nunberg was one of donald trump's first hires in this campaign. they did have a falling out in august 2015. his pledge to defy mueller comes with an extraordinary revelation, nunberg taking the public inside mueller's probe and these are the people according to nunberg's materials that the special counsel wants more information on. thank you for coming on the beat. >> thank you for having me on. >> when we last spoke, when you

were at this table. >> yes, sir. >> you were cooperating with this probe. why now tonight do you say you won't? >> well, when i look at this, for the period of november 1, 2015 to the present, please provide all documents related to the following individuals. carter page, never spoke to him, okay? corey lewandowski, hope hicks. i didn't speak to them. they forced me out of the campaign. they pushed, they pushed roger out of the campaign. keith schiller? keith is a friend of mine. why do i have to give them my personal communications? steve bannon? roger stone? roger's my mentor. i e-mail, ari, with roger, 15 times a day, okay? and we had a big disagreement during 2016, because once again, as you know, and i've been honest about this. i wanted trump to lose. i didn't care if trump lost.

i thought it would be funny. >> why won't you hand it over? >> because i talked to them. i've spent money on an attorney. i've cooperated with them. and when i got something like this, and then they wanted me to go to the grand jury next friday, and i believe they're trying to start a case against roger, and the reason i believe that is corre that is correct, ari. >> you are holding a subpoena from bob mueller's office. >> by the way -- >> just so we have the facts, that's what you're holding. >> yes, it's a requirement. >> to get documents on those people and for to you go in the grand jury room. why do you think after you did the other interview do they want to make you go in the grand jury room? >> because they're trying to set up a perjury case against roger, and i'm not going to have it. he is like family to me, and i'm not going to do it.

and roger did not talk, roger may have lied about it, but roger did not talk -- >> are you basing that view -- >> yes. >> to use you to get to roger. >> based on a theory or the questions they asked you. >> based on the questions they asked me. i have no idea in advance what they wanted for the grand jury. but what they did tell me was i wasn't going to be a subject or target and i was going to get the same kind of immunity. but they wanted something. now ari -- >> did they offer you immunity? >> yes. now the idea that we had some major plot with roger, with donald trump? after he, corey lewandowski, the minute he got hired, he was, he was -- i don't want to be -- he, let me put it this way, he ran a scam to get hired, okay? that's my opinion. corey lewandowski, the minute he got hired wanted me and roger out. >> but you think had mueller's investigation -- >> i think cory was in there,

and i think corey told them a lot of stuff about us. corey tried to set something up. >> did they say to you or to your lawyer? >> to my lawyer. i've never communicated directly with them >> when you say roger, has roger encouraged you in any way not to cooperate? >> he has not. he made me very upset. has this been done before? >> i'm going to speak to you as an interviewer and a human being. i think there's two reactions right now. i think some people are worried about you, they're worried about what you're doing. i think others are upset because we just showed the white house. >> sarah should shut up, frankly. >> you're in the eye of the storm. >> sarah should shut up. she's a terrible communications -- by the way, her presidential, the person she defends every day, he has a 35% approval rating. she should shut her mouth. >> let me ask you an important

question. >> and i'm warning her to shut her mouth. >> do you understand that you have a legal obligation to comply? >> yeah, i have a legal -- technically i have a legal obligation, but robert mueller and the team has to determine if they really want me to add every communication i've with roger stone and steve bannon. >> the court may hold in contempt -- >> they're going to send me to jail. that's funny e. >> if you are saying that they set a friday deadline. in your mind -- >> no, they wanted a 3:00 p.m. deadline. >> for to you go in there, yes. >> >> yes, and i'm not going. >> are you prepared to be held in contempt and potentially go to jail? >> yes. and you know why? >> why? >> because when they ask for something like this from me and the way they treated and you and i can disagree about it. donald trump is responsible for

this investigation, because he was so stupid after he fired comey, he had the russian in his office. but if they're going to do something like this after the way they treated all the hillary people, with the e-mails, during that investigation, i'm not going to have it. because this shows -- >> i just want to get the facts, because there's a lot flying here. >> you're making two serious claims about what mueller's asked of you. number one, you're saying they subpoenaed this information about other trump officials by 3:00 p.m. today, and that deadline has passed and you're in diefy anse of it. >> yeah, i'm not going to go over 50,000 e-mails. >> you are saying this is not a pledge that you will violate, but now are you not complying with that deadline. >> something like this is so ridiculous, after i went down there, after, by the way, i spent money on the legal. >> mm-hm. >> you know, for a lawyer. and a lot of other people have spent a lot of money. and it's not fair. it's really not fair. now once again, it's donald

trump's responsibility that this investigation's going on. >> mm-hm. >> and as i've told you, i think it was 100% right that he started this independent counsel, not because trump fired comey, which i agreed with, because trump gave the interview and had the russians. >> things he said about why he did it. let me a question not about the law. >> yes, sir. >> you and i have been around these types of probes. they can be stressful for people who did nothing wrong. they can be stressful. how are you holding up? and do you want to take more time to think this through? do you want to change your mind? >> i'm not going to answer something so wide as this. i'm not going to give them every e-mail i had with steve bannon and roger stone. i communicate with them every day. >> are you feeling stressed out with this? >> no. i'm feeling -- i want to see what mr. mueller does.

