← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“A series of politically-motivated prosecutions”
01:43:12
Nicolle Wallace on the breaking news of John Bolton's indictment by a grand jury. Plus, Alicia Menendez on the brutal acts of force by federal agents in Chicago.
Loading summary
Transcript160 lines
- [00:00]
A
Deadline White House is brought to you by Progressive, where drivers who save by.
- [00:05]
B
Switching save nearly $750 on average.
- [00:08]
A
Plus auto customers qualify for an average of 7 discounts.
- [00:11]
B
Quote now@progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.
- [00:17]
A
National average 12 month savings of $744.
- [00:20]
B
By new customers surveyed who save with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023.
- [00:25]
A
Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations.
- [00:31]
C
The connection between the guests on the show is the show. All that we do is put together people who are smart, people who are brave, people who are honest, and lots of times people who've never met each other to have a conversation that has never happened before. But on that day deepens everyone's understanding about the moment in which we gather.
- [00:53]
B
Deadline White House with Nicole Wallace, weekdays from 4 to 6pm Eastern on MSNBC.
- [01:09]
C
Hi everyone. It's 4 o' clock in New York. News of a decision appears to be imminent. At any moment, we are expecting word on the fate of John Bolton. John Bolton is a former national security adviser to Donald Trump from his first term as president. Now, evidently, he is one of his targets for retribution here in the second. A grand jury in Greenbelt, Maryland, has spent the last few hours listening to presentations from federal prosecutors. It follows an investigation into John Bolton's handling of classified information after he left the White House. That decision again is expected at any moment. If this morning's reported schedule for the grand jury's deliberations and activities are holds, it will undoubtedly draw on, at least in part, the results of a search that was conducted in August of John Bolton's home, less than a half hour's drive from where the grand jury convened today. If Bolton is indicted in the next few minutes or hours, it will represent the latest in what now appears to be a pattern, a series of politically motivated or inspired investigations and prosecutions. To date, Donald Trump's Justice Department, in a rather disjointed and perhaps amateurish fashion, has succeeded in bringing formal charges against two of Donald Trump's much talked about political adversaries, former director of the FBI Jim Comey and New York's Attorney General Letitia James. But a Bolton indictment this afternoon would not end, would not mark an end to that list and this pattern now of targeting perceived political enemies, but a continuation. Because yesterday, from the Oval Office on live television, flanked by America's law enforcement officials, America's director of the FBI, the country's attorney general, and her deputy attorney general, Donald Trump again Threw out names of people he would like to see prosecuted.
- [03:11]
D
Jack Smith, in my opinion, is a criminal. And I noticed his, his interviewer was, I think that was Weisman. And I hope they're going to look into Weissman too. Weissman's a bad guy and he had somebody in Lisa, who was his puppet, worked in the office really as the top person. And I think that she should be looked at very strongly. I hope they're looking at Shifty Schiff. I hope they're looking at all these people and I'm allowed to find out. I'm allowed to, you know, I'm in theory the chief law enforcement officer, but I have a very good, talented group.
- [03:50]
C
Names, lies, smears, targets, threats, all of them announced very much on purpose in front of the very people whose jobs it would be to carry out those investigations and prosecutions. A team assembled in Donald Trump's second term tasked with doing what their predecessors to a person, to a person, everybody that was there in the first term refused to do what Donald Trump just told the people standing behind him to do. Acting on Donald Trump's most malign instincts. That lack, though now of any guardrails of any people who say no to Donald Trump is the subject of new reporting in the New York Times from Mike Schmidt that reads in part, quote, as early as 2017, Trump tried to pressure Attorney General Jeff Sessions to prosecute his rivals like Hillary Clinton. But Sessions and top administration aides managed to distract Donald Trump for months. Sessions held onto his job for nearly two years and no charges were brought against Clinton. At the time, Trump himself was under investigation by the special counsel Robert Mueller for obstructing the FBI's inquiry into his campaign's ties to Russia. As the pressure built on Trump, he became more fixated on the idea of not only prosecuting his rivals, including the former FBI director Jim Comey, but sicing the IRS on them. And on that front quote, sicking the IRS on them. The Wall Street Journal is today reporting this. Quote, the Trump administration is preparing sweeping changes at the Internal Revenue Service, the irs, that would allow the agency to pursue criminal inquiries of left leaning groups more easily. That's according to people familiar with the matter, end quote. It's where we begin today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. Former top official at the Department of Justice, MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissman is here. Also joining us, former DHS chief of staff during Donald Trump's first term. Myles Taylor's here and New York Times Justice Department reporter Glenn Thresh is here. Glenn, you have the you have reporting on these statements yesterday, and I imagine you're watching as we are, the grand jury hearing alleged evidence against John Bolton. So let me start with you and any fresh reporting you have on both those fronts.
