Nicole Wallace (0:00)

Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of their national Red Tag Sales event, Now extended through July 27. Stop by any of their participating communities and find select red tag homes at Incredible Pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the Red Tag sales event extended to July 27th. Discover the Dr. Horton Difference at drhorton.com Dr. Horton America's Builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder Deadline White House is brought to you by Progressive, where drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average. Plus auto customers qualify for an average of 7 discounts. Quote now@progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who save with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations. Hi there everyone. It's four o' clock in the east on a day when Donald Trump has quite literally scraped the very bottom of that dirty barrel in a desperate attempt to change the subject. For our part, we are not going to take the bait because we got as clear an admission as any that Donald Trump has tried and failed to turn the page on the furor from his own supporters over Jeffrey Epstein. That news came in the form of an announcement that the Justice Department was reaching out to jailed Epstein associate and Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. Deputy AG Todd Blanche Writing this quote at the direction of Attorney General Pam Bondi, I have communicated with counsel for Ms. Maxwell to determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the department. I anticipate meeting with Ms. Maxwell in the coming days. Until now, no administration on behalf of the department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now. So who is Ghislaine Maxwell and how does she feature in the Epstein case? Well, Maxwell is serving a 20 year sentence in federal prison. She was convicted in 2021 on charges of sex trafficking and other counts. Ahead of sentencing, prosecutors said this about her, that she, quote, preyed on vulnerable young girls, manipulated them and served them up to be sexually abused by Epstein. But if the Trump DOJ now seeking to meet with Maxwell is a case of Trump thinking he's going to throw his very angry base of supporters a bone, the decision to talk to her actually raises more questions than it answers. Did Trump's Justice Department try to close the book on Epstein without talking to his closest confidant and associate. The New York Times reports that in April, quote, Maxwell asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of her criminal conviction. In her brief to the court, she argued that a 2007 agreement by federal prosecutors in Florida barred her criminal prosecution. Under the agreement, government lawyers agreed they would not prosecute any co conspirator of Mr. Epstein. The Justice Department, in a reply brief, urged the justices to reject the appeal. The justices have not announced whether they will hear the case. Politico adds this reporting, quote, it also raises the question of whether Maxwell may try to leverage the meeting for a reduced prison sentence by telling the Justice Department what it wants to hear. The Trump administration's announcement that it is approaching Ghislaine Maxwell comes at a time when the public's fury shows no sign of dying down. Republicans are so eager to avoid the base's wrath that they have decided to cut and run. Like literally. After saying yesterday that the Trump administration has to have space to do whatever it wants to do here, Speaker Mike Johnson today cut the House's work week short, skipping votes and sending lawmakers into a five week recess, a break so can all avoid having to take a vote forcing the Trump administration to release all the files in the Epstein case. Epstein's closest associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, now embroiled in Donald Trump's crisis over his handling of the Epstein files, is where we start today. New York Times Justice Department reporter Glenn Thrush is here. Also joining us, journalist and podcast host Tara Palmieri is here. Tara has hosted two investigative series on the topic called Jeffrey Epstein and the Maxwells. And rounding out our panel is our friend, former Democratic senator MSNBC political analyst Claire McCaskill. Glenn Thresh, let me ask to first explain Todd Blanch's post in the Bondi X account early this morning. What was that? What does it mean and where does it come from? Well, it's really kind of strange. He started off by saying that the memo that they put out, the Justice Department, FBI, the joint memo they put out in early July saying nothing to see here, the investigation is over. Jeffrey Epstein, in fact, as every other investigation showed, did in fact kill himself. He said that, that stands. That's the final word. But Attorney General Bondi, at the instruction, following the broad instructions of President Trump, has okayed some kind of a conversation with Ms. Maxwell. Why is this confusing? Because is this an investigative effort? Does this have anything to do with bringing charges against unindicted malefactors? In, in Blanche's statement, he pretty explicitly says that there's really not a law enforcement purpose to this. So this is some sort of a political or public relations enterprise that's geared at, I think, getting information out to the public. It is a very odd and, dare I use this word, unprecedented deployment of the Justice Department to be sort of a public information bureau for Donald Trump's base, as opposed to having a fact finding or law enforcement characteristic to it. And then on the flip side are all the various intertangled relationships that the Trump Justice Department, including Blanche himself, has with the attorney who's representing Maxwell. It's just an enormously odd and unpredictable situation. Just say a little bit more about that, Glenn. Well, David Marcus, Maxwell's attorney in this matter, who is imminently meeting with the Justice Department, is a friend of Todd Blanche's. They're both criminal defense attorneys. Blanche appeared, I think, on Marcus's podcast in the recent past. And the statement that Marcus posted on his Twitter account confirming that Blanche reached out them praises Donald Trump for the way that he's pursuing this investigation. This does not seem, at least on its surface, as any sort of an interaction that will produce a result that is contrary to anything that Trump wants or expects in the wake of this Wall Street Journal report. So it does not seem, it is very much a parallel of what happened on Friday when the Justice Department under Bondi announced or petitioned a judge to release the trial transcripts from the Maxwell and Epstein grand juries, which are themselves extremely narrow and unlikely to produce any results that would point to Trump. Which is, after all, the big question we all have right now. And let me do as I have done every day, quote Kash Patel, quote house Republicans, put on your big boy pants and tell us who the pedophiles are. Do we think, Claire McCaskill, that that is what Todd Blanche is going to come out of his meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell and tell us, let's make sure we understand that Ghislaine Maxwell is a pedophile. Under the law, when you are a co conspirator, when you act in concert with someone, you are guilty of the same crimes. So she is just as much a pedophile as Jeffrey Epstein is. So first, the Trump White House thinks it's a good idea to go down and make cozy with a convicted pedophile. I don't see how that helps him politically. The only way it helps him politically is if she can give them someone to distract everyone with. Maybe she can give them someone else who's high profile and then they can begin talking about that person because there was a cast of characters here that were abusing these underage women, that were sexually assaulting underage women, women that were too young to be able to give their consent for any sexual activity. That's the essence of a pedophile. And so what. That's what I think is happening, is they're trying to see if she can serve up someone else besides Donald Trump. That's the only thing that makes sense of them doing this. And I just have to say this. I heard Tom Winter talk about this. Previously on our network today. Why isn't anybody talking to the victims? Why isn't anyone talking to the victims? The victims are people who can tell the story of what happened. They can name names. They can, in fact, bring forth more of the information that the public Republican MAGA base is craving for. So it's very weird. They're choosing to go talk to a pedophile who's doing 20 years in prison for her crimes instead of talking to the people who were victim victimized by, ostensibly, according to this conspiracy, a cast of powerful people. Well, Tara, in fairness, the New York Times over the weekend reported on one victim's account and her reporting to the FBI about seeing Donald Trump in Mr. Epstein's office, where Mr. Epstein says, quote, she's not here for you, end quote. And her younger sister, who I. Yeah. So tell me how you see this move by or tell me what you think is going on at a broader level. I agree with the senator that they should be talking to the victims. The victims also have case files that they filed their civil suits. A lot of them have their own lists of men that they've been trafficked to. But we live in a culture where we don't believe women. Right. So you could easily find out more about johns. There are tons of leads. These women are sitting on troves and troves of evidence that they are more willing. Willing to give up then Glenn Maxwell. In a lot of cases, they signed NDAs with some of these men. But I would think that in a criminal investigation, that would be thrown out the door there. There is so many directions this case can go in. It's a case. It's a. It's a decision of whether you want to go there. It seems like they want to sweep