← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“A clear and decisive retreat by the Trump administration”
00:44:34
July 23, 2026; 4pm: Nicolle Wallace and guests cover the breaking news that the DOJ is rescinding the subpoenas issued to 5 reporters from The New York Times that would have compelled their testimony in front of a grand jury. In a win for the first amendment, the judge told prosecutors to either rescind the subpoenas, or he would quash them himself.
Loading summary
Transcript53 lines
- [00:00]
Nicole Wallace
Watch Disclosure Day at home now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you, would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Koepp, starring Emily Blunt, Josh o', Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson and Colman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required. Also in theaters.
- [00:31]
MSNBC Announcer
Listen to your favorite Ms. Now shows anytime as a podcast. Enjoy new episodes of Morning Joe, Deadline, White House and the Rachel Maddow Show.
- [00:41]
Miles Taylor
Every small d Democratic muscle that we have is flexing.
- [00:45]
MSNBC Announcer
Plus the Last Word with Lawrence o', Donnell, the Beat with Ari Melber, the Weeknight and more on the Go wherever you get your podcasts for ad free listening to all of your favorite shows, subscribe to Ms. Now premium on Apple PodC.
- [01:07]
Nicole Wallace
Hi there, everyone. It's four o'clock in the east. We have big breaking news today on a clear and decisive defeat for the Trump administration and an equally clear and decisive win for the First Amendment. The Trump Justice Department has announced that it is withdrawing subpoenas issued to five reporters from the New York Times. The subpoenas would have compelled those journalists to testify before a grand jury. It came after a hearing in court in which the Times asked a judge to quash the subpoenas. And according to reporting from our colleagues Lisa Rubin and Fallon Gallagher, the judge blasted the Justice Department, telling prosecutors that they had a choice. They could either withdraw the subpoenas or he would quash them himself. For its part, the New York Times has been arguing that the White House is abusing the justice system to fish for its reporter sources and deter coverage. They've also alleged in court documents that the FBI sought the phone records for reporters and the spouses of two reporters and the mother of one journalist without initially disclosing it. All of this started when Donald Trump allegedly got very upset when the New York Times reported that he had left Turkey on the old Air Force One because a new plane gifted by the Qataris was not deemed secure enough. That breaking news is where we begin today with some of our most favorite experts and friends, former top DOJ official and general counsel for the FBI. Our legal analyst Andrew Weissman is here. Also joining us, former DHS chief of staff during Trump's first term, Myles Taylor's back and former director of the CIA. Now our senior national security and intelligence analyst, John Brennan is here. Andrew Weissman, I start with you because this is you worked at the highest levels of the department. And this is a really clear legal defeat for Todd Blanche personally, who testified in his confirmation hearing that he called the code red.
- [03:00]
Andrew Weissman
So let's put this in the context of the Department of Justice issuing grand jury subpoenas to the Federal Reserve and issuing grand jury subpoenas in connection with the sitting governor of Minnesota and the mayor of Minneapolis. The reason I'm raising all of those is those were all examples of where the court has said these subpoenas are improper and illegal and were quashed. And to me, there's sort of two stories here. One is that you have Todd Blanche on the verge of a confirmation where he has shown both illegality and sort of incompetence. If this is like now saying it was some mistake, but you have, you have judges pushing back repeatedly. And the second story is where in God's green earth are the senators and the outrage where again, I hate to do this sort of like in any other administration, but could you imagine that what would happen in any other administration, Republican or Democratic, where you have this and the person who is responsible is seeking to get a promotion?
- [04:23]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, I mean, Andrew Weissman, I'll do the. In any other information and I'll do in any other outlet. I mean, if it were Fox News, if it were Tucker Carlson's podcast, if it were any other outlet, Republicans would be jumping up and down screaming about the First Amendment. Some of their most powerful and prolific voices were screaming the loudest about the First Amendment. The silence is deafening from the right.
- [04:50]
Andrew Weissman
And so just to make sure people understand, having been at the department and both at sort of the attorney side and working at the FBI, the amount of scrutiny that is supposed to go on before you would issue subpoenas like this to reporters, to their spouses, to the mother of a reporter. The. This is either just intentionally lawless or just such a gross screw up that this is one where, you know, if you're a supervisor, you are saying, how could this possibly happen? Or, but here this is all playing out while the person who, you know, where the buck is supposed to stop with, which is Todd Blanche, it is happening while he is saying, I want to become the attorney general, engaging in this kind of either lawless and or erratic behavior that just would be unacceptable in any other administration.