- [06:17]
D
Well, I mean, we. It has been our sense for a few days that the Bolton indictment was. Was proceeding apace. One of our reporters out there at the courthouse in Greenbelt, Maryland, saw.
- [06:32]
E
National.
- [06:32]
D
Security Division prosecutor who is believed to be bringing elements of this case enter the building. Of course, we don't know for sure, grand jury deliberations are in camera, but every indication is that this is going to take place. And the one thing, and it's strange to sort of say this in front of Andrew Weisman, but the one thing about this particular case, of all the other names that have been thrown out, including his own, is that the Bolton investigation began during the Biden administration. Was some concern among Biden National Security Division officials that Bolton had done something that was worthy of a significant investigation and a potential prosecution. So while we don't know the details of this, it does seem that unlike the James, the Comey, the Schiff investigations, that this one at least has some predicate and evidence that puts it in the ballpark of a reasonable prosecution. And it appears that the U.S. attorney in Maryland, Ms. Hayes, has gone along with this prosecution. Just think of how the terra incognita that we currently occupy, how unusual it is in the past three weeks to have a sitting U.S. attorney signing off on a prosecution coming out of her own office. That is where we are, and I think that's where the Bolton prosecution stands.
- [07:59]
C
Your point is that the last two that we have all assembled together to cover, the first part of those stories was the resignation of Trump's own appointees in the office where the two indictments were brought. Eric Siebert.
- [08:19]
D
Yeah, and not just that. Two of those officials who were standing next to Trump in the Oval Office yesterday, Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch reporting it up the chain, believe that in neither case was there sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. And Blanche went to bat for Seibert. It was one of those rare instances in which Blanche has resisted. But yesterday was extraordinary. Just think about this. Had it been Bill Barr, and Barr is somebody who's been criticized an awful lot for going along with what Trump had said. But if Barr had been in the Oval Office yesterday when Trump was essentially, and I'm not being glib here, this is the way it went down. Trump was ordering up prosecutions like an Uber eats, you know, just kind of throwing it out there. Wouldn't it be nice if I got this? Wouldn't it be nice if you guys did this? It would be hard to envision a scenario in which Barr wouldn't have at least said something along the lines of, well, sir, as you know, investigations are based on need to be predicated on evidence, and we'll certainly look into anything that we view as being potentially criminal. But neither of those three individuals said anything undercut his claim that he could do it unilaterally or even attempted to make light of it. So it was instead they just sort of stood there, they nodded, they smiled, they shuffled, but there was absolutely no pushback. And it is, as you have said so many times, the absence of pushback that has emboldened Trump to move further and further away from the norms in going after his perceived enemies.
- [09:55]
C
Well, and if you, you know, we have this shot up on the screen of Kash Patel, who Glenn, Mike and Evelyn at your paper, your colleagues reported about another MAGA approved U.S. attorney and another U.S. attorney's office who left because the Patel ordered investigation into documents that were copies of documents that exist on hard drives that were found in burn bags was something that that Republican appointed former, I think politician, a state legislature legislator in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a MAGA person in good standing who posted the Ron Burgundy meme that escalated quickly is also no longer a part of the Trump Justice Department because he refused to manufacture a case. And I guess that before we turn this over to two people who have been named by Donald Trump as political targets, I think it's important to sort of marinate in the point you're making. What's extraordinary about awaiting Bolton News is that it may or may not result in an indictment, but it hasn't resulted in a resignation or a firing. And I appreciate you not normalizing the fact that the two that came before it, Tish James and Jim Comey, resulted in pretty widespread resignations and firings. Right. It wasn't just Eric Siebert who was pushed out. It was his deputy. It was the head of that office, National Security Division, who has brought national security prosecutions over the course of Republican and Democratic presidential administrations. When you look at the named targets that Trump is, these aren't one offs. I mean, saying Jack Smith is a criminal and Andrew Weissman is a bad guy and Lisa, I believe it's Monaco, according to the Times reporting, is a puppet. These are people for whom no one has ever suggested anyone non politically motivated has ever examined for potential criminality. But what do you think is happening to those three individuals now that Trump has called the code red?