it under the rug. And also they can go and talk to Glenn Maxwell and then say, yeah, her information is incredible. She's a. She's a criminal after all. Right. Can we really believe her? That's what they can say. Or they can have a private conversation with her and Hatch some sort of deal so that she doesn't serve all 20 years in prison. I personally believe that Glenn never thought she would serve all 20 years. I don't think Jeffrey Epstein thought he would serve time in 2019 after he only had to spend time in a county jail the first time around. These people believed they were above the law. They acted without impunity. They paraded young girls around and treated them like they dehumanized them. These are not normal people. So I could see this going so many different ways. I'd like to see the record of the conversation that Todd Blanche has with Glenn Maxwell so that we know what kind of conversation they're having. I mean, they could hatch a deal. She could, you know, maybe say the right thing, wink, wink, nod, nod. She gets a pardon at the end of this. Glenn Maxwell is holding onto her secrets because that was her power. That it was. That was, that is the thing that she's holding on to. Otherwise she would have done a plea deal. Let me show you what Donald Trump had to say about her in an interview with Jonathan Swan. Let's watch this. We'll talk about it on the other side. I don't know, I haven't really been following it too much. I just wish her well, frankly. I've met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm beach and I guess they lived in Palm beach, but I wish her well, whatever it is. Mr. President, Ghislaine Maxwell has been arrested on allegations of child sex trafficking. Why would you wish such a person well? I don't know that, but I do know that she has. She's been arrested for that. Her friend or boyfriend, Epstein was either killed or committed suicide in jail. She's now in jail. Uh huh. Yeah. I wish you well. I'd wish you well. I'd wish a lot of people well. Good luck. Let them prove somebody was guilty. I mean, you do know that she. Oh, so you're saying you hope she doesn't die in jail? Is that what you mean by wish her well? Her boyfriend died in jail and people are still trying to figure out how did it happen? Was it suicide? Was he killed? And I do wish her well. I'm not looking for anything bad for her. I'm not looking bad for anybody. And they took that. I mean, she's a child sex trafficker, big deal. But all it is is her boyfriend died. He died in jail. Was he killed? Was it suicide? I do, I wish her well. I mean, what is the. He's reaping what he sowed. And there he is right there with a straight face going through excruciating pains to not wish that a child sex trafficker goes straight to hell. Which is the normal human reaction when asked a question in a sit down interview about a pedophile. I mean, Glenn Thrush, what do they think they're giving the base in this engagement with someone Trump has already stuck his neck out for? Well, I was just looking down to see that Trump had commented on Blanche's outreach and he said he thought it was appropriate. So look, from a political perspective, I don't know what they're thinking. I think they're kind of in a bit of a bubble. And I also think, I hate to say this, and we're not in the business obviously of giving anyone political advice, but if you sort of compare the way that the Justice Department and White House have been handling this with the way that Mike Johnson has. Mike Johnson gets slagged on all the time for his lack of political acumen. Getting out of town is not probably the worst idea politically. The question with Trump is I don't believe that anyone on the left, right or center is going to be entirely satisfied by any of these interactions, either with the transcripts or with the discussion with Maxwell. In fact, it's keeping the story very much alive. He's trying to you, we've seen him fire all of his rockets at once in the past few days. He's gone straight at Obama, which is actually sort of rare. It's a battle typically he doesn't like to want to engage in because Obama is a pretty formidable adversary for him to go toe to toe with. But one has to wonder, why are they just throwing everything against the wall? That's something Trump has done in the past and it's sort of worked. But this is an entirely different sort of a crisis. And, and it seems to me that they've been very slow in terms of adjusting and they've just, I think they're allowing this train to just, you know, to accelerate and accelerate and accelerate. And I don't have any sense as to what action they could possibly take through the, through their control of the Justice Department or the FBI that is going to decelerate this, you know, apart from him fulsomely answering questions about his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell. I think I agree with that, Claire, because they are taking us down this path. Let me just re up some of the reporting at the time and some of the characters we can expect to reemerge as Ghislaine Maxwell Reenters the chat. This is from the Miami Herald. How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime. This is from Julie Brown, who Tara has worked with. Facing a 53 page federal indictment, Jeffrey Epstein could have ended up in federal prison for the rest of his life. But on the morning of the breakfast meeting between then U.S. attorney Alex Acosta and Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz, a deal was struck. Not only would Epstein serve just 13 months in the county jail, but the deal, called a non prosecution agreement, essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein's sex crimes. That's according to a Miami Herald examination of thousands of emails, court documents and FBI records. The pact required Epstein to plead guilty to two prostitution charges in state court. Epstein and four of his accomplices named in the agreement received immunity from all federal criminal charges. But even more unusual, the deal included wording that granted immunity to quote any potential co conspirators who were also involved in Epstein's crimes. As part of the arrangement, Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary that the deal would be kept from the victims. I'm not a lawyer, I don't ever even try to play one on tv, but there's nothing normal about any of what was reached. How did that come to be? Do we know the answer to that? I don't think we do know the answer to that. I do believe that there was obviously politics involved and somebody, you know, this wouldn't happen to somebody who had a public defender. This wouldn't happen to somebody who didn't have powerful connections. They would go to prison for abusing children sexually. And this guy basically scooted and so did the folks around him. Now, Acosta paid for it. I mean, once this came out, once this great reporting hit the streets, then he had to resign. He was a cabinet appointee under Trump in the first administration. That's how connected he was to Trump. So listen, all this stuff that Trump's doing, wishing her well and now saying that he doesn't want the files to come out because he doesn't want people to be wrongfully accused. This guy wrongfully accuses people for a living. I mean, Donald Trump makes it part of his essence to accuse people of wrongdoing without evidence, constantly. All of a sudden he wants to wish the pedophile well and he wants to make sure people are protected that might get accused of something where there's not evidence. It is so obvious to me that Elon Musk is probably right. I mean, if you look and pull the thread, I think Donald Trump is scared to death that his he is in those files, things that are going to come out in those files. And I think he's doing everything in his power to keep that from happening. And the fact that Mike Johnson is sending the people in Congress home for five weeks when no appropriations bills have been done and the government is about to shut down and the government's not funded and they have all this work to do, the fact he's going please leave town tells you all you need to know because the Republicans want to vote to open these files. And Mike Johnson is doing everything in his power to keep them from being able to vote, to do exactly what the Democrats have moved to do. And that is open the files. Well, the other problem is this isn't a Washington story. It's not like they're going to go home and get away from the Epstein furor. This is something that has lived and fermented and reproduced and metastasized online and in the manosphere. And people are going to go home and they're going to see their constituents and their constituents are listening to the same thing that they've always listened to, which is people and hosts and MAGA influencers who believe that Trump is covering up the Epstein files. Tara, I know you've spent time in the substance of this agreement. I want to ask you about that. I have to sneak in a break before we do that. Also ahead for us, as Glenn Thresh has referenced, we're going to cover Donald Trump's crossing of the line today in the Oval Office office and why it drew an even rarer rebuke from former President Barack Obama. We'll tell you all about that. Plus, the president turning up the heat in his fight with the news media, punishing and removing a Wall Street Journal reporter from his press pool because of that paper's Epstein coverage as that legal battle is beginning to take shape. And later in the show, how Stephen Colbert and his late night colleagues are responding to the laws of that program and what they're saying about the fear gripping America's businesses and institutions. We'll have all those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Today, MSNBC Films presents Season 2 of Leguizamo does America, an NBC News Studios production hosted by John Leguizamo. On the next episode, John travels to New Orleans, the Big Easy. You can hear jazz just about everywhere. And if you find the right spot Latin jazz Leguizamo. Does America Continue? Sunday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC and streaming on Peacock. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Why is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust, standout moments from your favorite shows, and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up now@msnbc.com Deputy Attorney Blanche today announced intention to go and see Ghislaine Maxwell in federal prison to like try to learn more information from her. Do you feel like that's an appropriate thing for him to do? We've already had the attorney general announce that she has possession of client list and information and then can't produce it. So I'm not sure what this visit is going to glean. The House Tim Burchett, actually a congressman, just introduced a motion to subpoena Glenn Maxwell in the House Oversight Committee. Do you agree with a move like that in the Senate? I'd have to think about that. I'm not sure she what she has to offer. The question in my mind, why isn't the attorney general and the head of the FBI producing the documents they already have? I mean, they've talked a lot about them and talked at great length about what they contain, but yet they won't produce them. I'm for complete disclosure. Senator Dick Durbin. And we're back with Glenn Tara and Claire. Tara, what is the broader picture everyone seems to be following? You know, I feel like we're cats, right, following the laser pointer. But to Clara's point, about the young girls who were victims, about the lawyers who represented them, I mean, your reporting, Julie Brown's reporting. There is a way to get at the bigger picture. If bipartisan members of the House and Senate wanted to, what would that look like? I think that they would have to have the Epstein victims testify. I think that they would actually, you know, I know it's difficult. Jane does don't always want to come forward. That's why they call themselves Jane Doe. It takes a lot of courage to come forward against some of the most powerful people in the world. I mean, that was what made Virginia Robert Schuffre such a singular force for so long she kept talking and telling people and trying to get attention for what she went through and no one paid attention until they finally did right when Epstein was arrested in 2019. But she was telling people her story and they just kept ignoring her. I mean, I think we need like a change of culture. We'd have to really spend time actually looking into the johns in the case. There would need to be an entire, I don't know if you want to do a special counsel or you would have an entire division within the Department of Justice that focused exclusively on prosecuting these johns. And it would take a lot of money and time, frankly, because these are very powerful people who will hire the best defense attorneys in the world. But if you really care about making this right after all of these years about make about proving that this country is not a two tiered justice system, then that's what you have to do. And you can't brush this under the rug and say there were no third party conspirators involved. Then why was there a non prosecution agreement for third party conspirators? Why is Ghislaine Maxwell in prison? I mean it's just doesn't make sense. And the way that Pambani has long talked about the race, like the race, the case, she just doesn't understand it, the heart of it. She doesn't understand what the victims have gone through. She doesn't understand why they feel re victimized by what the government is doing now. Even the fact that she lied and said there was an Epstein list when everyone who's actually covered the story knows that there was no list. The victims have lists. They have lists of the men that they were trafficked to. Why don't you ask them for that? Well, and Tara, just speak about the delta between because this is where Trump seems to have stepped in it politically. He picked people to run the FBI who were steeped in the conspiracy side of this. They know what the base wants. And it's been amplified by Joe Rogan who said they said there were tapes, they said there were files, they said there was video. But. But you can see from the outside where the rupture took place between Patel and really Bongino on one side and Patel and Bondi who wasn't even fluent really in the right wing conspiracy because to your point, down the rabbit hole, they don't talk about a single list. They're pieces of evidence. They're flight logs. And I think Trump does appear in some of the flight logs and there are Contacts and things like that, but just talk about how they've lost credibility in terms of how the MAGA base talks about what's been suppressed. I mean, there are probably thousands and thousands of files. I mean, you can go to the FBI vault right now, the website, and look at the Epstein files, and it's completely blacked out, and there's really not a lot to see there. So that would be a first step, is to actually remove all the redactions and show people what's going on there, get more of the flight logs. Really, they didn't even really quite understand what happened in the first case. You know, the police, they raided his house in 2004 and they took surveillance out. They took a lot of video footage, they took a lot of that. I mean, that's all relevant information right now, if you are truly building a case. And, And I, And I spoke to a victim, Virginia Roberts Jufre, who went to the FBI with Stan Pottinger, who was her lawyer at the time. He's. They're both deceased now. But, you know, she was asked to try to identify a body underneath a man and if it. To see if it was hers. And she said, no, that. That's not me. You know, that that's. That's not my body. But the fact that she was asked to do that, it just shows you that they have material. And I've been told by law enforcement sources all along, yeah, we have videos, we have footage. He, he. The girls knew that they were. That they were using Kompromat essentially against these men, that there was a lot of footage, that there was video that they were not moving in secret around there. That was not the point of the operation. It was a blackmail operation. So, Glenn Thrush, I think right here is where Trump's political problem lies, because what Tara just articulated is actually understood at a pretty granular level. And I don't know why this pedophilia ring and not others. You know, I can't answer that. But on this pedophile conspiracy, Trump's base wants what Botero just articulated. It's what Joe Rogan talked about when he said, we were promised videotape. They know that this evidence has been provided to the FBI, which is now run by someone who has talked as though he too believes that this evidence exists. That's Kash Patel and his deputy, Dan Bongino, and nothing that they have done, going back to see Ghislaine Maxwell, ordering the grand jury files, none of their moves speak to what Trump's base knows. And believes is in the possession of the FBI. And that is the girls, they were closer in age to 2 year olds and 25 year olds. They're girls, some of them as young as 14. The girls testimony about what happened to them at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Well, I think one of the issues here is separating the useful material, the material that can be made public from the material that cannot be made public. Bondi's defense in terms of not allowing more disclosure, in terms of video evidence is she claimed, and this was at a cabinet meeting last week. But it also echoes things that we've heard over the past couple of months and that is a great deal of the material or surveillance, the surveillance footage that is not necessarily direct, directly related to any crimes that were committed. And according to Bondi, the the majority of this is either child pornography or compromising materials that may not necessarily involve individual victims. I just wanted to get, you know, DOJ's side of the argument out on this. Look, I think there is a question here, a couple of things that are, that are kind of important here. Bondi created a lot of this crisis herself. She summoned, she basically swooped down on this meeting of influencers in the White House on February 27, handed them a binder that did not have particularly useful information in it in an effort really to solve her original problem, which was that that group of people, the MAGA right, didn't trust her, viewed her as an establishment politician, viewed her as a poor substitute for their number one choice, who was Matt Gaetz, who also had his own pedophilia investigation. And the second issue here is the internecine triangle of Bongino, Patel and Bondi. Bondi has endeared herself, I think, to Trump. I don't know of what great duration it will be if things keep going. But she's endeared herself by at least standing up in public and being the face of this. Dan Bongino flamed out a couple of weeks ago, got into a fight in front of Susie Wiles in the White House. According to my reporting, Wiles left not at all happy with Bongino's performance. He has not really been seen much since. Patel has also sort of been on the back of the political milk carton. He has not gone out and discussed any of this stuff. And it is not clear that he wants very much to do with this situation. Very much content to have Bondi and Blanche. And by the way, Blanche has now emerged as kind of the face of this instead of Bondi. So Bondi is essentially using Blanche as a surrogate. There's an interesting little, interesting little political bit of gamesmanship insofar as Bondi put out Blanche's statement on her own Twitter account. I don't know why, but she has now decided to put sort of Blanche out in front of this. So what we have here, in addition to all this other stuff, is a battle for survival among these players who are running law enforcement and who themselves, to one extent or another, promoted conspiracy theories