- [05:59]
Nicole Wallace
Director Brennan, I remember the State Department preparing briefings for obviously the president, but also senior staff when we would travel abroad. And one of the things you would be briefed on is how said government treats journalists in the country. If you were going to an autocratic country. There would be a little section America now forever under this administration has in that section for anyone coming here from parts abroad, that the acting attorney general nominee to be the attorney general sought to subpoena five journalists to testify before a grand jury and was only stopped
- [06:37]
John Brennan
by a Judge Erston Call just shows how different this administration is from the administrations that we used to work for. And first of all, I really want to compliment the New York Times reporters who published this story, which is exactly the reason why we have a fourth estate, is to expose government corruption and competence and national security. It seems like this is all three in terms of the dangers that were presented when Donald Trump was riding on that new jet that was provided by the Qatari government. And it's not just the threat of, you know, missiles or, you know, the type of, you know, defensive measures that this aircraft didn't have. It's also the technical surveillance capabilities of adversaries around the globe that can collect against a flying platform like Air Force One. So absolutely the right thing to do. Secondly, it's, it's quite clear that moving toward these subpoena is without doing their own internal housekeeping and seeing what needed to be done in terms of trying to prevent any unauthorized leaks. It just shows that their first inclination is to use the capabilities of the Justice Department and abuse the authorities. And who was involved in this, as Andrew pointed out, Todd Blanch. But also who was the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton signed off on these subpoenas. And so it just shows that the Trump administration sees the Department of Justice as its own aggressive law firm that is going to everything possible to, you know, aggressively pursue all of its enemies, including the, before the state, the media, the ones that are really, it's a, it's a pillar of this country's democracy. And so it's so I'm so glad that the judge let gave a real ultimatum to the administration. But also I would think, you know, maybe Todd Blanch is not going to appeal this because he recognizes that his, you know, nomination is on the line, which is why he met with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. So again, it just, as we said, we shouldn't be astounded by these things, but I think continuously we are.
- [08:38]
Nicole Wallace
Let me do what you just did and go back to the reporting with you, Director Brennan. It was about the Qatari gifted Air Force One. And it was a story that the first paragraph was probably written when Trump told that big lie that what he was going to do with the Qatari gifted plane was send it on a tour so that military members stationed overseas could look at it. That was the story Trump told. So if you sat down and had to write that, it is your job as a journalist to check your sources and make sure that was true. So, like all Trump stories, like all Trump debacles, like all authoritarian punches that they try to throw, it starts with a lie told by Donald Trump in front of all the cameras at the NATO summit.
- [09:22]
John Brennan
Yeah, he gets himself into these pickles by continuously lying, and he cannot tell the truth, even if his life depended on it. And so therefore, the misrepresentation of the facts. And there's still a question about what he plans to do or would like to do with that jet after he leaves office. And so, again, the journalists did exactly the right thing. And I'm glad that these subpoenas have been quashed, because I'm hoping it's going to encourage other journalists to continue to pursue and pull these threads when they see stories like this that, again, are going to expose the dishonesty and the corruption and the incompetence of this administration.
- [10:01]
Nicole Wallace
Miles, I think you had the best line, that the story leaked about why they actually switched planes, and then the investigation into the leak leaked. Your reaction to this decisive legal defeat for Todd Blanche?
- [10:17]
Miles Taylor
Well, that was already, I think, a good sign about the defiance in this country. In fact, Andrew Weissman and I were just talking about this yesterday on defiance.org is trying to measure the different sectors where we're seeing capitulation or defiance. And this was one of those episodes, as you note. The leak probe itself leaked. And what did that tell us? It told us that people inside the administration, likely inside the FBI, were appalled that they were being directed to do this, that they were being directed to investigate journalists, and within 24 hours told the New York Times about it. Extraordinary. I've never seen anything quite like that. And that's before, of course, the justice system weighed in with its own act of defiance and worked to quash this. I think that's the good news. The. The bad news, of course, here is you have a president that is hell bent on torching the First Amendment of the Constitution. And unfortunately, I have two personal connections to this episode. The first was in the first Trump administration when I found out that the president was so concerned about leaks from his staff that made him look bad that he told the White House chief of staff that he wanted to wiretap his staff members. Now, that directive obviously was not followed through on what I can't tell you today is whether or not that is happening. What I do know from this reporting from the New York Times is that they did go seize the phones of White House staff and staff from other agencies. So Trump is carrying forward those directives in a second term. The second piece is that this may not have happened if the Justice Department had not, as soon as Trump came back into office, rolled back protections for journalists. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo in the first quarter of last year citing the executive orders against myself and Chris Krebs as justification for stripping journalists of their protections and launching these leak probes into journalists. So they've taken away things that the Justice Department used to do to prevent these types of subpoenas from ever reaching a court in the first place. And they may have failed this time, but I'm not going to put it past the administration to try this again and again.