- [12:06]
D
No idea. I mean, look, this came on a day, as Andrew knows, when Jim Jordan, the House Oversight Committee. I'm sorry, the House Judiciary Committee, summoned Jack Smith for a transcribed interview, not a subpoena, did not compel him to appear. It'll be two other members, two other people who worked fairly closely with Smith on the investigation, including Thomas Windom, who started off the probe into Trump on the January 6 investigation, have already given interviews. They, according to Jordan, haven't provided much information, but it is noteworthy. And I think one of the things that really got under Trump's skin was the fact that Smith spoke publicly. And one of the things that the House members didn't want to do or don't want to do is to put Smith in front of a camera because he makes a compelling case about Trump's potential criminality, as he did with Andrew. I mean, part of Andrew's discussion involved. Smith lived very little, particularly on the documents case in Florida. Smith spoke very expansively about the weight of the evidence he had. And I don't think Hill Republicans necessarily want to re litigate all this because it's going to remind people of the reason why these prosecutions took place. So I think part of the anger that Trump expressed had to do with the fact that this interview that Andrew did on October 8th in London with Jack Smith became public.
- [13:42]
C
All right, so on that note, let's play a little more of this interview with Jack Smith that's so alarming to Republicans that they have requested a transcribed list of responses from Jack Smith. Here is Jack Smith with Andrew Weissman.
- [13:56]
A
If there's rules in the department about how to bring a case, follow those rules, you can't say, I want this outcome. Let me throw the rules out. That's why, frankly, you see all these conflicts between the career apolitical prosecutors I worked with. Because they're being asked to do things that they think are wrong, and because they're not political people, they're not going to do them. And I think that explains why. You've seen the resignations, you've seen people leave the department.
- [14:22]
B
It's not because they're enemies of one.
- [14:24]
A
Administration or the next. They've worked through decades for different administrations. It's just they've been doing things apolitically forever. And when they're told no, you got to get this outcome, no matter what. That is so contrary to how we.
- [14:37]
E
Were all raised as prosecutors, Andrew.
- [14:40]
C
It is a sign of the Twilight Zone that we are in that. That amounts to fighting words. I mean, Jack Smith is saying something that at any other moment is sort of like a boring how government works for dummies kind of answer, right? Here's how DOJ works. Prosecutors stay no matter who's president. And they develop their expertise either in corruption or cyber or gang or terrorism or, you know, whatever it is they have the expertise to, and they become more and more expert over the years. And the reason they don't leave depending on the outcome of an American election is because that would be depriving the American people and the government of the best experts. That is now something worthy of. Let me get it right. Quote, Jack Smith is a criminal and Andrew Weissman is a bad guy. Andrew Weissman is a career, you know, spent his life giving back to his country. So did Jack Smith. And there's no evidence that either is a criminal or a bad person. How does this moment feel?