it's never been done before. here's where we go, you're very fair about this. i think there's hypocrisy. >> mm-hm. >> i think there's two separate rules for democrats and rp republicans. i want to see if they're going to do something to me about this after the way they treated hillary clinton during the comey investigation. let's see it. why, carter page? i mean, look at this. do you think i talk to corey on november 1? i despise corey. if i could see, if i could find corey in an alley, it wouldn't be very nice. >> well, here's question. since you're showing this. and this is your choice. >> yes, sir. >> if you don't talk to corey much and you don't have a lot of material of you and corey going back and forth, then this wouldn't be very honorous. >> why is the government asking for my communications when they know they're casual and they know we did not collude and we did not collude with russians.

>> the short answer for me is i don't nknow because i'm not inside the probe. are you aware that they may already have all of that. >> i think they do. they definitely, they definitely have roger stone's e-mails. they asked me questions about roger stone's, they asked me questions about roger and me that they would only have had roger's e-mails. >> the questions they asked you in your previous interview suggest that they were already raiding yo reading communications between you and roger stone. >> that goes to preet. >> very nice guy. >> he said i'm prepared to bet special counsel mueller already has nunberg's e-mails. even if you already have them, you ask for them anyway. here's another question. do you think's possible that what they're testing here is not

against you, assuming you would completely comply. >> sure. >> but against other people if they withheld incriminating e-mails. >> here's what i would say, ari. roger stone is like a surrogate, he's like my father. >> you file loyeel loyal to him. >> and i'm not going to go in there for them to set up a case against roger. roger did not do anything. roger and i were treated like crap by donald trump. the fact that i was fired by facebook posts where i fine, racially intensetive. do you that i would have cost us a vote? i apologized for it and then corey, and then trump was ready to let corey fire roger. >> and those are old campaign scores and an investigation of the campaign. >> hope hicks, hope hicks, give me corey's girlfriend, his p hi

paramo >> there is an inference that they are out to get you or roger. but you don't know that. because if you guys comply and didn't do anything wrong, you don't think bob mueller from what you said last week is going to eck ma upmake up a case. >> i think this request is too wide. it's not fair. it's not fair. >> let me play for what you you said about these investigators on this show. >> fine, i said they're very professional. >> let's take a look at that. >> this was like a white shoe law firm. going in. okay. i sat in there, they asked me questions. they had charts out. they had specific things they wasn'ted wanted to know. they had followups. they had flow charts. it wasn't a waste of taxpayer money to have me in there. it wasn't a waste of final for me either.

i'm happy to have cooperated. >> is that still your view? >> that's my view. >> it wouldn't be too broad. it would be like a law firm being diligent. >> and my point is that i was so honest, i cooperated. i didn't say call me in to the grand jury when they first contacted me. and after that, after sitting there for so many hours. after paying the money for a lawyer i can get something like this? and i can, ari, i have to earn a living. >> mm-hm. >> you know, i know bob mueller. i know that whole team, and they're right and they probably have something on trump, trump did something pretty bad, if i understood them. >> what do they have? >> i don't know. i have no idea. but they have something. >> do you think they are more interested in trump related to the criminal hacking when we know there are stolen e-mails or the social media. >> i think they're interested in something with his business. >> with his business. >> yes e.

>>. >> did they ask you about the way he ran his business? >> i have no idea what he did. >> and you think they could be asking you more questions about crimes related to the trump organization rather than the campaign? >> yeah. >> let me ask you this. do you think that these investigators are escalating against you for a reason? base you did say something that's true, and there are people out there that are wondering what you'ring to. there are people that i mentioned that you're worried, are you doing something adverse to your interests, wait. and thayere are people saying ds he have a point. and you said an interview is more cooperative. and did you that cooperation. and now they're bringing you before the grand jury. do you have any idea why they're appearing to escalate that. >> our strategy was not to ask why they wanted me at the grand jury. once again, as i was told, i am not a target. >> mm-hm. >> i am not a subject of the investigation. which would, if true -- but they wanted something i said to them in that interview, they want it at the grand jury.