when they were not in government. And I guess all I wonder is who's protecting the homeland with all these folks, you know, passing the hot potato from one to the other. Glenn Thrash for your reporting on this, Tara Palmeri for your reporting on this, and Claire McCaskill for your wisdom and thoughts on this. Thank you all so much for starting us off on this today. Coming up for us, Donald Trump punishes the Wall Street Journal in a move straight out of an authoritarian's playbook. We'll bring you those details next. When Air Force One departs for Scotland later this week, it will do so without the company or coverage from anyone from the Wall Street Journal. That is because the White House revoked the Wall Street Journal's press pool credentials for the trip. In what appears to be a clear and rather obvious act of retribution and retaliation. The Wall Street Journal late last week reported on the contents of a birthday card allegedly from Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein. It dates back to the year 2003. It's a card that featured a sketch of a naked woman and a note calling Epstein a quote, pal and signing off this way by saying, quote, may every day be another for another wonderful secret, end quote. Now, the two sides, Trump and the Wall Street Journal, are headed to court over the report. That is if the Wall Street Journal refuses a settlement with the Trump administration, as other media outlets have done. Joining our coverage is former U.S. attorney, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Lippman. Also joining us, staff writer for the Atlantic, author of Autocracy Inc. And Applebaum this year, Harry Lippman, just take me through the considerations for both sides. What is the Wall Street Journal looking at in terms of defending its report and its reporters? Well, the Wall Street Journal, Nicole, is in the mode that they would have been in a pre Trump era. They put this out. They obviously knew it would be controversial. They obviously researched it meticulously and their reputation is on the line. You mentioned a couple other settlements, but that's where Trump was able to leverage his executive power based on the other business interests of CBS and abc. Very contro here there's no way the Wall Street Journal is in for the long run. And it might not be that long, because the first step will be summary judgment. And it doesn't seem to me that Trump has really alleged anything that. From which you could show that they knowingly falsified the evidence. But the suit itself. So I think there are two things going on. The suit itself, Trump has made all about the existence or not of this letter. And I think at the end of the day, you know, he might stall or go through, and the reveal is gonna be that that letter exists and DOJ reviewed it. Then there's everything else that's happening and all the distractions they're trying to cause and the possible implications. Are they really good pals, as Epstein's former girlfriend says, and was he the wingman? And that's, I think, more kind of amorphous. And they're just trying to beat that back or change the subject any way they can. But on the actual lawsuit, it's a sure loser for Trump because he's made it all about whether the Journal is fabricating and I'm sorry, they're not. Anne. The attacks on the media have parallels in lots of other autocratic regimes, but there is something about the alacrity with which Trump has gotten to this brinksmanship. Will you just talk about Hungary's Orban and other autocrats who have clamped down on the press? I think one of the mistakes that Americans and other inhabitants of democracies make when they think about autocracy or an autocratic takeover is they imagine some kind of censorship board, you know, that there would be words they would be forbidden to use, as, for example, the Chinese do on the Internet, or it would be some kind of George Orwell system whereby some newspaper articles are allowed and some aren't actually, in modern autocracies, there are. That's not usually how control of the media works. And there are three more or less tactics that are used, and you could see them in Orban's Hungary and Erdogan's Turkey, an attempt to use them actually in Poland during the previous government. And they are, number one, take over the state media, if there is any. And in the US we don't have it. We have the corporation Public Broadcasting, and that's just lost its funding. Number two, there is use friends of the leader of the prime minister or the president to buy up media properties and then influence them to change their. To change their coverage. And that's. We see that happening as well. We see, you know, Larry Ellison's son acquiring cbs. And then there is use lawfare, essentially, use lawsuits, use intimidation, sometimes use threats to advertising, use a whole series of small things that just make life really difficult for ordinary newspapers. And you can see Trump has been through all of those stages. And of course, there's also a fourth, which is then bring in sycophants and propagandists to cover you. So bring them into the turn the White House press corps into a kind of Trump hurrah chorus. And I think you can see all those things happening. And I think what's amazing is the speed with which that happened. I mean, Trump has been president for half a year, and already we see one after the other of these familiar, very familiar, very predictable and indeed widely predictable tactics taking place. I want to ask both of you on what works in terms of pushing back and fighting back. I have to sink in. A quick break before I do that. We'll all be right back on the other side. We're back with Harry and Ann. Harry, we talked about the legal strategy for the case Trump is launching. But what or where or does the law protect The Wall Street Journal's right to cover Donald Trump, their access to him 100%, and it's canonical. Nicole, what Trump must show is that they published something false and they knew it was false. That's New York Times versus Sullivan. And because he's made it so much in his complaint about that piece of paper, the letter written at Epstein's 50th birthday, if that exists, or he can't show that it doesn't, he's going to lose. And he, he should lose. So the protections they have are exactly what other press organizations have had but have decided to defer on in order to kowtow to Trump. That's not going to happen here. So they really are. Unless you think that the letter is somehow a phony or fabrication, he can't win. And it's just a matter of when in the course of the proceedings the big card gets turned over. And what about retribution, like what he tried to carry out? I mean, they're not in the pool for this trip. Do they have a right to go to court to regain access to the press pool? Great question, and they sure should. This is just like what happened with the AP and a district court. Very thoughtful opinion said, you can't do that. It's the number one thing government can't do is take retribution for any kind of viewpoint. A D.C. circuit panel, two to one, that was a sort of pro Trump panel, put the kibosh on the stay. So it is now back in the District Court, but without a stay. So the so Trump can do it. And the reason you could see Levitt the press secretary saying flat out we are doing this because of their false and defamatory Wall Street Journal article, which is head spinning. Leaving aside the First Amendment is exactly because the D.C. circuit has for now put that on hold, at least a temporary injunction. But man, oh man, the argument that you cannot, and this is sort of really fundamental First Amendment principle to say, I don't like what you said, therefore you can't come to my party, you know, really seems a very strong principle that as of now is being kind of ignored. I mean, Ann, people are functioning as though the First Amendment is already dilapidated. People are functioning as though it doesn't protect them. What is sort of the history, I mean, I think of Zelensky, right? He's the leader of that country. He was a comedian. I mean, what is the opportunity with authoritarian forces bearing down on the press, on culture, on speech? What is the opportunity to push against it? So what we're seeing a lot of is of course, self censorship. So people are either personally afraid, in some cases they have good reason to be, or they are people who have business interests and they think that this is particularly true of the large companies that own media properties, have business interests they think could be threatened by the government. And so they're self censoring. And the only real response to that, the only way to overcome that sense of fear and anxiety that makes people be careful what they say or makes comedians not tell jokes or make editorial writers not write editorials, is for people who can and who are able to speak out, to do so as often and as clearly as possible. There's no need to shout and no need to be angry, but make sure that you are always saying the truth. And this, by the way, goes for ordinary citizens as much as it does for journalists or newspaper editors or people who are on tv. Just be clear about what is true and what's not true. Look up up evidence, use sources that are reliable, speak honestly, and expect people around you to do the same. And that's really the best way to push back against this kind of creeping fear and anxiety that people clearly have about what the government can do to you. I mean, look, Harry is right. Our legal system protects speech and it protects the rights of the press. And it protects our ability to look for and find and elucidate and enunciate the truth. And the only way we can really defend it, aside from the lawyers and the judges and so on, is for people to do it. And as I said, that goes for everybody watching this program, not just lawyers and journalists. And Applebaum and Harry Lippman, thank you both for having this conversation with us. It's great to