- [15:47]
E
So it's funny when we were doing this interview a week ago, but it only became public because it was posted on YouTube by the university. This is an academic setting. I had very much the same view, which was a lot of what was being said would have been said by a career official at the department, whether a Republican or Democrat. That's just how you are trained and raised. But that is the new normal. Let's just level set here, which is we know what's happening in the Oval Office, we know what's happening at the leadership of the Department of Justice. And so, you know, it's, it's hard to even call it a Department of Justice. And I find it a couple things sort of remarkable. One is this is coming the day after this is publicly revealed. And just remember, this is an administration that has been found over and over and over again, again by democratically appointed and Republican appointed judges to have violated the First Amendment. There is a court order saying that my First Amendment rights were violated by the Trump administration. Well, if you take these comments in the Oval Office yesterday, they are on their face directly related to Jack Smith speaking out. And the sin here is not so much the substance of the speech. It is that people will actually see Jack Smith for who he is and not a caricature of who he is. And so while you're right that what he is saying should be normal, it is his now being able to be seen for this career person by the book person that he is. And the sort of final irony, and I do have you in my ear going, Andrew, irony and hypocrisy are dead. But there is one that I do need to point out, which is if John Bolton is in fact charged with improperly retaining and having classified information, it will be Donald Trump who retained highly, highly classified information and was charged with obstructing justice not once, but twice in connection with not giving them back in spite of every opportunity. The idea that he would think this is an appropriate charge really is rich for what is being carried out by a President of the United States who is, I think what we will find if there is an indictment has done far, far wor than what will ever be alleged by John Bolton. That being said, we have to remain to see what the charges are. But I do think people need to keep that in mind. If you're really trying to figure out is this an administration that is really trying to apply the rule of law and is really trying to say, as Pam Bondi likes to say, no one is above the law, not so much when you're not applying it to your own precedent.
- [19:08]
C
Miles, we've had these conversations. You've walked in the shoes as someone who's been targeted by Donald Trump and been threatened with investigations. Your thoughts at this moment?
- [19:22]
A
Look, I think, Nicole, you have to zoom out and see the big picture here, that regardless of what the facts and circumstances are in the Comey investigation, the James investigation, the Bolton investigation, the President of the United States is serving up made to order prosecutions, right? I mean, as Glenn was alluding to, these are fast food prosecutions that the president himself has requested. He's ordered investigations into me by executive order. He's verbally effectively ordered it into. Andrew, that's two thirds of the guests here on the screen. It's becoming something that's so easy for the president to do. All he's got to do is sign his name or say something out loud that's really, really terrifying. Whether it's a Republican president or Democratic president. We don't want it to be that easy to prosecute people in the United States. And it's going to get even easier than that. You mentioned the reporting, Nicole, about the irs. Well, my former boss, John Kelly finally told the American people a few years ago that when he was at the White House, Donald Trump wanted him to open IRS investigations. His critics, by putting Trump officials into these jobs, political appointees installed there by the president, he's now going to be able to do this, open probes into people at a great and massive scale far beyond just individually picking off a Comey or a Weissman or a Taylor or a Bolton. Now they can go use this whole office to investigate people en masse if they're protesters, if they run a pro democracy organization the President doesn't like, whatever that may be. And we know Donald Trump has the proclivity to do that. So what we are seeing is they are moving from selective persecution of different people, selective prosecution of different people, into systematizing it. That's what really should alarm Americans. These aren't just a threat to Miles Taylor's rights and Andrew Weissman's rights and your rights, Nicole. Donald Trump has threatened you directly. He's asked for you to be fired. It threatens every American's rights because they're now digging into the data that they have on all Americans. And the last thing I'll say just on the Bolton piece is I don't want us to fall into the trap of saying, well, in this case, the facts are a little bit better for the prosecution. Here's the harsh reality, as we've said before, as there's the old Soviet saying, find me the man, find me the crime. Everyone listening to this and watching this has committed some sort of crime in their lives, even at a low level. Did you jaywalk? You committed a crime. Did you speed? Did you commit a crime? Did you fail to declare something at customs? That chocolate you bought in Belgium? You actually might have committed a federal crime. Did you fail to disclose something on your taxes? You actually might have committed a federal crime. Did you download copyright protected music on Napster 15 years ago? Guess what? You committed a federal crime. Most of these aren't prosecuted because they're not. Prosecutors are using the discretion. They're not things to go after people for. What is happening is Donald Trump is saying, I want you to go after certain people and find me a crime. So it's a mistake for us to say, well, the Bolton crime is a bigger one. It sounds like this was dropped by the Biden administration even though they found things, but it was brought back to life. A zombie case brought back to life. Why? Because the president, in his DMs that were inadvertently disclosed publicly, said he wanted it to happen. That's what we have to focus on here. That's the act of corruption at issue.