>> do you think they wanted it to put on record for testimonial purposes to use against somebody late sner. >> yeah, of course. >> you might be amid of where so -- ahead of where -- >> you are a lawyer. in these grand juries. >> they want you in that grand jury room to build a case against someone else. >> yes. >> and that person is? >> i don't know. and if it's roger, i'm not going to testify against roger. roger did not do anything. he was treated terribly by donald trump. >> and he's one of donald trump's oldest advisers. >> trump is the most the dishonest person you'll meet. >> you know you'll have to go in there without a lawyer. >> the issue isn't about me going in there. i have no problem telling them what i said in there. the issue is, is i don't think this is fair. this is over, this is, the idea that i carter page, corey

lewandowski and hope hicks? corey lewandowski and hope hicks colluded to get me and roger fired. carter page? i never met the guy in my life. >> do you think carter page has criminal exposure? >> i think carter page the colluded with the russians. i told you that privately. i told you that before. >> and how many people do you think i told he was doing that with on the campaign? >> i don't think he told a lot of people. i don't think he had a lot of power in the campaign. >> there has been a lot of talk that mueller has not done anything with regard to an indictment. do you think he has that from multiple witnesses? >> i have no idea. i have no idea. and i wouldn't -- >> does he have that from you. >> no. i never spoke to him. >> sam nunberg, thank you for being here. you're welcome to stay at the table and participate. i want to give viewers a little more context on what is a big

development. until today, think about it like this. every single person who has spoken publicly about this mueller probe who's been involved has at least publicly said they'll cooperate. >> are you going to talk to mueller in. >> i'm looking forward to it, actually. >> very, to explain to the special counsel, you know, whatever, whatever responses are required. >> we will continue to cooperate with bob mueller in his investigation. >> we'll continue to cooperate and comply. >> i'm more than happy to be transparent about it and cooperate with everyone. >> and yet today as we just saw, a different tack. i want to turn to attorney myra wiley, who is a legal analyst for us. and you were also at this table with mr. nunberg who is still with us the last time he was here, and it was the fbi interview, not the grand jury box but the nfbi interview. now what you just heard from him, your analysis? >> well, i'm really quite flabbergasted at the statement

that, sam, you don't believe that there is anything that you would share that would implicate roger stone in a crime, and yet you would not actually come forward in a grand jury and then give, repeat the statements you've made already directly to federal prosecutors in front of a grand jury. it's rather astounding. i certainly, the way i've seen the subpoena, it is a reasonable subpoena. it does not seem like a huge, random fishing expedition. >> it seems pretty targeted to people who are directly implicated in the investigation already by many things. if there are e-mails that do not exist, they can't be turned over and they can't be burdensome to produce them. >> let me ask this to mr. nunberg, he said many things, some of them may have been based on conjecture. he did say one thing that struck me as reasonable and something i've heard from a range of people caught up in the situation, which is if i cooperated and i didn't do

anything wrong, and i've been told i'm not the target, and i'm spending all this money, why is it getting more pressure on me? why the sneheat? >> i think it's a very human response to being a witness in an investigation. it's stressful. it is time-consuming. there's no question that in the process of trying to get to the truth, which, remember, it is the grand jury that will decide whether or not to indict. so that the grand jury can hear the evidence that the prosecutors have heard in order to understand the facts and circumstances that are being brought to them. so to sort of suggest that talking to the prosecutors is sufficient in the context of an empaneled grand jury is sort of saying, let's have justice with eyes not just closed but gagged and completely unable to engage in an investigatory process. >> and this is where i'll disagree with you respectfully,

is i felt they were very biassed against roger when i was in there. i felt that they're going after roger. i felt, paul manafort and rick gates did illegal things. and they couldn't pay the taxes. i don't know why they don't want to pay the taxes and they worked for russian oligarchs. roger didn't work for russian o oligarchs. they asked me things shall in order -- was it some grand plot by roger and me to get fired. and then i would work for ted cruz, and then we would collude with the russians. that's ridiculous. >> sam sad last week here on wednesday that this was an extremely professional and highly-skilled team. so the notion that they were asking questions, first of all, does not mean that they were suggesting, that there awere answer that would be true or false, only that there were things that they would pursue.