- [12:36]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah. And I think it's also important to note that the New York Times has sort of the mightiest legal defense infrastructure inside and outside the New York Times legal department probably in the world. Certainly in this country, independent journalists are a lot more vulnerable to these kinds of abuses of the Justice Department tools, if you will. I want to play even with that stipulated, I think all three of you have been targeted by Trump's venom and threats. I want to just play for you what this was like at a human level for the journalists.
- [13:14]
Miles Taylor
I was out for some drinks, sitting on a patio.
- [13:18]
Unnamed Journalist
My wife and I were over at some friend's house for dinner, you know, having a really nice evening, glass of wine and all that. My family and I had sat down to watch Sheep Detectives Murder Mystery. And right as we were about to find out from the sheep who had committed the murder, I get a call and I pick it up and it's an FBI agent who identifies himself and says, I'm in front of your house right now. Are you coming home anytime soon?
- [13:52]
Nicole Wallace
I too have watched Sheep Detectives. Sad to say, but this doesn't even sound real, Right? And that's produced with all of the production finesse of the Daily. But these are five of the most important journalists at the New York Times. Eric Schmidt wrote the story in the last 48 hours about the Pentagon's covering up of people injured of injuries and casualties in the war in Iran. Julian Barnes covers the intelligence community expertly and fearlessly. Eric Lipton covers all things legal, including the Supreme Court. Tyler Pager is an intrepid White House reporter. And Adam Goldman has covered the FBI longer and better than just about anybody on the beat. So these are five reporters who represent a real threat to Donald Trump, but who also have sort of the backing of all of this hardwired legal infrastructure. I wonder, Andrew Weissman, what would have happened if they didn't have that sort of safety in numbers and they didn't have all that institutional protection?
- [14:55]
Andrew Weissman
Well, we are seeing that major media organizations, not all by a long shot, but in New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, when they get targeted, have been stalwart. And it really, in many ways, I think our other two guests and the oaths of office that they took and their adherence to it. Well, you know, that's true with respect to intrepid reporters as well, that they are in the job for the right reason and are going to do the right thing. But it is worth noting that this in many ways is such a classic authoritarian playbook, because in some ways it's a win win, because you may not win with this specific. But the issue is whether you will determine other people, whether you will have editors who say, do we really need to do this? Or can you go back and double check? Will you slow this down? Maybe somebody else can report this or let somebody else do it when it's smaller places saying we just can't afford it. And so just having that discussion and having some, some quantum of people who are going to fold their punches, whether it's happening in the media, whether it's happening in the government, whether it's happening in law firms, in businesses, that's the sort of win win of taking these kinds of authoritarian tactics and just to tie it back to. And we're at an inflection point where this is DOJ being led by somebody who is now, at this moment, the Congress has the most leverage on what DOJ can and cannot do. And they have the ability to put a stop to this and to set down some red lines. You know, I'm not hopeful, but it's just, it needs to be called out that there is a way to deal with this right now if Congress has the backbone.
- [17:18]
Nicole Wallace
Such an important point. I mean, I think the other part of it is it's intended to chill not just journalists and their editors, but sources, because even the Justice Department said what they were really apt to was to get the journalists to out their sources, which no journalist is inclined to do. All right, all of you are needed for the whole hour. When the four of us come back, Donald Trump's allies in the House are still at it, looking for anything to go after Donald Trump's favorite enemy, Jack Smith. There is news today of a criminal referral from the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee. We'll dive into what that means and what Jack Smith is saying about it next. Plus, the U.S. attorney who was fired by Donald Trump via email after 54 minutes on the job has filed a lawsuit challenging Donald Trump. He joins us ahead. And later in the broadcast. Donald Trump's war with Iran has been pushed both the price of oil and Americans patience and tolerance to new highs with no end in sight. We'll get to all those stories and much more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere today. Watch Disclosure Day at home now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you, would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Koepp, starring Emily Blunt, Josh o', Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson and Colman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required. Also in theaters.