- [22:53]
C
And that's what Donald Trump counts on, right? That the pro democracy side or that the critics will all separate themselves and not see the forest through the trees. It's a really important note. I appreciate you, Myles, for pointing that out and making that argument. I want to add to our conversation MSNBC legal affairs reporter Fallon Gallagher outside the courthouse in Maryland. Tell us what you understand to be happening right now.
- [23:20]
F
Yeah, Nicole. So here's what we can say right now. We know that an indictment was filed to the magistrate judge, Gina Sims, this afternoon. We cannot definitively say that that indictment was charging John Bolton, but we do know that Tom Sullivan, who is the prosecutor presenting that case to the grand jury this afternoon, presented this indictment. The other thing that we don't know is how many charges were in this indictment and how many charges there were. All we know is that a grand jury, four person came into this courtroom in front of this magistrate judge, handed over that indictment, and. And that was it. That was it. Tom Sullivan had nothing else to say. And then that judge adjourned us.
- [23:59]
C
What are we expected to learn in the coming minutes or hours? Will it become public?
- [24:07]
F
Yeah, so right now that indictment is under seal, and this is a developing situation. So I'm sitting here refreshing the docket religiously, and as soon as we know anything, we will let you know, but we expect that that indictment will be unsealed later today.
- [24:22]
C
Andrew Weissman, you want to do some decoding for us?
- [24:27]
E
Yeah. What's. What's interesting to me is that it's under seal, because, you know, the only reason to put something under seal is if you think that the person is at risk of flight. And, you know that that clearly is not the case here. But a lot of times people just do it reflexively without a lot of thought. And so I would think that that would mean that this would be unsealed very quickly, and they would alert defense counsel to the fact, if they're, if it does relate to John Bolton, to the fact that the client has been indicted, and they would get an unsealing order that would unseal the indictment that probably should not have been sealed to begin with. But I think, as we saw with respect to the other, having just been here with you, Nicole, that this is one where I think we will see it in short order. There is, to be fair, this is, you know, there's a lot more sort of procedural regularity here to Biles point. That does not mean there isn't, you know, selective and vindictive prosecution going on and the ordering from the president. But you aren't seeing sort of the career pushback again. You have to sort of separate in your head sort of different issues. But I do think that we will likely see this unsealed fairly quickly.
- [25:55]
C
Andrew, let me ask you to pick up on the last point we were talking about, about the irs. It seems in Jim Comey's video to the country, to the public after he was indicted, he said, let's have a trial. Let me go and be judged by a jury of my peers or, you know, in open court. I mean, IRS criminal enforcement is very different. It's a lot more opaque. Talk about the dangers and I believe the vast body of New York Times reporting about what Trump did do with the IRS in a first term or what happened, I guess, at the irs, these deeply invasive audits of both Jim Comey and Andrew McCabe. So it's not like this is territory he hasn't meddled in likely before.
- [26:47]
E
Sure. Well, one, just to start with where you started, which is, you know, this is Donald Trump is going to inflict this pain and this harm. And he may view this as a win win, meaning, like even if the cases are thrown out, he has chilled people's speech, he has made people fearful, he has imposed pain on the people, the specific people involved. So it has a systemic effect, but it also has an individual effect. Even if, as I suspect, James Comey, for instance, is going to win his case, either because a judge is going to throw it out or a jury's going to throw it out. Now, really, to Miles point about the IRS traditionally is a very different animal in terms of how you can open a case and the factual predication that is needed, and they guard that very carefully to make it apolitical. There actually is a criminal statute. Not that this administration needs to worry about it because they're not going to prosecute themselves. And the president also has pardon power. But you can't open something based on lack of facts. You can't open based on sort of this political referral from outside. It is true that there were these IRS investigations in Trump 1.0 of James Comey and Andy McCabe. There was an investigation of that that surprisingly to me, found that they said that there was no sort of impropriety in terms of how those were conducted. But I found that very hard to believe. These are career people. Why would you. In other words, there's not a lot of income and reason to be on them other than that they were sort of perceived enemies of Donald Trump. That is now something that it can really be weaponized in a way that Miles is absolutely right, that this is turning the United States into a police state. We are obviously seeing that physically and visually with the military and the National Guard being sent to around the country, which I think is going to continue, but you're going to continue to see that police state. Now in another way, which is using the weapon of the Department of Justice and tax returns as a gun, as a true weapon that can be pointed at any perceived enemy. And the idea here is to chill people from speaking up, from voicing their concern and from opposing the administration. Administration to tie it back. This is why you have an attack on Jack Smith the day after he public it is known that he has publicly spoken.
