Myles Taylor (3:42)

I want to make sure people understand there are people in jail for potentially the rest of their lives in El Salvador based on the government's actions, sometimes mistakenly, meaning they took the wrong person against a existing court order. That is Mr. Abrego Garcia, where the court is valiantly trying to get him back. But there are planeloads of people who are sitting in prison based on the government invoking the Alien Enemies act and violating the law because the Supreme Court has said in a 9 to 0 decision that those people had a right to due process to be heard. And this document, the one that you have outlined, Nicole, is why. It is a document that shows that their own administration said that there is no way to tie the actions of this gang. Even, even if you can show that the people that you've extracted from this country and shoved into a prison with no due process, even if you can show that they're part of this gang, the law does not apply. And so it's really a lesson to why you want due process, that there's a legal fault here, there's a factual fault here. You have judges in this country, district court judges up to the Supreme Court of the United States saying this is lawless activity. And you now also have a document that shares a lack of candor with the court by the administration when they're standing up trying to invoke this law and saying black is white. And so this is really a remarkable document. But to just begin where to end where I began, people are in jail as a result of this, a really egregious error.

Andrew Weissman (5:48)

Tim Miller, what do you think happens now?

Tim Miller (5:52)

Yeah, I, we're a little bit in Groundhog Day here, right? Because I agree with every single word that Andrew said. They're up to the very last one, which was error. And, and I mean, error implies it was a mistake, and I don't really think it was. I think that this is what the administration did the first time. This is what they're doing this time, which is they want. Trump wants to do something. They create a series of lies and fabrications and exaggerations to justify or rationalize whatever Trump wants to do. And then they get sued, then they go to court and. Or. Or they have a, you know, an expert somewhere within the administration in this case, maybe in the intelligence department that writes a memo, right? That is actually. That is actually knowledge about this. It's not trying to backfill whatever insane thing Trump wants to do. And either in court or in an internal government document, they write what the truth is, which is completely opposite, Right? And anybody that knew anything about Venezuela before this knew that Maduro was not directing Trenda Aragua to invade the country, right? And it was a ridiculous line. So in some ways his memo is interesting because it's the government admitting it, Right? But it's just the government admitting the obvious fact that everybody already knew, which was they were creating this line to create a rationale to send people to El Salvador because they wanted to do it. So want to scare people because they're cruel for whatever other. Because Stephen Miller, you know, wasn't hugged as a child. Like, whatever the rationale is, like, that is what was happening here. So what happens now is like, we go through the same rigor moral we did every time, the first time, which is they're going to lose in court. We wait to see what the Supreme Court says. They stall. You know, they don't want. They never admit faults. They don't want to bring anybody back. And, you know, they do a tap dance where they're like, well, the court says. This court says that. But now they're in the custody of Bukele and we can't do anything about it. So I don't know. And like, the answer is how much pressure can be put on them to fold. If you look back at the first term, like the child separation, eventually they stopped, right? But like, the kids that were separated were already separated, you know, and so I think they probably end up losing here and have to stop doing this. What happens to Andre and Neri and the people that are in that hole in El Salvador for no reason? I think that's a more complicated question.

Nicole Wallace (8:17)

He's made the case that airing my grievances about him as president wasn't just mean or unfair or. But that it was an act of treason, which is punishable by death in the United States. You don't need a permission slip in the United States to criticize the president. It is not classified to criticize the President of the United States. And any suggestion to the contrary is truly un American. And what I worry about is that they will try to use this tactic, this bludgeon of the bully pulpit of the presidency to go shut people up by threatening them and getting them to settle.

Andrew Weissman (8:54)

That's Myles Taylor. He's speaking out for the first time since Donald Trump signed a memo last month accusing Taylor of leaking classified information and ordering a review of his work. Now, let's be clear. There is zero evidence for what Trump is accusing Taylor of doing. Taylor is vowing to fight back against Donald Trump's politically motivated retribution campaign in court. He also detailed the chilling and dangerous reality, though, of being targeted by the President of the United States.

Nicole Wallace (9:25)

We were told by security experts to go update our last will and testament. That's a real conversation you have to have with your wife. If someone says to you, look, I think by the president calling you a traitor, you're exposing yourself potentially to violent retribution from his supporters. You and Hannah should go update your wills so that your daughter is going to have a named guardian.

Andrew Weissman (9:47)

Tim, these are not campaign trail threats or promises of retribution from the podium at a rally. This is now the government in the United States.

Tim Miller (10:01)

Yeah. It's a direct order that the President made of his Department of Justice to investigate these folks. There's already real consequences that are happening. And you just heard Miles talking about the security considerations. We can't imagine what the costs of all that are we mentioned. I think when I was on last week about Chris Krebs, the other person that was targeted via executive order had to leave his job because he worked at a cybersecurity company that does business with the government. So there's already ramifications happening even if they don't get indicted on false pretenses or any of the worst case scenario type stuff. Right. Like there are already real ramifications and it's happening at the direction of the President of the United States, not some mid level person in DOJ with a grudge, which wouldn't be good. Right. But that would be a scandal you could deal with. It's the President of the United States directing this. And I keep trying to think of a parallel with Miles as maybe a closer one. They go to your colleague when you were in the bush administration, Scott McClellan, like, ends up writing a book and he's critical of The Iraq war, et cetera. He did that at some risk to himself. Whatever you think about his position or President Bush's position. Could you just. It is unimaginable to think about George W. Bush then, in response to that, saying that McClellan needs to be investigated. That's like telling John Ashcroft, whoever was Attorney General, then that they need to investigate this man. Like the degree of scandal that have been in that moment and leading the nightly news every night. Right. And so we are really in unprecedented times and there are real ramifications to it.

