Tara Palmeri (6:26)

I mean, the DOJ has a history of tracking journalists. We know that even during the Obama administration, it's been a problem for the past 15 years. I am in shock, but I'm really not surprised. I mean, Julie was about to break open a major story. And they were aware that for everyone who's ever listened to my podcast, Broken Jeffrey Epstein, which actually Julie was the executive producer on that podcast, you can hear that the FBI actually called the house that Virginia and I were at of a witness. And then that night, her phone broke. And I think it was from being pinged by the feds that were following her around. They are very sensitive around this case. I mean, I don't think that was a coincidence, and I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I was with Virginia at the home of a major witness in the case, the houseman, Jeffrey Epstein's houseman, Juana Lessi. And the FBI just so happened to call for the first time in months. At that period of time when we were in the house with him, you.

Boraclog (7:30)

And Virginia were interviewing the houseman. And she and I remember you sharing with us that Virginia was so relieved that he remembered her. He was someone that corroborating at least part of Virginia Giuffre's story, Is that correct?

Tara Palmeri (7:43)

Yes, that's correct. And he was a major witness in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. And he hadn't heard, he hadn't really hadn't heard from the feds since. In months, I think it was six months, he had said. And it just so happened to be that day while we were with him when he got a phone call, and you can hear it in the podcast. And he's saying, it's the FBI. They're on the phone. And then that night, Virginia's phone goes black from overheating and we had to get her a new one. I mean, it was like, it was a little eerie. And to see that they were tracking Julie K. Brown's flights. I mean, I almost wonder if this is going to come out too, in their filings that they were following Virginia around while she was in the United States trying to do her own reporting on her story. I mean, that was part of what we were doing, was finding cooperating witnesses who could back up the stories of abuse when so many men had said that she was a liar and to not listen to her. And we went to Juan, who was the man who paid these girls and who picked them up and drove them home. And he ended up being a very useful witness in the case against Belen. But at that point, he was unaware that he was going to be that witness. So it gives me the chills, really. It does.

Boraclog (8:51)

Let me, Tara, let me just time capsule us. These are some of the headlines that Julie K. Brown was generating with her own reporting that correspond to the flight that DOJ was tracking and had in their own files. Andrew, let me pull you in and ask you. I mean, I feel like this is a stupid question, but what possible defensible explanation is there for having a journalist who has. These are her headlines from around the week that DOJ was tracking her flight movements. She wrote a story in the Miami Herald in July of 2019. New victims come forward as Jeffrey Epstein asked to be released from jail to his Manhattan mansion. She wrote that story in October of 2019. For Jeffrey Epstein, one island hideaway wasn't enough. How he stealthily acquired a second huge cache of records detail how Jeffrey Epstein and madame lured girls into depraved world. She wrote that story in October of 2019. She was one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. Now her name is on a crime bill in Congress. Those were the stories she was breaking in the Miami Herald around the time that Donald Trump 1.0 and his attorney general was Bill Barr at the time was tracking a journalist's flight itinerary. Again, what possible defensible explanation is that at the Department of Justice?

Andrew Weissman (10:11)

Well, I think something that people need to understand in answering your question, Nicole, is that the Department of Justice for many, many characters and there there have.

Boraclog (10:22)

Been.

Andrew Weissman (10:24)

For many years, the Department of Justice has had very significant restrictions on when the Department of Justice can subpoena or or obtain records relating to journalists. Merrick Garland had the most stringent requirements, in my view, almost too stringent because of his concern about the First Amendment implications and the importance of what you do and what Tara does, the so called fourth estate. So to answer that question, the normal sort of DOJ rules is that you can't just any line ausa, you know, federal prosecutor, any line special agent of the FBI can't just go normal procedures and obtain records for journalists. That of course we've seen various violations of that and those rules have changed back and forth and different attorneys general have different rules, but there have been of late lots and lots of restrictions. So even if you can say something is relevant and you might be able to get it, you have to meet a much higher threshold normally in the department to get it because of the concerns about the First Amendment and the work of the fourth estate. Why would somebody want these, you know, permissible reasons, ones unrelated to harassment or monitoring what she's doing potentially somebody could think, well she has really good sources and maybe there's a way for the FBI to sort of find new leads. But that's not what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to do your own work. So to me, it's very hard to think of a defensible reason. And one of the questions I have is what are the current rules that the Department of Justice, if it still has any, in obtaining journalist records? Because that to me is sort of the law. It's both bad in and of itself what we've learned. But it raises the issue of is this going on right now in many, many other contexts? And the only reason we know this is because Congress passed this statute.