- [18:57]
Carl's Jr. Advertiser
Yeah, maxing is so maxing right now, bro. Get ready for spicy chicken maxing because Carl's Jr. Is saving you big with a $5.99 maxed out double stack double stack double stack spicy chicken sandwich. Seriously, just $5.99 double stack spicy chicken. This is unreal value in the bromosphere. The new spicy chicken Max wallet friendly, Max tasty only at Carl's junior Home. Available for a limited time at participating restaurants. Tacked out included, not valid for use within a combo or a combination with any other offered discount.
- [19:27]
Nicole Wallace
Home to the Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, the Briefing with Jen Psaki and more. Voices you know and trust. Ms. Now is your source for news, opinion and the world. Learn more at Ms. Now. Donald Trump and his allies are doing everything they can think of to prove Special Counsel Jack Smith right. Just three weeks after Smith came on this program to say that we are facing an attack on the rule of law unlike anything he has seen in his lifetime, comes news of a criminal referral from the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee. That would be Congressman Jim Jordan. He's accusing Jack Smith of lying to Congress when he testified about obtaining the phone Records of 44 members of Congress who were talking to Donald Trump and his team about efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In his referral, Jim Jordan claims that Smith lied when he said he did not seek search warrants for the contents of any text messages. It is A claim that falls apart almost immediately from Republicans. Our colleague Kendallane explains it. Quote, jack Smith was asked if his office obtained congressional text messages through subpoenas of toll records. He truthfully answered no. His office did obtain some text through a subpoena to the National Archives. He was never asked about that. Republicans say that means he knowingly lied under oath. But the actual facts are always besides the point in what is a search for anything to harass the person who represented, more than anyone else, a threat to Donald Trump's very liberty. In a letter to Jim Jordan, attorneys for Jack Smith say that the criminal referral is spurious. And they write this, quote, Mr. Smith agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee fully cognizant of the risk that President Trump's Justice Department would try to find something in his testimony to serve as the basis for a criminal charge. This risk existed not because Mr. Smith would make a false statement, but because Trump has repeatedly ordered that Mr. Smith be prosecuted and jailed. That is not the rule of law. Jack Smith himself has said that he expects to be prosecuted despite doing everything right, and that his work as an independent, nonpartisan special counsel would be unthinkable under this current administration. Take a listen to what he said on this program. He said he would indict you. Yes.
- [21:51]
Jack Smith
I'll tell you, Nicole, I honestly do not spend a lot of time thinking about the things he says about me and his threats about me. I've seen a number of cases. James Comey, Letitia, James, Jerome Powell. I mean, right? There's not criminality here. I mean, seashells. I mean, so the only reasonable explanation is the President has it out for these people, and he has people who are his former personal lawyers who are going to do what he says regardless of the facts or law. I mean, you know, again, just to juxtapose it, I didn't have people on my team resigning because they refused to go along with this scheme, to go after somebody. That was not what happened. You see that in all these cases. And just again, imagine if you would like, I was appointed from outside the government, no political allegiance to anybody, and they were comfortable with Jack. Wherever you think the facts and law dictate, that's what we'll do, and that's what will happen. Can you imagine that happening now? If there was an allegation of corruption in this administration, them saying, let's appoint an outside independent person to make a call on this, I think we know it would never happen. And I think that's a real easy way to differentiate following process, following the facts, having independence.
- [23:13]
Nicole Wallace
We're back with Andrew Miles and Director Brennan. I mean, Director Brennan, this is the variable because Donald Trump has been mad at you since 2016, and he just finally found people weak enough and sycophantic enough and corrupt enough to try to rub sticks together and make something up about you. The variable actually isn't Donald Trump. He's wanted to investigate and prosecute Jim Comey since 2017. The first new York Times story reported, I think with a headline, trump wants to prosecute Clinton Comey. And there was somebody else. Maybe it was you. The variable is the weakness, the fecklessness and the appetite for politicization of the Department of Todd Blanche.