the fact that they asked them in and of themselves has nothing to do with what they will ultimately decide to take to the grand jury. >> i believe they are biassed against roger. >> if we had a justice system that said witnesses could decide the guilt or innocence of any particular individual and therefore not cooperate and make that legally permissible, essentially, weigh wou would no any system at all. >> what she's saying is -- wait, wait. i just want to be clear. you know you get time. >> yeah, i do. you m >> i myou may have a good faith opinion of your good friend, it sounds like you care a lot about someone and you think they're in the right. >> he's my mentor and like a father to me. >> if anyone's fair, they could understand the feeling you have. and yet maya wiley is saying

something broader than that, which is, you have an obligation under federal law to comply. because it's not your call or my call or maya's call. it is the call of justice, which we have prosecutors charged and forced to adjudicate. what do you say to her point that it's not your call? >> i say you're right, and it may not be my call, but here's what i also say, why do they not indict podesta, podesta's brother? >> probably according to the reports has significant foreign lobbying exposure here. the. >> he worked for man for tmanaf. here's where we can agree to disagree. i always find that with these investigations, whether it was scooter libby, whether they didn't charge hillary clinton, that there's always a reason that the democrats don't get tried and the republicans do. now you're going to laugh at me. >> i'm going to definitely

laugh. >> you are going to laugh at me. >> yes, i am. >> but you explain to me why she didn't get indicted. she hid her e-mails. >> i'm going to use moderator's privilege and say you're trying to change the topic. >> no, i'm not. the statute is so broad. >> the reason you're here is you seem to be taking a position that is be-fuddling and really affecting a lot of people, and people are wondering, is it the right decision for you and the right decision under law. >> once again, roger's my men tore. roger's like a father to me. i don't care. take down donald trump. if donald trump did something, take him down. >> so you're saying you would protect roger but not trump. >> i'm not going to go into a grand jury for them to set up a case against roger, whatever case it is, which could be ridiculous. >> if it's ridiculous, there's no reason for you not to go and help him by sharing what you know. the suggestion and the, what

you're essentially projecting to me, as an attorney. >> yes. >> is that you're actually protecting him because there's something to protect. >> there's nothing -- >> so you would do more service to your mentor by demonstrating that he has nothing to fear if, as you say there's nothing in the e-mails, you, as far as you know have never seen or heard any contact between him, wikileaks, russians -- >> here's the problem. the statutes, they take the statutes, as you know as a u.s. attorney, and they're so broad, they can find a way to just charge -- >> you're worried they could make a case against roger stone. >> i'm worried that they're trying to make a case against roger. that they're maneuvering. >> and what would that case be built on? >> i have no idea. i have no idea. but it's ridiculous. >> would it relate to wikileaks? would it relate to wikileaks? >> it could treat wikileaks.

i have been very honest here. i was fired, roger quit. we were treated like crap by donald trump. we had, roger could have done whatever he wanted. and i had a fight with roger about this. i was happy to see trump lose during the summer. >> do you think the president saw your last interview on this show? >> he did. and you know what? i don't care. >> you know that he did. >> no -- yeah, yeah. >> what do you want to say to him tonight? >> i don't care. you know, i don't care what he thinks. you know, i don't care. once again, i worked for him from 2011 to 2015 in mid '15. he had separate sets of rules for me and roger. when he hired corey lewandowski who he left the kochs, he decided that we were trash. and then, as i've told you, he treated michael cone very badly.

>> are you worried about michael in? yea >> michael, i don't know -- >> i'm going to bring in a federal prosecutor who los hals expertise. does your lawyer think what you're doing is a good idea? >> i don't know. i think he may drop me. i know my father -- >> i think your father wants you home for thanksgiving and you should testify. >> do you know what's ridiculous in. >> it is so not ridiculous -- >> i talk to roger 15 times a day. >> if you have e-mail exchanges with him during the period that is under investigation, with people who have clearly been implicated in some way, that doesn't mean they've committed a

crime, but clearly have been implicated in transactions that relate to whether there was a violation of federal law here, then it is a completely reasonable request to ask for those e-mails. >> from november 1, 2015. >> it was the period of the campaign in which there were, all you have to do is go back to the timeline. >> to the present, to the present. >> yes. that's common. >> as promised, hang with me, i want to bring in a former federal prosecutor, barbara mcquade. i want to bring a point that sam raised. have you ever seen anything quite like this? >> no, i haven't. typically, people comply with grand jury subpoenas. there are two bases a witness could raise, one is if they have a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, a spousal request or they believe the request is unduly burdensome.