Boraclog (12:48)

Let me just make sure I understand what you're saying. Your point, Andrew, is that Julie K. Brown, a journalist breaking the kinds of stories I just read the headlines of at the time that her flight itinerary, a flight she confirmed she did book in her maiden name that align flying. US Attorney or AUSA couldn't just be tracking her and have pulled her flight records without going to summon at main doj. Is that what your, what your, one of your theories is?

Andrew Weissman (13:18)

Yeah, that that is what the normal rules are. That that would be something that was required. Different attorneys general require much more showings and much more levels of approval and there are more restrictions. As I said, the high watermark of protections was under Merrick Garland. But there's no question that you have to get, you can't just do that. The line level. Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying that that was done here because it's hard for me to see a legitimate reason that in other words, if I was a supervisor, I would have a million and one questions about why you are getting records, the travel records, for a legitimate, reputable journalist who is covering a story that to me, you know, there was, there was a huge contretemps during the Biden, the Biden administration, during the Obama administration about these kinds of activities. And so that this is going on is something that to me raises questions not just about what has happened, but what is happening now. Like what do we not know? Because it's only a fortuity that we know this. This so far.

Boraclog (14:36)

Yeah, I mean, Christy, I guess I want to drill down on understanding why Donald Trump's first administration and his first Department of Justice, which is compared rather favorably to his current Department of Justice and FBI, because everything becomes relative, isn't under more scrutiny as the documents get released. And I know you and I have had conversations about what Jeffrey Ber, who was the Trump appointed U.S. attorney at SDNY, what he writes in his own book about how he sought to protect the Epstein investigation while he was U.S. attorney from Maine, DOJ. There's now at least a legitimate question that Andrew Weissman is posing that it isn't normal or wouldn't have been normal even then to pull Julie K. Brown or any journalist's travel itinerary at a line AUSA level that maybe someone at main DOJ was involved. It's at least a legitimate question to ask. Ask. I wonder what your thoughts are in seeing that among the documents that were dumped is the travel itinerary for one of the preeminent journalists on this story over the last 10 years.

Nicole Wallace (15:43)