- [23:54]
John Brennan
Yes, Nicole, Jim Jordan is not just a craven politician who has abused the authorities of his chairmanship of the committee. He also is a complete shill for Donald Trump. And so what is happening to Jack Smith is exactly what happened to me. Both Jack and I appeared separately, voluntarily in front of his committee. And then as a result of those appearances and our testimony, he makes referrals to the Department of Justice. He made a criminal referral on me, which is why I'm a target of several investigations out of the Southern District of Florida. And what we are doing, we're trying to do is to respond to these subpoenas consistent with the rule of law. But just like Jack Smith, I have had to deal now with subpoenas. And unlike the New York Times, I don't have an in house team of lawyers. So the intention that Jim Jordan and Donald Trump engaged in is try to harass and harangue and to ruin, try to ruin people reputationally and financially and so on. And so it just shows that there is this collusion and conspiracy among the Republican members of Congress and the White House to go after individuals who tried to uphold their responsibilities and obligations when they were government employees, but who have, you know, run afoul of Donald Trump. And so again, this is just so ludicrous, but it's so hard to believe that this would have ever happened previously. But again, again, it's not surprising or shocking at all that this is going on right now with this administration and this Department of Justice.
- [25:26]
Nicole Wallace
I mean, Miles, it is the danger of anyone thinking that any of these stories wouldn't be the beginning of lots of these stories, right? So if the beginning was in 2017, when it was first reported in the New York Times that Donald Trump wanted the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute Clinton Comey and somebody else, that was the flashing red and I'm not saying that those of you who worked in the first term deserve medals of freedom, but clearly Trump has now reconfigured the government to have only people who are on board with this corrupt use of the Department of Justice. And I know you too have been targeted. I wonder if you can speak about what Jack Smith spoke about after that answer when he said, you know, when I went to hire a law firm, the law firm was then targeted with political attacks from the administration and executive orders seeking to destroy their ability to retain and attract clients. What is sort of the whole of a pro democracy response look like from the individual to the private sector and beyond?
- [26:31]
Miles Taylor
Well, it was very, very bad last year, and I suspect both of my co panelists here could attest to that. I mean, as Trump started to go after people, the same elements of support that were there in the first term were not there. And full disclosure at one point, for a brief period of time. Andrew Weissman was one of my attorneys at the end of the first Trump administration. But firms like the one he previously worked for and a lot of others were much more hesitant to take on these types of cases at the start of this second Trump administration. You know, I spoke to a number of different big firms after I was singled out, and there was a lot of fear out there. Now I ended up getting lucky because there were folks mobilizing in the pro democracy community and I now have the literally the best legal team in America. That I think is the good news. Now as this year, there are a lot of efforts underway to sort of crowdfund and support people who get targeted. But still a lot of gaps. There are a lot of people who are afraid. And Director Brennan is right. The mere act of bringing these allegations or the act of a criminal referral against a Jack Smith is meant to scare all the people who are not named. And we know that because after they came after me, they told outlets the purpose of this is to send a message. That was the quote from a senior White House official. They wanted to scare other people. But Nicole, I would warn those existing officials because the Jack Smiths of the world and the John Brennans are not going up and lying to Congress. But they better be damn careful because there seems to be an episode almost every month of a Trump official actually appearing to lie to Congress. We had Pam Bondi, who was accused by members of Congress of lying about the Epstein files in testimony, and Kristi Noem accused of lying about the $220 million in DHS ads and Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe accused of lying about Signalgate. I mean, there are some actual very serious allegations of perjury. So I'd urge these folks to be very careful about who they go after for spurious claims of perjury when there's real ones that will survive the statute of limitations after this administration.
- [28:53]
Nicole Wallace
Andrew Weissman, my sense is that Jack Smith isn't worried about himself in this, but as Miles and Director Brennan have suggested, worried about the people who work for him, worried about efforts to harass and investigate and prosecute members of his team. What is your sense of how this news has landed in his inner circle?