see both of you. Up next for us, a rare rejection from a judicial panel of our U.S. attorney delivery, a rebuke to one of Donald Trump's former personal defense attorneys. That story is next. After a tenure marked by controversy, including the arrests of two Democratic elected officials, Alina Habba's time as New Jersey's interim U.S. attorney has at long last come to an end. A letter signed by the chief judge of the District of New Jersey announcing that a new U.S. attorney had been selected and Haba's tenure was over as of today. The letter came after a panel of Judges on the U.S. district Court of New Jersey declined to extend her role past her initial appointment of 120 days. Haba had no experience as a prosecutor or with criminal law before her appointment by Donald Trump. During her time as U.S. attorney, Haba oversaw the arrests of Newark Mayor Ross Baraka and Congresswoman Lamonica McIver after they tried to visit an immigration detention center. Hava later dropped the charges against Mayor Baraka, who is now suing her over his arrest, alleging that she violated his constitutional rights and defamed him. Congresswoman McIver has pleaded not guilty to charges of assaulting and impeding a law enforcement officer. In a social media post, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch says that Haba, quote, has the full confidence of DOJ leadership, urging that she be kept in her post. Up next for us, Donald Trump's effort to rewrite history and President Barack Obama having none of it. The next hour of Deadline White House starts after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. MSNBC's Jen Psaki, host of the Briefing. We've never experienced a moment like this in our country, and at least it's all with a choice. Are we going to speak or are we going to be pressured into silence? I've worked for presidents. I've faced the tough questions from the press and even threats from the Kremlin. And if there's one thing I've learned is that you can't cower to bullies. You don't need to be hopeless. We have our voices and I will continue using mine. The Briefing with Jen Psaki, Tuesday through Friday at 9:00pm Eastern on MSNBC. Hi again, everyone. It's now 5:00 o' clock in the east. Donald Trump stooping to an ugly new love, even for him. He's making a claim that will be heard the world over, reviving an old and familiar and rather tired tactic of accusing a perceived political enemy of treason. Only this time, the subject was his first term predecessor, former President Barack Obama. The leader of the gang was President Obama. He's guilty. It's not a question. You know, I like to say, give it time. It's there. He's guilty. They this was treason. This was every word you can think of. They tried to steal the election. He made that baseless, unsubstantiated, rather ludicrous accusation today in the Oval Office. It follows baseless, unsubstantiated claims from his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi Gabbard said that President Obama's officials engaged in a, quote, seditious conspiracy and hid evidence that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election. Donald Trump's claims today, an accusation of a crime that is punishable by death. So outrageous that they drew this rare rebuke from President Barack Obama's office. It reads, quote, out of respect for the office of the presidency. Our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response, but these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes. These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee led by then Chairman Marco Rubio. The very same Marco Rubio, Little Marco to Donald, who currently serves as Trump's Secretary of State and national security adviser. His report concluded that Russia conducted an influence campaign in 2016 to do this, quote, harm the Clinton campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee and undermine the US Democratic process. That conclusion was further bolstered earlier this month when Donald Trump's current CIA director, a man named John Ratcliffe, released a review that, as NBC News points out, quote, did not refute the findings of the intelligence assessment that Russia sought to interfere in the election. Now, as for these wild and erratic and unfounded attempts by Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump to rewrite their own version of history and provide a distraction from the Jeffrey Epstein debacle that has completely engulfed Donald Trump and his White House. They are claiming that the Obama administration concealed evidence that Russia did not try to manipulate votes. But that's Orwellian doublespeak. It's not what Obama's officials ever claimed. In the first instance. It was always about an influence campaign. Here was President Obama explaining it on December 16, 2016. I can assure the public that there was nothing the kind of tampering with the voting process that was of concern and will continue to be of concern going forward, that the votes that were cast were counted. They were counted appropriately. We have not seen evidence of machines being tampered with. So that assurance I can provide. That is where we start the hour with ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut. Also joining us, staff writer at the Atlantic and a contributor to the Atlantic Daily newsletter. Tom Nichols is here and former DHS chief of staff during Trump's first term. Myles Taylor is back with us. Congressman, let me start with you and let me show you one more piece of sound. This is Tulsi Gabbard echoing the very same thing that President Obama says in that tape I just played to Joe Rogan. When you're talking about like these Russian troll farms that you're that you mentioned, what is missing from all of the news coverage around this and all of the outrage about how this foreign country is trying to influence our elections, which is wrong and which the American people need to be aware of. Where this information is coming from is the fact that we. And you're saying, why does somebody do that? Well, because this country does want to influence who we're electing, right? Oh, we'd rather work with this person. We know that person's not going to be nice to us. Congressman, your thoughts on this Rubicon Crossing news cycle? Well, that's a very different Tulsi Gabbard. That was Tulsi Gabbard before she was in the employ of Donald Trump and before she saw a political route to power and influence. And now, of course, we have have a radically different Tulsi Gabbard. You didn't play, by the way, any sound of then Senator Marco Rubio, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who wrote and got a unanimous vote from Democrats and Republicans of an investigation of the Russian attack on the election, which, just as you have been saying and just as you played Obama saying, did not involve technical messing around with voting equipment, but did involve hacking the DNC and releasing emails. It did involve buying social media ads in the service of something that Marco Rubio's report said, which is that the Russians tampered with the election, not through the technical means in the service of Donald Trump. But of course, now that Marco Rubio and Tulsi Gabbard are working for Donald Trump, reality has been inverted. And what troubles me most about this, Nicole, is that I'm standing in a spot that on January 6, 2021, was overrun by a violent mob intent on hanging the Vice president and killing people like me. And it was all driven by a lie propagated by Donald Trump. And now we're seeing that playbook again. And my only question is, when people like Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump accuse an ex president of a capital crime that is punished by death, who is going to die? Who is going to die? Because they've decided that they need a distraction away from the Epstein calamity which they brought upon themselves. Well, I mean, it's a dark place that we find ourselves in. And I think that being, you know, Trump has led all of us to the underbelly of his movement's deepest passions by botching the Epstein file release that he promised his base so badly that we're all down in the rabbit hole with him trying to understand how conspiracies drive his voters passions. Say more about how we protect people targeted by his lies. And say more about your prediction that someone will die. Well, again, when you use language like treason, and I mean go into my social media feeds because I've been trying to tell the truth about this ever since Tulsi put out this staggeringly disprovable and instantly disprovable lie. When you start using the kind of language, the language of treason and of trait of somebody being a traitor, you know, some tiny percentage of the population is just crazy enough to decide that they need to do something about it. And again, it's what happened where I am standing right now on January 6, 2020, the statements of a president have some power. And by the way, four weeks from now, or five weeks from now or six weeks from now, we all need to ask the question, and I will certainly ask the question, which is, okay, the president, the former president is a traitor. Where is the Department of Justice indictment? Where is the prosecution of Barack Obama? But it will be Epstein all over again. Because four or five weeks from now, there will of course be no prosecution of a Barack Obama Obama. Because there's not a court in the land that would do anything other than laugh the DOJ and the prosecutors out of the room. But by then, we'll be on to the next bizarre bizarro conspiracy theory to try to Distract from the fact that, no, they're not going to prosecute Barack Obama. Let me show you. I mean, accusing someone of treason isn't new. Accusing a former president, President Obama, of treason is the twist. But here's a list of the people that Trump has smeared with accusations of treason. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, former FBI agent Pete Strzok, former FBI agent Lisa Page, and Miles Taylor, one of your fellow panelists. I mean, what they all have in common is putting the Constitution and national security ahead of any sort of fealty to Donald Trump. Are you positive that Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice won't invert that, that sort of paradigm and put Donald Trump ahead of the Constitution and national security and indict somebody or charge somebody without evidence? They might try. That would be a terrifically foolish move because the one element of our national government which has not bent its knee to pledge total fealty to Donald Trump is the judiciary. And judge after judge after judge, including Trump appointed judges, are standing up and saying and actually laughing stuff out of court. You know, the trial yesterday around the attack on Harvard University, the judges are using language that is, that is almost comically derisive of the Department of Justice and of this administration. So maybe Pam Bondi, in a delay, desperate attempt to keep her job, does in fact try to prosecute Barack Obama or Jim Himes or Mark Milley. And, you know, the laughter from whatever court that case is brought into will be heard in four time zones. Let me bring in Tom Nichols on this, on this idea that a lot of what happens in America is covered globally in a way that sometimes you don't appreciate. But certainly this one accusing former President Barack Obama, who was rather famously, without scandal, there were not any major scandals, unlike the administration I worked in or Clinton years, there really weren't major Obama era scandals. Donald Trump's accusation of treason will be heard around the world. What damage does that do to our standing in the world? It's hard to imagine that Donald Trump can do more damage than he's already done. And I think among our allies, they've just priced in this kookiness. I think most of our allies, people that have dealt with Donald Trump, have met with him, who follow him. I think at this point, Donald Trump can say that the moon is made of green cheese. And they shrug and they say, much as many Americans do. By the way, they shrug and say, well, it's weird, Uncle Donald. Why, what can you say? It's just the way he is. That doesn't make it less dangerous. And I think Congressman Himes. Absolutely right. I mean, when you start talk about accusing people of treason, you're putting people's lives in danger. I think when you're looking at our enemies, I still, as I've said so many times, they cannot believe their good fortune. They cannot believe that Donald Trump will do for them for free what they've been trying to do to us for decades, to undermine our institutions, to destroy America's confidence in its own political system, to smear each other as citizens and accuse each other of the most base and vile crimes. You can hear the laughing all the way from Moscow and Beijing and Tehran and other places. They probably are just astonished that Donald Trump does this voluntarily. And I'm sure that they applaud it and they're glad to see it. But I think everybody else in the world, they've already lived through five years of Donald Trump. I think they just shrug and say the Americans have chosen a guy who's emotionally disordered and that he's just gonna say weird stuff. Well, it's not just weird stuff. In the case of trying to reintroduce a theory that was debunked by his closest allies in the investigative side, Marco Rubio in the United States Senate and John Durham, who was the right's Robert Mueller. John Durham and Marco Rubio affirmed the CIA assessment, as did John Ratcliffe a few weeks ago. The basic assessment that President Obama goes to the podium and is talking about there is that Russia attacked our elections with an influence campaign, and he preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. That is a known. Known. That is a settled fact. Based on investigations conducted by Donald Trump's closest allies, what is Tulsi Gabbard doing? Miles Talent. Well, first of all, you can see why Tulsi Gabbard is. Go ahead. Tom Nichols, you first. Go ahead, go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, go ahead. Tulsi Gabbard was hired. I mean, this is why she was brought in to say whatever Donald Trump wants her to say. But the only thing I was gonna say, Nicole, is that I think there are two audiences left. Everybody else, as you say, for everybody else in the world, it's a settled question, except for the kind of unstable people that Jim Himes is talking about. And for everybody else, it really doesn't reopen this. I don't think there's anybody overseas or anywhere else thinks, you know, maybe Barack Obama's really guilty of treason. Nobody really thinks that. But it will motivate Some very dangerous. A very dangerous and small percentage of Americans, unfortunately. And I think that's. It's unconscionable. Miles Taylor, you've spoken openly about being on the other end of conspiracy theories. I think you've been accused of the same crime. Right. Treason. What happens when Donald Trump levies that accusation? Unfounded. Yeah, I mean, that's right, Nicole. Look, I think nothing displays his dictatorial desires more clearly in this whole second term than this liberal use of the word treason to describe open dissent and criticism. And I can attest firsthand that this has real world implications. I mean, these are not just words. These are orders to his supporters. And, you know, in April, after the President accused me of treason and issued an investor an executive order to investigate me, my family was on the receiving end of death threats. I mean, as I, as I sit here, you are never more than five seconds away from a firearm in my household because I have a wife and a daughter I have to protect. Even if Donald Trump doesn't take those words treason seriously, his supporters do. And they've reached out and said they're going to put me and my wife in front of firing squads. They've threatened us. We've had to bring restraining orders against these people. It's extremely serious and serious for him to do that against a former president who already has faced any number of death threats. And I would add to that, Nicole, that at the end of the day, most of his supporters don't realize how ridiculous these words are. I mean, when this happened to us, my thought was, you know, I spent my whole career, I went into government after 9, 11 to go protect people. I made a modest salary. I worked my ass off 24,7 not to have the President of the United States accuse me of treason. And a president, by the way, who fled the White House after the first term with classified documents in behavior that could accurately be described as treasonous or violation of the Espionage Act. So it's absurd to the core, but it forces people to have to defend themselves in ways they never expected. And we've faced legal and security threats ever since. The President did that in April. I am always beyond grateful at your willingness to turn this inside out and share the human experience of being targeted by Donald Trump. Pete Strzok once talked about what it was like for his family, and he said he likened it to some of the training he had in the FBI. When you're under threat, you want to get off the X. You know, you want to get off being targeted. Congressman, I'm cognizant that President Barack Obama is one of the most disciplined politicians and public figures ever in the history of our country, and he chooses his spots. And that he chose to respond to this today, to me, suggests that there is a red line that Donald Trump crossed by accusing President Obama of treason. Is there anyone left to sort of enforce that or underscore that this is not normal anymore? Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, for many of us, President President Obama has been overly conservative in his setting of the record. Straight, if I may be a little more nuanced than the situation deserves. But look, there's a very dark logic in what's happening, and Tom and Mike are exactly right. There's a huge cost to be extracted. Somebody could be killed. We had to refer some of the comments on my own social media feed after I did some of the Sunday media shows, and I have yet to be called a traitor. But we had to refer some of those comments to law enforcement because they were threats against my person. But look, there's a dark, dark logic to this. And now I'm speaking as somebody who spent some time in the political arena. You know, what we're not doing right now, we're not talking about Jeffrey Epstein, which is maybe bizarrely a mortal threat to the unity of maga. We're not talking about the fact that the Republicans are celebrating a bill that will kick 10 million Americans off of their health insurance and add $3 to $4 trillion to the deficit. So, you know, again, when the means justify the end, which is a pretty good bumper sticker for maga, the fact that we've gone a day or two now without talking about Epstein or talking about the terrible damage that Republicans have done to the, to the country, is actually a huge win. And four or five weeks from now, when there has been no prosecution of Barack Obama, it'll be yet another insane thing used to distract attention away from that fact. Well, I don't know about the others. We just spent an hour talking about Jeffrey Epstein, but I take your point. Congressman Jim Himes, thank you very much for starting us off. Tom Nichols, thank you for starting us off. Myles, we're going to ask you to stick around. When we come back as Donald Trump leans hard into the rhetoric of retribution, as the Congressman said, in desperate hopes of distracting from his own manufactured Epstein debacle. We'll hear much more from Miles Taylor on the isolation and fear facing some of Donald Trump's most outspoken critics. We've heard from so many people on this show, we've had the courage to speak out at great cost. And we'll have more of their stories next. Also ahead, Stephen Colbert is firing