So one thing I will say is that Jeff Berman, who is the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York at the time that this happened, speaks in his book about the fact that Julie K. Brown's reporting is what caused SDNY to to initiate its investigation. He speaks about her reporting in laudatory terms in his book. That that's 1.2. Andrew is exactly right. This kind of thing, any kind of legal process involving reporters, there are heightened levels of review. A line prosecutor can't just go and subpoena Julie K. Brown's records without having that cleared by higher ups. Usually that goes to the Department of Justice. I question in this case whether it did because we also know from Jeff Gurman's book that prior to Epstein being arrested, they were keeping this on a close hold and they weren't letting Bill Barr and DOJ know that this investigation existed. They, they really were trying to make it so that, that the only it was on a need to know basis that that people knew about this investigation and his interpretation of the rules were that this wasn't something that that main justice needed to know about. Whether that's, you know, whether you agree with that this is a case that would involve significant press attention. It is something you would typically tell doj, but in an effort to protect the investigation. Berman's interpretation was not to involve doj. So I question whether this was something that they went to DOJ for approval about. They would then have to disclose the nature of the investigation. But certainly within sdny, this is something supervisors up until, up until to the U.S. attorney would typically look at. I was working as a supervisor. Well, actually I wasn't a supervisor at that point, but during this time frame I was at stny and that is the kind of thing I knew as a line prosecutor I would need to go to a supervisor to get. So again, I don't know why and I do think it raises questions that DOJ really should be getting ahead of. If there is nothing nefarious behind this. And again, having worked with some of the prosecutors who worked on the episode Epstein case, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt because I know that they're really good prosecutors with really good reputations. It would behoove the Department of Justice to communicate more, not less, to tell us about these kinds of things, get ahead of it so that if there is nothing nefarious about it, just tell the public why. And instead what you find from the communications out of the Department of Justice are really lacking and in some cases just not true. Just to give you an example, the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the only reductions being applied to documents are those required by law, full stop. That is just not true. They are redacting information that they deem to be privileged. It is not required by law that they make those redactions. DOJ is claiming the information is privileged. They are asserting the privileges and then redacting them. Another example is they are saying that they are redacting the names of individuals or politicians. They're not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are a victim. That is again not true. They are redacting the names of law enforcement agents and prosecutors. Why? Prosecutors and law enforcement agents are identified in cases all the time. If there's a safety risk for them to be publicly identified, you know, one, they should say that who is the risk from and how are victims supposed to be safe coming forward? If law enforcement can't protect themselves, how can they protect victims? So again, when there are just too many questions that they are not getting out in front of and answering, and then I get really concerned when you hear that the White House is taking over DOJ's X account to respond to posts specifically mentioning Donald Trump. There's been reporting from Axios that that is happening. When this whole process gets weaponized, that causes the public to trust the Department of Justice less and it allows for these kinds of questions and thinking that there are nefarious motives behind what DOJ is doing back then. It allows those to fester and you have to shut those down or at least respond to them in real time. And the department is not doing that.

Boraclog (19:52)

So if you wanted to hide information, you would release information on Christmas Eve. That is when we learned this from an email among the 30,000 released last week. This is from an assistant U.S. attorney written in January 2020. Flagging flight records. Quote, the flight records we received yesterday reflect that Donald Trump traveled on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet many more times, many more times than previously has been reported. Or that we were aware on one flight in 1993, Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein are the only two listed passengers. On another, the only three passengers are Epstein, Trump and then 20 year old redacted on two other flights, two of the passengers respectively were women who would be possible witnesses in a Maxwell case. End quote. That's where we'll pick up on the other side of a quick break. Also ahead for all of us still to come, we'll turn to Donald Trump's cold and callous response when he was asked about the more than 100Americans, many of them former military veterans who have died in Ukraine. The latest episode in a years long pattern now of Donald Trump dismissing and incapable of understanding sacrifice on the battlefield. And later in the broadcast, Donald Trump ends the year. The coalition that powered him to victory in 2024 completely in tatters. Poll after poll, podcast after podcast showing support among the groups that catapulted him to a second term has cratered. We have all those stories and much more when Deadly White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Nicole Wallace (21:35)

Start your day with the MSNow Daily Newsletter each morning.

Andrew Weissman (21:39)

Read sharp insights from the voices you trust. Catch standout moments from your favorite shows.

Boraclog (21:44)

The second Trump administration has gone to.

Andrew Weissman (21:46)

Unprecedented lengths to radically transform America. Stay up to speed on our latest.

Boraclog (21:51)

Podcasts and MSNow events and get fresh.

Nicole Wallace (21:55)

Perspectives from experts shaping the news it's.

Andrew Weissman (21:58)

Everything you love about Ms. Now delivered to your inbox. Sign up at Ms. Now. Every member of the Judiciary Committee, every Republican, every Democrat voted to release these documents and to have them in our hands yesterday. Not today, not tomorrow. Yesterday they were supposed to be in our hands so that we could stand up for victims and to make sure that we know the names of the people who enabled Jeffrey Epstein. They have not done that yet. So here's what we can do. We can restrict funding to the Department of Justice, of course, we can bring officials in under inherent contempt. But also what we can do is we can bring them in for hearings. And I would recommend that's the best thing that we could do is to have a public account and to put them in the witness chair and ask just where the hell are these files and why are you keeping Donald Trump's name to the degree that you are out of them?