- [29:15]
Andrew Weissman
Well, you know, he said that to you, Nicole, and that is the kind of person he is. I want to maybe just drill down for a moment and read to the audience what the line is that Jim Jordan says is allegedly false. Because I think it reveals just how craven to use Director Brennan's reference to Jim Jordan. Here's the quote. Did you seek a search warrant for the content of any text messages from members? That's members of Congress. And then Jack says, from members, yes. And he says, no, I don't recall that. I didn't do that. It was just toll records. So the facts are that Jack Smith did not seek a search warrant for the content of any text messages from members. He was never asked about whether he got the content of any text messages from some other source or whether he got it through something other than a search warrant that just was never asked. There is literally no false statement here, even if you look at Jim Jordan's own letter. The good news here is that this kind of case would have to be brought in Washington, D.C. that's the venue under the Constitution where the alleged crime happened, meaning that a D.C. grand jury, which has been loathe to bring spurious claims, would have to vote this. And even if they voted this, it would land in front of a D.C. judge and a D.C. trial jury. So that's all of that is ways to have sort of some checks on what the Department of Justice is doing, that is that it'll be very, very hard for them to do what they're trying to do with Director Brennan, which is to try and get this to a favorable venue, that is Judge Cannon,
- [31:21]
Nicole Wallace
what's so interesting when you sort of lay out the facts as they are, which in a court of law is what DOJ will have to contend with, is that if he'd said anything else, that would be an actual lie. Right? It is the upside down and backwards world he tells the absolute truth. And that is what over on Earth 2, they try to reverse engineer into faux criminality. Andrew Weissman, thank you so much for being here on these two big stories. Miles and Director Brennan stick around after a break. The first legal challenge of its kind to the Trump Blanche Justice Department that has repeatedly tried to wield power over prosecutors. One of Those judicially appointed U.S. attorneys bringing a lawsuit. He joins us next. Don't go anywhere.
- [32:12]
MSNBC Announcer
Have you ever wanted to share Your opinions with MSNow about our TV programs, podcasts, live events and more? Now's your chance to have your voice heard. Join the MSNow Insights community at Ms. Now Insights.
- [32:31]
Nicole Wallace
The sweeping politicization of the Department of Justice being undertaken by Donald Trump and Todd Blanche is today facing a major legal challenge. Last week, Roger Rogoff was appointed and sworn in as U.S. attorney in Washington State by a panel of judges after the post had been vacant. But he was abruptly fired by email 54 minutes later. Now Rogoff is fighting back in the first lawsuit from an ousted US Attorney arguing that his firing was illegal. The lawsuit states that Donald Trump Trump's attempt to fire Rogoff cannot stand. He argues that Rogoff should, quote, serve in that role until the president nominates and the Senate confirms a U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington, which has yet to occur. Todd Blanche took to social media last week after Rogoff's ouster, claiming that Donald Trump has broad authority to carry out the firings. The lawsuit fires back at that as well, arguing that Trump's actions, quote, will permit the executive branch to evade the Senate's advice and consent role indefinitely. That former U.S. attorney Roger Rogoff joins us right now. Thank you so much for being here.
- [33:40]
Roger Rogoff
Thank you, Nicole. Nice to meet you.
- [33:43]
Nicole Wallace
Nice to meet you. You know, we've covered the other side of this, the illegally appointed political folks like Alina Haba. But this is the first time someone legally appointed by the judges has sought to fight back and defend himself. Tell me what the legal argument is.
- [34:04]
Roger Rogoff
So the idea is that the president is supposed to appoint attorney U.S. attorneys across the country, but he has to do it with the advice and consent of the Senate. And he hasn't done that. He hasn't done that for three years in the Western District of Washington. And when the judges attempted to fill their role as set out by Congress by appointing someone per statute to take that position, when the president doesn't do what they are supposed to do, that person was immediately fired. And so the rule of law is not being followed. The the purpose of the advice and consent clause of the Constitution is being frustrated and that's not the way that the process is supposed to work.
- [34:53]
Nicole Wallace
And the advice and consent function of a Republican controlled Senate doesn't seem like a hurdle that even Donald Trump couldn't topple. Why? Why do you think they're operating this way?
- [35:07]
Roger Rogoff
I don't know that Republican, Democrat or whatever really matters with this lawsuit. The idea is that every president faces hurdles with Congress and the idea is that the president figures it out and appoints someone who can be confirmed, whether that takes a couple TR or not. But that's the way presidents have done it forever, and that's the way this president should do it as well. And then preventing the process that is set out and designed to fix the problem that has been created was then frustrated and prevented by the firing. The U.S. attorney that was appointed,
- [35:54]
Nicole Wallace
Jim Comey, said on this program over a year ago that of the three legged stool of democracy, the judiciary is the one that's holding strong, that Congress has sort of opted out of a lot of their functions and the executive branch is acting in an unprecedented norm busting and corrupt manner most of the time. Can you explain from your vantage point the strain right now on the judiciary?