back against CBS and Donald Trump just days after the shocking announcement that the Late show will come to an end next year. We'll show you what he said last night and the overwhelming support he's getting later in the hour. Deadline Whitehouse continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. As Donald Trump reminded the world today, his appetite for political retribution is insatiable, especially when he wants to distract from something that is eating him up politically. So as he goes after his perceived political enemies, people who probably don't think about him very often anymore, with the force of the entire federal government behind him, it is important to acknowledge those who have stood up in the face of his intimidation and weaponization on this program. We have been lucky enough to have an opportunity to speak with several such individuals who Trump has taken aim at, targeted for various reasons. But the unfortunate outcome for a lot of them is similar. Isolation, fear, a cost to their lives, either in their sense of safety or security or in their ability to earn a living. Take a listen to two of them. Frank Kendall, former secretary of the Air Force. He had several organizations tell him they could not employ him or be publicly associated with him. And current panelist Miles Taylor, a vocalist critic of Donald Trump's after working for him in the first term. He's now under investigation by doj. I've never seen a climate like this where the threats, the implied threats in many cases are affecting behaviors as much as they are. It's everywhere. And I think it's expanding. It's not an accident that this climate of fear is being created. It's intentional and it's having a very chilling effect on a lot of people in our, in our country, dissidents and autocracies, they end up socially isolated. And that's the goal. And but it's very foreign and remote until it happens to you. And I've had very close friends, very, very close friends call and tell me I'm going to need to keep my distance until this is all over. It's similar to the story shared with us by Michael Feinberg. He lost his job at the FBI because of a personal friendship he had with another FBI agent, someone we've mentioned today, Pete Strzok, who Trump has attacked for years now. There's never been a complaint or criticism about the quality of my work or my professional comportment. So it was a little surprising to me that Saturday in May when I found out that Bongino the deputy director of the FBI, had discovered I was friends with a former executive who is a noted and admittedly controversial figure. But our friendship is entirely social in nature. And that relationship was enough to put a target on my back that Bongino made very clear was going to end my career. Others have already moved on from their public service, from jobs in government, but they are still warning about what Donald Trump's targeting of them means for the bigger trends in our country right now. Here's former CIA Director John Brennan, no stranger to being targeted and investigated by Donald Trump. I have tried to answer every question I have been asked, whether it be by Senate or House members or John Durham or others, fully because I want to make sure that people understand exactly what the Russians were doing to try to interfere in our very, very solemn domestic election system. So this whole thing about the CIA note and this possible referral of me and criminal investigation, I think is just symptomatic of a much broader disease that we are confronting right now in terms of how our democratic principles are being eroded and corroded as a result of this authoritarian march that we are witnessing every day. We're back with Miles Taylor. Miles, as you see, this sort of pileup of I don't even know what to call them, but examples of retribution that Trump is seeking to eke out and that his allies and the institutions that have fallen to Trumpism and Trump 2.0 are facilitating. Where's your head on all this? Well, I mean, Nicole, they are crowdsourcing hate and violence with these accusations of treason. And one of the only ways to counter it it is to crowdsource courage. And so there's one place that I would initially recommend that people go. It's a website called endpresidentialrevenge.org that's E N D presidentialrevenge.org why? Because the only reason people like me have been able to fight back legally against the President and his accusations of treason is that folks around the country working with great nonprofits like Whistleblower Aid and these other groups to protect whistleblowers have stood up to say, no, this can't happen. Because otherwise, these types of accusations can bankrupt you. Not just threaten your family, but absolutely bankrupt you and upend your life. But I would agree with former CIA Director Brennan that it's not just about the individuals, him or me or someone like Barack Obama being accused of treason. This is about everyone. This is a full frontal assault on the First Amendment. And make no mistake, the President is trying to chill speech across this country punish anyone who criticizes him and even punish the media outlets that air those criticisms of him. We have never before in the history of our country witnessed as aggressive of an assault on the First Amendment as we are seeing right now. I had an argument with a very, very senior media executive over the weekend, and I said, it's your. Your problem that there is a culture and that business is on the sideline. And if you think he won't come for you, he will. I mean, Miles Taylor was a Republican. Jim Comey worked for Republicans and Democrats. John Brennan worked for Republicans and Democrats. Bob Mueller was appointed by a Republican. John Durham was a Republican who's now being undercut by Tulsi Gabbard, who was a Democrat. There's no political safe harbor from Trump or Trumpism. Eventually, he comes for everyone. What is the human thing that keeps people on the sidelines or has them think, you know, if I cover my eyes, he won't see me? Well, they feed the alligator, Nicole, because they don't want to get eaten by the alligator. But what they don't understand is the alligator is going to eat you anyway when the food runs out. And that's something that you can call the bystander phenomenon. And we see this with stories about people on the New York subway where someone, you know gets punched or sexually assaulted, and other people just stand there and watch. And they just stand there and watch because they hope that they won't be called into action because they don't want the punch to land on them. But the faulty nature of that logic is that if you do nothing, if you let crime persist, eventually it does come for you. It overtakes that subway. It overtakes your neighborhood. Now, the way to counter that is when you know that there are people who are going to stand up with you. And you see that also in some of these stories. If someone rushes into the fire and says, come help me, people feel an obligation to go. Go join the fight. And right now, there are people rushing towards that burning building saying, come help me. And we need people to go follow that lead and rush in there. Otherwise, we cede the building to these arsons. And that's what I worry could happen this year. This is a very decisive year for people to decide whether they're going to stand up against this or not and stop feeding the alligator. Because it's almost too literal in this case, Nicole. If they keep feeding the alligator, they might end up in a makeshift prison in Florida surrounded by alligators, because that is how this man thinks that is how the president of the United States thinks is sick. Ways to punish his rivals. And believe me, he hasn't even used all the levers to be able to do that yet. Miles Teller, thank you. Please keep coming back and talking us through this moment. Thank you for spending time with us on these stories today. Thank you, Nicole. When we come back, days after the shocking announcement that CBS was canceling the iconic and very popular Stephen Colbert, Colbert is firing back at the network and at Donald Trump. We'll show you what he said next. For the next 10 months, the gloves are off. I can finally, yeah, I can finally speak unvarnished truth to power and say what I really think about Donald Trump, starting right now. I don't care for him. On Friday, Donald Trump, Trump posted. I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings. How dare you, sir? Would an untalented man be able to compose the following satirical witticism? Go yourself. That is how it's done. Without missing a beat. Last night, Stephen Colbert delivered with his signature humor and candor his first monologue since the shocking announcement that CBS is canceling the late night franchise in May of next year after 33 years on the air. The news of that decision, which the network said was, quote, purely financial, came only three days after Colbert mocked a $16 million lawsuit settlement from CBS's parent company with Donald Trump, which Colbert called a, quote, big fat bribe in the midst of its pending merger that requires approval from Donald Trump. Here's what Colbert said about that last night. How could it purely be a financial decision if the late show is number one in ratings? Somebody at CBS followed up their gracious press release with a gracious anonymous leak, saying they pulled the plug on our show because of losses pegged between 40 million and $50 million a year. 40 million is a big number. I could see us losing $24 million. But where would Paramount have possibly spent the other 16 million? Oh, yeah. Colbert's studio audience last night included a show of force, solidarity from fellow late night giants Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, John Oliver, Jon Stewart, plus TV hosts Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen, actors Adam Sandler, Christopher McDonald, and over in Comedy Central, which is also owned by