Boraclog (22:53)

I mean, Tara, just speak to. I mean, lies have been revealed, as you said, as Christy said, as everyone has said. One of the lies is that Donald Trump posted in a truth social post last year, quote, he was never on Epstein's plane. The documents released by his own Department of Justice with illegal or questionable redactions and limitations. Has that email I read from before the break, quote, the flight records we received yesterday reflect that Donald Trump traveled on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet many more times than previously has been reported or that we were aware of. On one flight in 1993, Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein are the only two listed passengers. On another, the only three passengers are Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump and then 20 year old name redacted. On two other flights. Two of the passengers respectively were women who would be possible witnesses in a Maxwell case. End quote. From again, Donald Trump's own Justice Department, it's clear that one of the reasons Trump didn't release these documents is that his own lies told on his own social media platform would be debunked by his own Department of Justice releasing these emails. What else are you wondering about? What other theories are there for withholding so much?

Tara Palmeri (24:08)

Still, I appreciated Marjorie Taylor Greene's article, her interview with Robert Draper and how she said that she revealed what we all know, that President Trump was worried about how these files would expose his friends. And I think when he says his friends, he probably is also reflecting himself and his own concerns about protecting his own reputation and against the allegations that have already come out. I mean, some of them are untrue, obviously, but there's a lot in there. You're friends with someone for 10 years who is a convicted pedophile, and you're traveling with him back and forth from Palm beach to New York, where they both hung out, they both swam in the same seas. I mean, it's inevitable that over 10 years that there is going to be information that even ties them even closer, including flight records which are not disputable. And these are the kind of details that are so easily debunked if you lie about. I mean, even like with the birthday card that he claims he didn't write or give to Jeffrey Epstein and that we would never see. J.D. vance is saying it's not real, it's fake. And the next thing you know, you know, the Journal is putting out an actual House oversight committee, got the picture from the estate and put it out there. It exists. It is real. The lies are going to catch up with them. It's just a matter of when they're, you know, based. When they're true believers. They're MAGA believers will finally say, enough is enough. Like, seeing is believing. And you can't lie. You can't deny these documents.

Boraclog (25:40)

Yeah, I mean, Andrew Weissman, I guess, like, take off your government official prosecutor hat for a second and just profile and take away the name Donald Trump. Profile a person who acts like this. I mean, no one, even in what has been released. There is no crime alleged. There is no. There's no criminality alleged. There's association. Donald Trump had Kanye or whatever Kanye calls himself and Nick Fuentes to dinner. I mean, why is he acting the way he's acting about stuff that his terrorist says is indisputable? He flew up and down to Florida and New York on Jeffrey Epstein's jet.

Andrew Weissman (26:21)

I think there's only one answer to that in terms of how he is behaving. If it is just a matter of association, then that's all you have to say. And the very first thing you would do is you would tell the Department of Justice not just to disclose everything, but you'd say the very first thing you need to disclose is everything about me. Every document, every picture. Put it out there. The only reason you wouldn't do that is for the same reason that Christie saying there are all sorts of things that have not been disclosed. They're redactions that are not legally required to have been made, their privileges that are not called for by the statute that the department does not have to do. It's not legally required. The reason you would do that is because you have something to hide. I mean, this, you know, this. There's no other logical reason to do this. And now we're seeing sort of death by a thousand cuts. We're seeing all sorts of excuses that in my view don't pass the straight face laugh test. The sort of, oh, we just found a million documents. I thought in September they said that they thorough review. They'd asked every single component for every single document. Are they saying everyone in the Southern District hit a million documents? I don't believe that's true.

Boraclog (27:52)

True.