Nicole Wallace (11:35)

No, diversity is not our strength, Hugh. I mean, this is the kind of thing these generals peddle. Diversity is our strength. No, no, it's not. They know it's not. They know that our strength is our unity. I would say over a third are actively complicit. And then you have a lot of grumblers who are sort of going along, trying to resist the nonsense as much as they can, but they're not fundamentally Chang.

Andrew Weissman (11:54)

Hi again, Everybody. It's now 5:00 in New York. It's not just Elon Musk and Doge slashing the federal government. A new announcement by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth outlines his plan to slash as well, announcing yesterday a 20% reduction of four star generals and admirals, a 20% reduction of general officers in the national guard, and a 10% reduction of overall general level officers in the military. As the New York Times reports, this continues, quote, the wide swath of job reductions and firings that have marked Hegset's three months at the helm of the Pentagon. According to the latest study by the Congressional Research Service, There are around 800 Generals and Admirals across the military. So while getting rid of bloat in an institution can be a good thing, the severity of Hegseth's cuts is raising concerns. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, released a statement that reads in part, I have always advocated for efficiency at the Department of Defense, but tough personnel decisions should be based on facts and analysis, not arbitrary percentages. Eliminating the positions of many of our most skilled and experienced officers without sound justification would not create efficiency in the military, it would cripple it. This comes as more questions are being raised and swirling about Hegseth's use of potentially unsecure channels to communicate. The Wall Street Journal has brand new reporting on how the Secretary used multiple signal chats for official Pentagon business. According to people familiar with his management practices, Hegseth engaged in at least a dozen separate chats. The reporting continues, quote in one case, he told aides on the encrypted app to inform foreign governments about an unfolding military operation. The people said he also used the non governmental message service to discuss media appearances, foreign travel, his schedule and other unclassified but sensitive information. Two people said. The former Fox News host set up many of the chats himself, sending texts from an unsecured line in his Pentagon office and from his personal phone, the two said. Tim Miller, I know it's like year nine. We've stopped asking where are the Republicans? But when it comes to the operational security of the military, where are the Republicans?

Tim Miller (14:23)

You know, it's a good there are like so many vectors on which you could ask that question right now. You know, like for me, the economic one I think is the strongest one. Like where are the free market Republicans when Donald Trump's trying to run a centrally managed economy like it's a department store and to get to choose prices as if like he's like a mid level Soviet autocrat. So that's the one that jumps out to me on this one. We've just seen them fold so many time and time again, right, that unless there's an acute issue like if they aren't going to stand up for Ukraine, if they aren't going to stand up for Ukraine in the face of Russia, why are they going to put their necks out over a signal chat? I think that's really what it comes down to. They've made a bet that there's no political value and stick your neck out. And it makes me think of James Lankford, who you had to give him credit when he tried to do the bipartisan immigration. He's the Republican senator from Oklahoma. He was on cnn, I think last week and he had this line that really stuck with me. He's like, there's two kinds of checks and balances we can do. I can hold a press conference or I can go privately to the administration. And there are a lot of people going to the administration privately. And like that's what these guys think. All they can do, they've neutered themselves, as you mentioned earlier, when it comes to actual legislation. Like they could pass legislation sanctioning Russia or giving more weapons to Ukraine or creating new rules around you classified document. Like they could do that, they're allowed to legislate, but they just have decided to abdicate that completely. And I think that that's as true in this case as in all the others.

Andrew Weissman (15:58)

This is from the Washington Post, reporting since becoming Defense Secretary Hegseth has ever seen. A purge of senior military leaders that has alarmed many national security experts, including former defense secretaries. Among those fired were the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General C. Q. Brown, the Navy's top officer, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, General Timothy Ha, who oversaw the US Cyber Command and the National Security Agency. They have been criticized by Trump supporters for being overly focused on diversity initiatives or being insufficiently loyal to the president. That feels like, you know, the opening salvo. But now news of these sort of across the board cuts, 20% cuts of generals and admirals. What will the effect be on the military as an outsider?

Tim Miller (16:42)

Just looking at Pete, I wonder this right? If you do this 20% cut, Pete Hegseth, who's been a total disaster and everything isn't done, is not the person you want overseeing that. If you're looking at it From a pure McKinsey standpoint, we just want efficiency in the government. It does make you wonder what is the real reason there is a pretense looking for a pretense to get rid of folks? Is that pretense that they want to get rid of folks that they don't think will go along with unlawful orders? Is there a pretense that they want to get rid of people who are diversity? It could be a series of things, but it takes you to a very dark place when you look at it through that prison. And that's like how I assess this, because it certainly is not just that Pete wants a smaller military. Right. There are other motivations here.