and the recommemedy is to file motion with the court. a prosecutor might say weel aask you for fewer documents. but other than those circumstances, if a witness refuses, then i do think they face contempt of court and possible jail. >> and contempt of court as we discussing earlier can bring jail. >> i'm not going to jail, come on, ari. do i look like i'm going to jail? >> let me put it to the federal prosecutor. and you're still here, but barbara, if we take mr. nunberg's argument in the best possible light, as a legal argument, it would be something that you just referred to, maybe this is an overbroad request and it should be narrowed. typically as we all know, and viewers will know because this does feel so unusual. typically, that would be a private set of interrogations through lawyers. your view of that aspect of this, barbara, and what they may or may not or legally could do with a witness who is divulging

so much? >> yeah, the first step would be for a lawyer to communicate request twith the prosecutor. short of that, i think a judge could very well hold a witness in contempt. and i would think in a case like this when a witness is so publicly defying the subpoena power of the prosecutor, i would believe that a prosecutor would feel a very strong desire to file charges, to file a motion for contempt, because you have to think about the deterrent effect that that might have on other witnesses out there, not just in this case but in every case going on throughout the country. >> another followup on that and then mr. nunberg your response if you want. but barbara, what you're saying, under the law, based on what's happening on mr. nunberg's own account that there was one grand jury documentary deadline that

he's passed and the other is the subpoena to go in that he vows to defy, they would file a contempt proceeding at what point? >> lawyers typically try to work things out. if a witness says i don't have enough team to go through time e-mails, you can ask for more time. i've heard a lot of reasons. i've heard unreasonable, i don't want to incriminate my mentor, roger stone, which would not be an appropriate the use of the fifth amendment right not to incrim the na incrim na incri incriminate yourself. the one example that comes to mind is susan mcdougal. she was held in contempt and

jailed for 18 months for that contempt. >> so sam, your reaction to hearing that laid out by a federal prosecutor and what ms. mcquade just said. i'm trying toab be fair and accurate. >> you are being fair. >> the implication of what she is analyzing under the law is the way you've spoken out, and you've spoken out several times today, the way you're speaking out, she said is actually potentially hurting, undermining the type of case you might make for why you shouldn't have to testify, because you're putting forth the idea that you might not want to testify to protect someone else's conduct. >> i'm not protecting roger's conduct. they went after manafort and gates. i met paul once at a yankee alcs. they went after him for activities earlier than the

campaign. if they're trying to build a case against roger, i'm not going to be part of it. i'm not. roger didn't do anything. roger didn't do anything but get treated like crap by donald trump, the president. >> you keep saying there won't be a consequence. what if the consequence is going to jail? >> they're not going to send me to jail. you know what, mr. mueller, if he wants to send me to jail, he can send me to jail and i'll laugh about it, and i'll make a bigger spectacular than bigg bigger spectacle than i am right here on your show. >> i don't know what they're going to do, and i can't prove it. but if you speak to his point, you're saying that's not going to happen. you outlined a different case where the refusal to testify did result in a lengthy time in jail. >> i don't want to give mr. nunberg legal advice. he should consult with his own lawyer about what he should do in this case, but if his evidence is that roger did

nothing wrong, he should say that to the grand jury. they can exonerate any of pieth people -- >> what if they want me again? how many times do i have to go to the grand jury? >> if the grand jury wanted you again, it would be because there's additional information forth coming that they did not have the opportunity to ask you about. i think this is important here. sam, you got immunity, so you have no reason not to testify. as you told us today. >> yeah. >> not only that, not only that, it actually makes it appear that roger stone has something to hide because you will not go testify. >> he has nothing to hide. >> well, then go testify. >> you know what, i'll tell you what, okay, so i don't mind about testifying. i'm not going to sit there for 80 hours for the document request. i have real work to do.

i have to earn a living. >> mm-hm. >> i don't think this is fair. i don't think it's fair to ask me, paul manafort, rick gates, once again, like i told you, corey lewandowski, hope hicks. do you think i was talking to corey and hope hicks while they were having their affair? carter page? never met him. by the way, look at this. donald j. trump. >> is number three on the list. >> that's -- i think that that's a problem when they ask that, too. now, now i would turn over anything. but -- >> no, you wouldn't. the whole point, the whole reason you're here right now is because you're saying you won't turn over things. that's the problem, sam. >> i said i won't spend 80 hours going over e-mails with steve bannon and roger stone. ari, roger and me and steve, we communicated like 50 times a day. >> we talked about that. this is my final question. i appreciate you sharing with us your thinking.