Andrew Weissman (27:53)

I don't think they would do that. They just happen to find them. But we don't know where or how. But it also means that when they say in September that we've gone through and there's nothing there, if it's true they didn't review a million documents, then it's no longer true that they can confidently say there's nothing there because there's a million documents that according to them no one's ever seen and they now need to go through. And it's, it's just so preposterous. And so to me it just keeps the story and the concern about what are you hiding very much live. And just to quickly comment on something that Congressman Swallow said, which is if you do have a hearing, one source of information is to actually do the interview and the cross examination. Lane Maxwell call her to testify. And Christy, I was on air with her when she talked graceful way in which I agree with her. Todd Blanche conducted that quote unquote interview with sort of kid gloves. Well, you know, Congress doesn't have to do that. They can call her. If she takes the Fifth and says I can't testify, they have the power to immunize her. She's already doing 20 years in jail. They can force her to testify and to answer the questions that she didn't have to weren't put to her and she didn't have to answer. So there's a way to get a lot of information to the victims and to the public that Congress can can that really has the tools to do here.

Boraclog (29:29)

It's just amazing that with, with all of the things that they have said right from Pam Bondi going on TV and saying I got the list right on my desk to Pam Bondi creating white binders for the Epstein files for Trump's own supporters to Cash Patel going on Joe Rogan and saying gigabytes of videotapes and evidence to then going before Congress and saying, nope, he didn't traffic to anyone. I mean it's their own statements are such complete nonsense at this point. They're going to have to do something. Tara Palmieri and Christy Greenberg, thank you for sifting through all this for us today. Andrew sticks around a little bit longer after the break for us. A stunning comment, even for Donald Trump, leads President Zelensky to break his poker face at a summit on Sunday. Bring you that reporting next. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky met with Donald Trump at Mar A Lago over the weekend to continue to try to work out a peace plan to end Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There was no berating of Ukraine's leader this time, thankfully, no screaming. But during their press conference, Donald Trump did tout Kremlin talking points like these.

Nicole Wallace (30:38)

Russia is going to be helping.

Andrew Weissman (30:40)

Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed once. It sounds a little strange, but I was explaining to the president, President Putin was very generous in his feeling toward Ukraine succeeding, including supplying energy, electricity and other things at very low prices.

Boraclog (31:00)

Putin literally awarded the soldiers who carried out war crime atrocities in Bucha. But okay, Donald, when asked by journalists about the nearly 100Americans who have volunteered to fight alongside our ally Ukraine against Russia's invasion and ultimately lost their lives doing so on the battlefield, this is what Donald Trump said.

Andrew Weissman (31:25)

Nearly 100American citizens died in Ukraine on the battlefield. What's your message to their families whose love ones died fighting?

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (31:34)

Well, look, I mean, the message is so obvious. It's what a shame they died in a country, a foreign country. And some are celebrated people. They're very celebrated, but so sad that a thing like that would happen.

Boraclog (31:52)

I'm going to bring into Our coverage retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling. He served as the commanding general of the US army in Europe. He's the author of the forthcoming book if I Don't A Father's Wartime Journal. Andrew Weissman is still here. I mean, General Hartley, let me just start. He seems upset that they died in another country. And I know it is well covered that on a trip to Europe, he refused to go to honor soldiers who died in World War I protecting our allies. And I know that it's been well covered by journalists and authors that he often peppered General John Kelly with questions about Hitler's generals. And Kelly was constantly having to tell him that they were on the wrong side and that we were fighting alongside our allies against. I mean, but this idea that he doesn't understand that allies fight and die with us and we fight and die with them is still bleeping mind blowing to me. I'm sorry.

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (32:57)

It's mind blowing to me, too, Nicole, because I spent my entire career working with allies and understand their importance. But I think in this case, we ought to first start by saying the Americans who went to Ukraine to serve there knew exactly what they were getting into. Extremely cold weather, trenches filled with mud, drones and artillery, constant loss of colleagues. These Americans weren't mercenaries. These Americans went out of profound respect for a nation that is fighting for its liberty and its territory. And God bless them for it. By the way, you just mentioned about allies, the president doesn't know much about those cemeteries in Europe, because there's one cemetery right outside Paris that holds the remains of 48American aviators who volunteered to fight for France during World War I before the Americans entered that conflict. They're called the Lafayette Escadrille. There's a cemetery just for them on the outskirts of Paris. So, you know, I think it might be better to say to the families who have lost loved ones in Ukraine, I'd say they acted with courage and conscience. They made the ultimate sacrifice for a just cause, even when it wasn't their own nation's war. And truthfully, Nicole, I personally admire each one of them because they remind us what most Americans know, and that courage never stops at our border when liberty is under attack. I don't think President Trump has learned that lesson quite yet.