Paramount, this could be interesting. Jon Stewart warned about the dangers of capitulation to Donald Trump. If you believe as corporations or as networks, you can make yourselves so innocuous that you can serve a gruel so flavorless that you will never again be on the boy king's radar. A why will anyone watch you? And you are wrong. If you're trying to figure out why Stephen's show is ending, I think the answer is in the fear and pre compliance that is gripping all of America's institutions at this very moment. This is not the moment to give in. I'm not giving in. I'm not going anywhere. I think. Joining our conversation, host of the Fast Politics podcast, special correspondent for Vanity Fair, Molly Jong Fast is back who has written about this and former undersecretary of State for public diplomacy and public affairs during the Obama administration, Rick Stengel's here. Molly, you have a great piece on this topic. Weigh in. Yeah. You know, I actually wrote an op ed for the New York Times about this and my grandfather was Howard Fast, who was jailed during the blacklist for the House on Un American by the House on Un American activities. He was labeled an enemy of the state. Right. Because the state felt that he was insufficiently, whatever it was, his political views. And that is not so dissimilar from the self censorship we're seeing here. The difference big corporations are saying is because they need to get make deals, right. They're conflicted, but the results are the same. Right. A chilling effect on speech. And again it's contagious, which I think you talked about in this last block. The idea that CBS would not have settled this lawsuit, which was very likely to have been frivolous had ABC not done it. We just keep seeing again and again that this, and look, this is what happened during McCarthy too, right? The Black Lives Matter. We saw again and again the power institutions did not hold. And I think it really is a stunning contrast from 2016 when institutions did hold. And now we are seeing the results of what happens when corporations do not stand up for citizens and democracy. And I will say the mere fact that corporations were ever going to be good actors is worth thinking about for a minute. It is. But what's amazing to me, Rick Stengel, is that corporations are run by people. And those people don't need to look any further than Moscow or Orban's Hungary. I mean, there are no examples of autocracies being hotbeds for industry and economy and innovation and hiring and recruiting. And there is no example of an authoritarian state aiding industry anywhere, ever. And so I think it's incredibly short sighted and I wonder what you think breaks the fever on their part. You know, Nicole, I was editor of Time magazine for seven years and we were owned by Time Warner. And during that time we did cover stories about Abu Ghraib, we did cover stories that exposed malfeasance in the administration. And I never had anyone from Time Warner say to me, you can't do that, or maybe go easy on that. I had people from the White House calling me all the time saying, don't do that. And basically my philosophy was the Duke of Wellington philosophy, publish and be damned. So there are sometimes good corporate actors. Corporate actors, but generally are not profiles in courage. And the thing that I want to come back to, and you've been talking about it this whole hour, is what makes the First Amendment an outlier and exceptional, is in Oliver Wendell Holmes, great, great line, the most beautiful line ever said about the First Amendment, which is that freedom of speech is designed not to protect the thought we agree with, but the thought that we hate. That's something that Donald Trump does not understand. That's something people on the right do not understand. These defenders of free speech have become the greatest censors of free speech anytime in our history. That's what's so appalling about it. It's not just the hypocrisy, but the fact that they don't understand that the idea of free speech is to protect thought, that we hate comedy like Stephen Colbert's screenplays, like Molly's grandfather, Howard Fast, who was indeed a profile in Kurds. And that's what's so scary and disturbing about the environment that we're living in, that this thing that makes America America is not understood by the people who are running America now. Well. And what's amazing is anyone thinking they'll be spared. You know, Paramount is going to do whatever deal they're going to do, thinking that what they'll never find themselves in Rupert Murdoch's shoes, who now has to defend himself and his Wall Street Journal property against a frivolous defamation suit from Donald Trump. So, I mean, the human layer is something I want to probe further with both of you. We have to sneak in a short break. We'll all be right back on the other side. Look, I understand the corporate fear. I understand the fear that you and your advertisers have with $8 billion at stake. But understand this truly, the shows that you now seek to cancel, censor and control, a not insignificant portion of that $8 billion value came from those shows. That's what made you that money. Shows that say something, shows that take a stand, shows that are unafraid. Rebecca, Molly. And Rick, he's so smart and he's exactly right. Molly. Yeah, no, he's definitely right. And, and I think the other thing, and we see this a lot is that people actually, I mean, Trump is not, is not very popular. Like he's less popular than he was in his first administration. There is actually appetite for this, right? This is being squelched because of regulatory stuff that should not actually because of the imperial presidency which Donald Trump has created through the use of things written about in Project 2025. So, so I think that it's really important to remember, like this is not serving the people. This is not serving democracy. This is serving a regulatory structure that is not supposed to be used this way. Rick, One of I don't want. Maybe she's Trump's public enemy number one, Patient zero, Rosie o'. Donnell. She and I are friends. She and I were on the View together. She had this to say about Donald Trump and Stephen Colbert. Quote, stephen took a stood up to you like so many of us have, not because it was easy, but because it was necessary. He told the truth with wit and courage night after night while you used your platform to spread fear, lies and hate. You don't want free speech. You want blind loyalty. But America doesn't work like that. We question power here. We laugh at bullies and we speak out. It leaves you undone. Steven will be fine. So will I. So will every artist, journalist, immigrant, teacher, parent and kid who sees through your desperate grasp at relevance, your craving for control. Truth isn't going anywhere and neither are we. It was incredible for its optimism and confidence, which Rosie o' Donnell is being threatened with her citizenship right now. She moved to Ireland after Trump was re elected. But this, this confidence also undoes Donald Trump. What he seeks is fear in those who criticize him. Him. You know, Nicole, throughout history, the kryptonite of dictators is humor. One of the things that brought the Berlin Wall down and ended the Soviet Union were these comics in the Soviet Union who made fun of Russian leaders who made fun of the Politburo. I remember Milan Kondera's great book Tales of Laughter and Forgetting about the underground of poems and limericks that were said about autocrats. And they hated it. That's what Donald Trump hates. He hates almost more than anything being fun of. And that's what Colbert did night after night. That's what Rosie o' Donnell has done. That is the thing that undermines their legitimacy and that's the thing they fear because their power comes from their own insecurity. Their insecurity is tapped in by humor and they can't tolerate that well. And that's where the fraying of the Trump coalition is happening right now. Or the Epstein files. It's Joe Rogan who's telling Democratic statewide officials in Texas run for president, at least you're a good person. Is a direct quote from Joe Rogan and his close comedy friend. I think his name is Shane Gillis, with an Epstein joke at the ESPYS last week saying, I had an Epstein joke in here, but they deleted it. I mean, when you start to lose the comedians in your own coalition, it's the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning, whichever it is. Molly drunk Fast and Rick Stengel, to be continued for us, my friends. Thank you for joining us today. We're going to sneak in one more break. We'll be right back. The collapse of the Republican Party taking a knee. You know, I still think about Kamala and how I, I think she would have been a good choice. I don't care what they say because she would have done what Lincoln did. Liz Cheney would have been secretary of State. Team arrivals. Yeah, team arrivals. Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote the book about it. That's what Lincoln did. Surrounded himself with the people who would disagree with him, not the people who would take a knee and go, yeah, more tariffs, sir. More. It's the madness of King George. As an astute observer of the human condition as exists, actor Jeff Daniels is brimming with facts and insights like that. He is my guest on this week's episode of the Best People. I want to shout out and thank our friends over at the neighbor, FOX News at the Five for all the attention you've been giving this interview. And my interview with Jason Bateman, also from the Best People podcast. We're not sure if it's you or just the quality of the people we've had access to, but you've helped us stay in the top of the charts and we're really appreciative for all your attention on the podcast. If you want to watch this interview, you can scan the QR code on your screen. I hope you'll listen to this one and tell me what you think. Thanks for letting us into your homes. We are so grateful.