- [36:20]
Roger Rogoff
So I was a judge for a period of time and I know that when laws are not followed, when precedents are not followed, that it is the judiciary that has to step up and make sure that we put people on the right path. And so I am cognizant of the pressure on the district judges in the Western District of Washington who have been are trying to make sure that this U.S. attorney's office, one that I used to work for and care about deeply, is led by a legitimate United States Attorney appointed pursuant to the legislative acts that have been created according to the Constitution.
- [37:05]
Nicole Wallace
Roger, what is your broader sense of how business is being conducted at the Department of Justice right now?
- [37:16]
Roger Rogoff
So I am a local prosecutor and an AUSA who worked in the Western District of Washington. My connection to the Department of Justice, no matter who's been in office, whether it's been Democrats and Republicans, have been light touches and I am not involved in what happens at Main justice and what happens in the Department of Justice. So I can't really speak to that. What I do care about is that in this case, with this department, with this district that I live in, and that I've worked in my entire career, it is not working the way it's supposed to work and someone needs to make it work. Right?
- [37:58]
Nicole Wallace
It's not Working the way it is supposed to work. Simple but profound. Roger, good luck. We will stay on top of this. Please stay in touch with us. Thank you for joining us today.
- [38:08]
Roger Rogoff
We will thank you so much.
- [38:11]
Nicole Wallace
Up next for us, Donald Trump's very public attempts to undermine trust in our elections has put the head of the CIA, according to brand new reporting, in a very uncomfortable position. There are growing calls for him to be pushing back or to even resign. The conspiracy theories around Donald Trump's loss to Joe Biden in 2020 are so illogical and insane and insulting to his own base that they represent a new level of disdain for the MAGA voter. But they also offer up a key current Trump cabinet official for political sacrifice, as our colleague David Rhode reports, quote, John Ratcliffe, Trump's current CIA director, was serving as the Director of National Intelligence from May of 2020 to January of 2021. He oversaw the delivery of the President's daily brief and other intelligence to Donald Trump. That's the time period when Donald Trump now says he was the victim of the far fetched and unproven plot by US Spy agencies that he described in his primetime speech last week. Pointing to declassified documents he ordered released online, Trump said US intelligence agencies began learning in 2020 that tens of millions of Americans voting data had been bought, stolen or hacked by China. But he said they kept it secret from Trump. So according to Donald Trump's magcap theory, wasn't anyone who worked for Obama or anyone who worked for Biden. It was this guy who worked for Trump, John Ratcliffe, we brought back and put in charge of the CIA who was keeping secrets from Donald Trump in 2020. Okay. And while reporting indicates that the current director of the CIA reigned in some of the impulses of Trump's election, conspiracy theorist foot soldiers John Solomon and Bill Pulte, David Rhode reports that a senior administration official, quote, agreed that all of the participants in the preparation of the speech, including senior White House officials Ratcliffe, Pulte and Solomon, were comfortable with the final text of Trump's speech and the release of classified documents with their initial redactions. When reached for comment, the CIA's Director of Public affairs dismissed criticism of Ratcliffe and the CIA. Miles and John Brennan are back with us. I don't know what hits me in the face first, like the total F you to the Trump base because it's so stupid. You need like a map to sort of chronicle what he's trying to tell his voters or the absolute, I don't even know what the word is for John Ratcliffe. Director Brennan, your thoughts?
- [40:55]
John Brennan
Well, John Radcliffe, when he was Director of National Intelligence during Trump's first term, he engaged in some highly partisan and very inappropriate actions by selectively declassifying and redacting documents, including some documents that involve my briefing notes that I used to brief President Ob on Russian interference. So he was very much in Trump's pocket at that point. And if there was anything at all that implicated China in doing something that was inappropriate, I'm sure he would have been the first one to the door to push that out. So he's willing to go along with the dishonesty in the lives of Donald Trump when it's consistent with what he is doing and what's to do. But now he's in a very uncomfortable and awkward position because the CIA, the professionals, are not going to let him get away with something that is going to misrepresent the facts, which is why I think that, you know, he was able to, you know, approve what was pushed out by Donald Trump during his speech last week without revealing source of methods which CI professionals really push back hard against. But now he has to explain why, if he was the person who was responsible for the publication of the Daily President's Daily Brief, that these, you know, claims that Trump was making were not included, then it does put him in the crosshairs because now he has to say, well, Trump was wrong or that Radcliffe slipped up. And again, it's interesting to see how he's going to twist and turn to try to satisfy both and all of his sort of superiors on this one.