Boraclog (34:30)

It's also clear that he hasn't figured out the line between Russian propaganda and actual, credible intelligence. I mean, I can't imagine a legitimate intelligence agency would give the President of the United States of America intelligence that says anywhere on the pdb Russia wants the best for Ukraine. I mean, that's just that there's no way a legitimate intelligence agency is creating a product that would say that. What they would say is, Russia's lost, you know, probably over a million soldiers themselves. The war is not popular. They are also interested in ending the war. There's no credible intelligence product that I believe could exist that says Russia wants Ukraine to succeed. So if that isn't the case, what is Trump walking into a negotiation with Zelensky with, in terms of information? Just what Putin said when he calls, which he seems to do all the time. He called again this morning.

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (35:24)

Well, it's fascinating that Putin did have the call with President Trump right before Zelensky was greeted, or in some would say was not greeted according to protocol. I mean, he was kind of left at the airport with just the Ukrainian ambassador there, where normally there's a White House protocol at least to pick people up when they enter the country. So, you know, this is a recurring theme. There was another report today that Putin's residence was attacked by Ukrainian forces. Now, there's no independent confirmation that Ukraine attacked Russia, but it's a Russian government claim that was voiced by Lavrov with an immediate Ukrainian denial by Zelensky. And then Putin calls Trump like a brother calling out another brother that hit him, saying, hey, mom, take care of this for me, and claiming that Zelenskyy attacked him where there was no imagery, no NATO or EU geolocation, no independent verification of this attack, which is really unusual if such a dramatic strike occurs. What we know in this is there is a huge potential for Putin giving these kinds of false flags because that's what he does to justify escalation. And we also have to realize that President Putin has been purposely targeting Ukrainian apartment buildings on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. And yet he's the one that turns around and says, hey, the Ukrainians are targeting my house. It could have happened. I don't think it did. I'm very skeptical.

Boraclog (37:02)

All right, we have to sneak in a break on the other side. I want to bring Andrew in for a provocative new piece that the general has written about where the rule of law ends and what that means for our military. Well, I'll be right back.

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (37:17)

The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info.

Boraclog (37:23)

And more places that could expose you.

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (37:24)

More to identity theft. But LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our US.

Andrew Weissman (37:31)

Based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed your money back.

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (37:34)

Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with LifeLock.

Andrew Weissman (37:41)

Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com SpecialOffer Terms Apply 1 of.

Nicole Wallace (37:48)

My favorite pieces of advice, think big.

Boraclog (37:51)

To accomplish big things. Have no fear of failure.

Nicole Wallace (37:53)

It really means does come down to just trusting yourself. Julia Boorstin HOSTS CNBC CHANGEMAKERS and Power Players. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts.

Boraclog (38:03)

We're back with Andrew Weissman and General Hurtling. General, you write this today in the Bulwark quote. The tensions between the secretary of defense and the military have been particularly visible in recent operations in the Caribbean, where military assets have been employed in roles that sit uncomfortably between law enforcement, counternarcotics and armed conflict. It doesn't help that various members of the administration inconsistently imply that the overall objective is the most challenging possible mission. Regime change when civilian leaders emphasize lethality while remaining ambiguous about objectives and legal boundaries, commanders become risk managers rather than mission leaders. They spend time protecting their people not from the adversary, but from uncertainty from above, we're seeing the effects of that daily. I mean, this seems to get right at the heart of what we covered together this month, really, when Democrats and Republicans went on television, something they rarely do, criticizing the Trump administration and introducing a question about whether or not war crimes were committed by members of the military at the direction of Trump and Hecseff, what does that do to the men and women inside the military, not just in this command involved in these missions, but all over the world?