it is certainly newsworthy. this is the final question to you. >> yes, sir. >> forget the law, forget the journalism, forget that we're in a tv studio. is it possible as someone listens to you and you talk so much about all of these people and you've been through something with them and you feel that you've been through something that's been unfair, is it possible that in the heat ever this you're having a very strong reaction based on the strong feelings you have and that over time you might come around to a different view of this, is it possible that this is coming in the heat of the moment? >> i thatink that in our discussion, i would have no problem going to the grand jury, but i once again don't want to spend 80 hours going over e-mail. >> you'd rather spend possibly a year in jail than 80 hours going through e-mails. >> i'm not going to jail. you think i'm going to jail? >> sam nunberg, thank you -- >> you think i'm going to jail, this is a joke. >> you've been on, on a day that

you've certainly made some news. for those of you watching, we appreciate you sharing your perspective. we're going to fit in a short break. and what we come back, i have some other analysts. my thanks to all the panelists. we'll be right back. was not an option for us. i am taking the steps to own a home because i want my children to know it's all so that they can have a better life. oh my gosh. this is amazing. we're so much closer to home ownership. allergies with sinus you won't find relief here. go to the pharmacy counter for powerful claritin-d... while the leading allergy spray relieves six symptoms, claritin-d relieves eight, including sinus congestion and pressure. claritin-d relieves more. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered...

in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember. because they're trying to set up a perjury case against roger, and i'm not going to have it. roger is my mentor. roger is like family to me, and i'm not going to do it.

i'm not going to do it. and roger did not talk -- roger may have lied about it, but roger did not talk -- >> you're basing that view, based on a theory or based on the questions they asked you? >> based on the questions they asked me. i have no idea in advance what they wanted for the grand jury, but what they did tell me was i wasn't going to be a subject or target and i was going to get the seam kind ame kind of immun ari -- >> they offered you immune itit? >> i'm joined by the anchor for bbc news america, and the assistant secretary of defense and shelby holiday. evelyn, i start with you, thinking about the wider dynamics given the russia probe and what we keep learning from witnesses. most don't speak on tv like this. >> carter has with you.

>> carter has with chris hayes, my colleague. the but also, it is not only that sam nunberg is speaking in the way he speaks, it is that he is revealing in whatever his way, what these prosecutors are being looking at, if is he to be believed that roger stone figures in to a degree, that he figures that's why they want to the bring him in to the grand jury on friday, to lay down potential evidence, what does that say to you? >> that says this goes back to 2015 if not before, because's asking for all those e-mails going back to 2015. tan and it's unclear to me because i didn't get to see the subpoena. where does it end? does it go all the way to the present day, where he's e-mailing to roger stone. but what it tells us is frankly speaking. >> it goes to the president e. >> in real time we will see

steve bannon and roger stone reacting to the mueller investigation itself. and if could i just make a comment on his very daring, you know, initial statement that he's not going to turn over these documents and that he doesn't think he'll be brought to jail, robert mueller has a lot more going on than worrying about sam nunberg, and he will use sam nunberg as an example if he needs to and have no compunction about calling the guy out and putting him in jail if he's in contempt of court. >> shelby, take a listen to another part of this interview. >> i'm not going to answer something so wide as this. this is so ridiculous. i'm not going to give them every e-mail i had with steve bannon and roger stone. i communicate with them every day. >> he's in communication every day with those two key players, roger stone, who didn't do anything wrong but needs to protect.

>> i think it's interesting that he's pointing out those two people. if you look at the subpoena, there are ten people on the list. he continues to talk about roger stone and steve bannon. we know roger stone is really important, because he could sit at the crux of this investigation into coordination with russia. roger stone's communications with wecikileaks. we've heard julian assange's name dropped today. it's interesting about steve bannon, because all along steve bannon has said i came onto the campaign after the convention. i had nothing to do with the trump tower meeting, nothing do with the platform change and ukraine. and that may very well be true, but it is very interesting that there's some worry about the communications of steve bannon and sam nunberg. and we also know mueller has a lot of these communications. sam told you very plainly, mueller already has, based on the charts and the information he had, mueller's already got a lot. it seems like a pr campaign to

protect roger stone. mueller can certainly get sam nunberg's communications even if nunberg defies the subpoena. he has a way to get it. >> has a way to get it. one of the fascinating parts of this, for viewers who watch and say okay, a part of this seems very elaborate or spectacle, we are learning very important new things about the timeline, about who is being targeted, and i don't mean targeted as a criminal target, but who is being looked at, those ten names, and then him saying who he's in touch with and then him saying, patty that he believes bob mueller already has their private communications based on the questioning he just went through. your view in washington about how mueller's investigators are assessing sam nunberg's comments tonight. >> first of all, i think i've never said this to a fellow host