- [42:29]
Nicole Wallace
John Solomon gave us the answer when he said, quote, there is no evidence that any foreign powers flipped any votes in 2020. Right. So we know that the election was not rigged against Donald Trump because John Solomon, who went looking for that evidence, told us that there wasn't any. But we also know that what Donald Trump is doing is displaying disdain, disgust and hatred for his own voters by telling them that it isn't John Brennan and it isn't anyone that worked for Joe Biden. It isn't anyone that worked for Barack Obama. It is the one guy that worked for him and did such a good job that he brought him back a second time. John Ratcliffe. That's the story he's telling. His face smiles.
- [43:14]
Miles Taylor
As far as CIA directors with the first name John, I can tell you which one I would rather have in the seat, but that's a secondary conversation. Look, I worked with John Ratcliffe. I was the staff director on a task force for him on Capitol Hill that led a major national security investigation. And let me tell you what my experience was like with him when he was a junior member of Congress during that investigation. He was out to lunch. I am not surprised he missed half the meetings. I'm not surprised that John Ratcliffe allegedly vetted this speech, but also apparently didn't catch the glaring discrepancy here that we all caught, which is that these documents show he was in charge when this alleged deep state cover up occurred and was the one who delivered Presidential daily brief documents to the White House that would have notified the President about this threat. I'm not surprised at that at all. I think you're right, Nicole, at the top of the segment when you said this has got a hard to follow, stupid stupidity decision tree, if you will, attached to it, because there's all sorts of incompetence on display through all of this. And perhaps even bigger than the fact that John Ratcliffe was Director of National Intelligence when this happened is the fact that Donald Trump was president when this happened. And I personally briefed him on some of these threats and I saw him get briefed on some of these threats and I helped prepare ahead of him making a speech about the threat of the Chinese in our elections. It does. None of this passes the smell test. Donald Trump knew Donald Trump was aware. And Donald Trump just tried to pretend last week as if he wasn't aware about Chinese threats to our elections and tried to characterize them as something more than they were. It was top to bottom filled with errors and incompetence, this speech last week.
- [45:10]
Nicole Wallace
Well, I also wonder if John Ratcliffe, Director Brennan, had the final approval on what they did release about Russian attacks on our elections. I mean, that was also, again, something that we've talked about that we've known, but Donald Trump pushed that out again. I don't know what to call the decision tree. Crazy, insane, upside down and backwards, but clearly not one that Trump was briefed on when he's pushing out information that Russia, after all these years, did meddle in our elections and they were for Trump.
- [45:43]
John Brennan
Yeah, well, just like Miles, it was a very sloppy review of these documents because many of them undercut Trump's allegations and claims. And so usually what happens is that the CIA professionals and others will go through it looking for issues that they need to redact or not release because they're going to compromise source of the methods. I'm sure CIA professionals didn't mind releasing some stuff that was true about Russian interference or the lack of any type of Chinese involvement.
- [46:10]
Andrew Weissman
Here.
- [46:11]
John Brennan
So, again, it's just interesting to hear Miles talk about when Ratcliffe was on the committee and that he was not fully engaged. I'd like to think that, again, the CIA professionals are continuing to do their job irrespective of John Ratcliffe's leadership, and they're doing it in the right way. But again, that speech, first of all, was just so, so full of lies and dishonest claims. But also, the document release in no way supported those allegations, and it undercut them significantly.
- [46:46]
Nicole Wallace
Miles Taylor, Director Brennan, thank you for spending the hour with me today. We're so grateful to both of you. After the break, a rare rebuke from some people in Donald Trump's own political party, trying to rein Trump in over the deeply unpopular war with Iran. Much more news when DEADLIGHT White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [47:08]
Tostitos Advertiser
Nothing beats tradition like weekly game nights at Mom's house and Tostitos crafted with masa made the traditional way, starting with whole corn kernels with flavors worth gathering around like a hint of lime and Mexican street corn and no artificial colors, flavors or preservatives. That's the Tostitos way. Bring Tostitos to your next game night and you'll be winning either way. Tostitos tradition matters.