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (39:22)

It chills them. Nicole and I wrote this article with five main points. I didn't even include signal gate, but talking about five main things that I thought have had a chilling effect on the military. The first one, which you just mentioned, is it creates people who don't want to stand up and talk. It silences them. Now, that's not because of a lack of courage. It's because they've seen what's happened to others. So the combination of the forced retirement or the relief of over two dozen generals and admirals at the early part of Secretary Hegseth's tenure, that combined with the comments about legal guidance and the rule of law, which he's not that much in favor of, he actually likes the fallacy more than legality. He has stated that several times there's confusion over the lack of mission sets many operations like the one going on in Venezuela right now without a clear objective. And even the president is now alleged to have said that there was bombing of targets inside of Venezuela on a radio show this weekend. And I'm sure that comes as a surprise to a lot of people in the military. So it's a combination of the five things I did in my little after action review of the first year of the presidency and Secretary of defense tenure as a secretary of defense. And I find that, you know, it's an attempt to knock down the guardrails that protect the rule of law within the military as well as professional ethos and the obeyance of the kinds of things that we do as a profession, a profession of arms, when we're considered the defenders of, of the Constitution.

Boraclog (41:12)

Andrew, I thought a little bit about how we cover these stories, and for my part, I often think of the rule of law in segments that you and I do together about turning doj, weaponizing it against Trump's political critics. But I feel like one of the undercovered stories about the military is that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump's origin story is about Pete Hegseth railing against the system for the rule of law inside the military he was a weekend anchor on Fox and he championed the cause of two individuals who'd been held accountable by their own inside the military. And Mark Esper cautioned against Donald Trump getting involved. But the Fox News weekend host prevailed. Donald Trump reached in over the objections of Esper and got involved as this, I think at the time sort of obscure weekend hosts had suggested or championed on his show. That person is now the defense secretary who give speeches, who purged among the seasoned generals and officers, purged the JAG officers who were there to make sure that people could focus on objectives and mission and adversaries and not worried about Democrats and Republicans learning about something in the Washington Post and accusing them of carrying out war crimes. How do we tell the story of this attempt to attack the rule of law inside the military?

Andrew Weissman (42:37)

So I think you have to do the big picture of this, which is you have attack of the rule of law in all sorts of ways domestically using the military, using the National Guard. Domestically you have the sort of the trying to end the rule of law internationally in Venezuela bombing boats of war crimes. But let's just keep for a moment as it as since this is new part that we have now is is the statement about Ukraine that, that you have the president of the United States saying, oh no, Russia actually wants the best for them. The Ukraine story is a black and white rule of law story. There are no two sides Charlottesville, where there are good people on both sides. There are no two sides to this story. There is an unprovoked attack by an enemy of the United States against an ally. Frankly, it doesn't matter if it's an unprovoked attack. It doesn't matter if it was an enemy or not. That is what it means to have a rule of law. This is what had the League of Nations. This is what it means to have an international system where it is not just might makes right, but we're seeing Donald Trump act the same way internationally and domestically. And of course, when it's the military that is being undermined, that is, you know, fraught because it's not hard to see what has happened to other societies when an authoritarian takes control. Sorry, we're not there yet, but there are all sorts of signs and steps that have been taken and there's pushback, but it is no one ever thought we would be here on to having to have this kind of discussion and final thought. I'm reminded of Liz Cheney really war saying this is really the key thing that we have to worry about.

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (44:52)

Yeah.

Boraclog (44:52)

And marshaling all the former secretaries of defense to issue these kinds of warnings about what he would do with the military. Andrew Weissman, Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, a pleasure to see you both today. Thank you for spending time with us. Coming up next for us, podcaster Joe Rogan has slammed Donald Trump. He did so again, this time over his callous comments about Rob Reiner with a simple thought experiment. We'll show that to you after a quick break.

Andrew Weissman (45:25)

As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with the MSNow newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the.

Nicole Wallace (45:37)

Administration'S latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.

Boraclog (45:42)

The American people. People are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this.

Andrew Weissman (45:46)

Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at Ms. Now. Project 47.