before, but congratulations. that was an extraordinary piece of television. and i'm very envious. i've never been handed a grand jury subpoena on the set before. that was extraordinary. from start to finish. his state of mind. the fact that he thinks he can possibly defy the special counsel. how on earth does he think that? and they already have his communications and can get them anyway. at the end of the interview, i thought it was quite telling, he almost seemed to turn a little bit. i don't know if you heard that, ari, but he seemed to be suggesting that he would actually be prepared to if and testify if it didn't take up too much of his time, but he would actual lay actually go before the grand jury on friday. maybe he weighs comias coming t decision about how serious this is. maybe bob mueller won't let him get away with this dare that he won't be jailed if he fails to testify because he has a ton of

other people to interview, and he doesn't want it to be a possible model for them. i got the sense that he was starting to think that could be a lot more serious than he came into the interview thinking. there seemed to me to be a switch. >> my aim is to be respectful in the context of what he is saying, which is choosing to violate federal launch which is -- law, which is a biggie. he said what do you think they'll do. there is that aspect as well. take a listen to that other key moment from the interview, here. >> they know that i didn't collude, and we did not collude with russia. >> the short -- let me, let me try to be fair. short answer for me is i don't now, because i'm not inside the probe. but let me put it this way to you. are you aware that they may already have all of that -- >> i think they do. they definitely do. they definitely had roger

stone's e-mails. >> so one of the ways -- >> they asked me questions about roger stone's e-mail, they asked me questions about roger and me that they would only have had roger's e-mails. >> the questions they asked you in your previous interview was based on e-mails. >> yes, sir. >> i think what she brought up is an interesting point. i've been dealing with law professors, and they say i could be intending to do it, but he's out there to clear roger's name. and i can't figure out any reason he would do this. >> there's a serious link between these two men. >> there were two points he really wanted to make. one is that roger stone is his mentor and friend and he will not sell him down the river. the second is that there are too many e-mails they wanted him to

look at. he seemed to be worried about money and roger stone. he may actually take the fall and try go to jail susan mcdougal style, who knows. >> the other thing we didn't get to with 30 seconds is his view based on the questioning is the probe is look more at the trump organization than at the campaign. >> yeah, but i don't know if he knows that. i think, he was fairly hedgy about what he actually was taken away from his session with mueller and i wasn't clear that he's speaking on very solid ground there about what he knows about what they actually know or what they're looking for. >> that's a good dose of context as well, skepticism. thank you very much. what we're doing next is a brand-new segment launching for the very first time on this day, this monday, on "the beat." stay tuned. ♪ slap on some cologne ♪ i'm 85 and i wanna go home ♪

♪ just got a job ♪ as a lifeguard in savannah ♪ ♪ i'm 85 and i wanna go home ♪ ♪ dropping sick beats, they call me dj nana ♪ ♪ 85 and i wanna go don't get mad. get e*trade, kiddo. how'd i get this yard? behind pete's great looking yard, is his secret weapon... the scotts turf builder program. it's the best way to get the yard you want all year long, guaranteed. all it takes is 4 feedings, with a scotts solution for every season. and with a customized plan from the scotts my lawn app, your yard can look like pete's. it's that easy. this is a scotts yard. download the scotts my lawn app for your personalized plan. before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, claire could only imagine enjoying chocolate cake. now she can have her cake and eat it too. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts

for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? hey. pass please. i'm here to fix the elevator. nothing's wrong with the elevator. right. but you want to fix it. right. so who sent you? new guy. what new guy? watson. my analysis of sensor and maintenance data indicates elevator 3 will malfunction in 2 days. there you go. you still need a pass.

tcohigher!ad! higher! parents aren't perfect, but then they make us kraft mac & cheese and everything's good again.

it's monday on bee"the beat"

and now yes doing something new for monday to take a moment to look at who is real and looking ahead at what is going to get real, and what we can keep our eye on sometimes because it matters. this is the realist. wow. and we have cool gists. comedian and "new york times" best-selling author. listen, we have our own music. >> it's faster. it's a little faster. i like it. >> faster than what? >> the old list, the old song. for the fallback. sorry! we weren't supposed to talk about it. >> we have to act like it doesn't exist. >> this is monday. this is not a second fallback friday. the real list is it's own new thing. >> we're all a little confused about what just happened. >> a lot just happened. a lot just happened. but this is the real list on mondays. who is on your list?

>> comedian and oscar superstar tiffany haddish. she keeps it real and non-diva like. and the way she and maya held the stage last night was pure magic. you've got to see it. >> a few years ago, people were saying that oscars were so white. and since then some real progress has been made. >> uh-huh. but when we came out together, we know some of you were thinking are the oscars too black now? >> tiffany is amazing. she wore the same dress. she promised she was going do that. she acknowledged she spent $4,000. she is going to wear it to every award show ever. the racial agreement and backlash, even on something like the oscars, i think she playfully acknowledged white people still have power. it's okay. you've got to headsets. you've got the director's chair for the most part. most of the producing spots are still run by white folks, especially rich white dudes. using the opportunity to poke a little fun but be super real

where the real power in hollywood lies. >> she did it in an understandable way, but it's about the backlash to the backlash. i'm not even going to bring up black history month and what people say about that sometimes. >> why do we have -- >> i'm not even doing that. by the way, the music is faster. >> okay. i'm ready. okay. >> do we visit? no. we don't visit ready. whoa. >> when i wake up in the morning. >> it's in my heart actually. >> me too, actually. my head and my heart. >> who is on your list? >> my list, you. you are at the top for that interview that was extraordinary. and after you is collett devito, this woman that i recently got the pleasure and honor to meet. she is a young woman who lives in boston. she has downs syndrome and has her own cookie business. yes, he is a bad ass female. she has to be one of my favorite ones. i covered her story on the united states of women. and it basically helped me combine all of my favorite things which is ladies, cookies, and eating on the job.

these are so good. you can order them online and support a woman who also wants to hire other people with disabilities because it's very hard to find a job if you have a disability. in fact, it is totally illegal to pay people with disabilities less than the minimum wage in the united states because of a loophole in the law. and so she is really making a difference. >> i love you bring -- it's perfect. no, i'm serious. i love you bringing that and having us all think about that. you have a group of people i know on your list as well? >> you had a couple of groups. i'm not sure which ones you referred to. >> i'm thinking of the teachers. >> i'm going to the teachers, to the teachers of west virginia who have stood all the for better wages, for less crappy health care premiums and for being treated with a sense of respect by the public servants who don't consider themselves to be that. the solidarity that the teachers union have shown that even on strike, they're providing school lunches and day care to the students that are in their care.

and they're calling out the hypocrisy of their governor who owes a million dollars in back taxes and wants to talk about being responsible with the money in the state. >> that's important. that's one of the stories that is quote/unquote local. but it has national implications. i'll do mine real quick. everyone saw by now frances mcdormand at the oscars. all i want to say is contract law, everybody. what? she did something amazing for all the obvious reasons that we saw, and it was courageous. but it also took to it the details and the follow-through. and that's on my real list because you have to follow through. you have to make it real. she did that in a very real way. shout out to inclusion riders. law school up in here. >> inclusion riders spiked so hard last night. >> you don't know how nerdy it gets here. but you kind of -- >> i think i do. i've been around a couple of times. >> thank you both. we will be right back. you walked together. you built your home again.

my dna showed that i'm native american, and connected me to cousins who taught me about our tribe. my name is joseph reece, and this is my ancestrydna story. now with 10 million new family connections made every day. order your kit at ancestrydna.com it's ok that everyone ignores it's fine. drive. because i get a safe driving bonus check every six months i'm accident free. and i don't share it with mom! right, mom? righttt. safe driving bonus checks. only from allstate. switching to allstate is worth it. you wouldn't accept from any one else. so why accept it from your allergy pills? most pills don't finish the job because they don't relieve nasal congestion. flonase allergy relief is different. flonase relieves sneezing, itchy, watery eyes and a runny nose, plus nasal congestion, which pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. and 6 is greater than 1. start your day with flonase for more complete allergy relief. flonase. this changes everything.

i needthat's whenvice foi remembered that my ex-ex- ex-boyfriend actually went to law school, so i called him. he didn't call me back! if your ex-ex- ex-boyfriend isn't a lawyer, call legalzoom and we'll connect you with an attorney. legalzoom. where life meets legal.

could michaela deprince use the chase mobile app to pay practically anyone, at any bank, all while performing the grandest grand jeté? she could... but in real life she pays her sister, for that sweater she stained. (phone buzzes) chase. make more of what's yours. you might be missing something.y healthy. your eyes. that's why there's ocuvite. ocuvite helps replenish nutrients your eyes can lose as you age. it has lutein, zeaxanthin and omega-3. ocuvite. be good to your eyes.

quite a way to start the week. former trump aide sam nunnberg,

he is now i can tell you the top trending story in the country on twitter. he also made some news saying he won't comply with the subpoena. >> they're not going to send me to jail. you know what, mr. mueller, if he wants to send me to jail, he can send me 20 jail. and then i'll laugh about it and make a bigger spectacle than i am on your tv show right now. >> we'll stay on the story that does it for "the beat." thanks for watching. "hardball" starts now. screw loose. let's play "hardball." >> good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. a campaign to donald trump said again today that trump knew about the june meeting at trump tower with the russians to get dirt on hillary clinton. the little known witness in the special counsel's russia probe is speaking out today, and in the process revealing new