- [29:47]
C
And Glenn, I don't want you to feel left out. People should know that your story about tensions between Kash Patel and Todd Blanche garnered a lot of pushback and attacks from the White House and the Department of Justice as well this week. So we're all kind of in the same boat. I see you looking at your phone. I wonder, I mean, I have nothing.
- [30:07]
D
To do with the these two other guys.
- [30:11]
C
I wonder if you have any other, any other reporting.
- [30:14]
D
I don't even know who they are.
- [30:17]
C
We've never met before. We've all never been in the same room. But are you, are you hearing anything along the lines of what our colleague is reporting from the courthouse?
- [30:27]
E
Yes.
- [30:27]
D
I mean, I think this is going to be imminent. Look, the administration isn't exactly going to hide this one. I think the president, I could say with some degree of certainty, I would bet my entire fortune, which isn't much on it, that the president will have a lot to say. Again, the one thing I want to push back a little bit, as Andrew did on what Miles said earlier, is there is some notion, and it's been surfaced in our reporting and the reporting of others, that some of Bolton's materials may have found itself into the, into the hands of, of hostile powers overseas, which might change sort of the dynamic in terms of the investigation. So I do believe, again, based on the reporting, that the Bolton investigation is substantially different. But I will just add one element to this. The Schiff mortgage investigation, which the U.S. attorney in Maryland, Ms. Hayes, has opposed, not opposed, has found insufficient evidence to proceed on. The pressure for her to continue to pursue that investigation and bring a prosecution is going to be next up. So this might have bought her and her office a little bit of time, but Trump is not going to back off of the Schiff thing. He mentioned again in the Oval Office yesterday. And I think as we move past Bolton and this is going to be tied up in the court for quite some time, I think attention now is going to focus pretty strongly on the Schiff investigation.
- [31:57]
C
All right. No one's going anywhere. We're going to continue to wait for any developments. I think that what Glenn is saying without saying is that we're likely to hear as likely to hear from Donald Trump in a in a post as we are from any unsealing or procedural mechanism. That is the norm. So we'll stay on top of all those information streams for you. Quick break. We'll all be right back.
- [32:20]
B
MSNBC Prescribe since the chart topping original podcast the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Each week Nicole speaks with some of the people who inspire her the most. This week she sits down with actor Martin Sheen.
- [32:34]
A
It's a mighty battle going on.
- [32:36]
D
It's not about winning or losing. It's about being in touch with your own personal humanity because there's such a.
- [32:41]
A
Lack of it coming from this administration.
- [32:44]
B
The Best People with Nicole Wallace listen now. Wherever you get your podcasts, start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Each morning, read sharp insights from the voices you trust. Catch standout moments from your favorite shows.
- [33:00]
C
The second Trump administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to radically transform America.
- [33:05]
B
Stay up to speed with our latest podcasts and documentaries and get fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. It's everything you love about MSNBC delivered to your inbox. Sign up now@msnbc.com 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 Maddows original series Ultra Bagman and Deja no News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [34:13]
A
I can also assure you that were this a Republican president, a Republican Attorney General, and a Republican IRS that we're.
- [34:20]
E
Targeting Democrats.
- [34:24]
A
I at least would speak out just as vigorously against it. Because if we are going to respect rule of law, the apparatus of the.
- [34:37]
E
Federal government cannot and should not be.
- [34:39]
A
Used as a partisan tool to bludgeon your enemies.
- [34:45]
C
I might have to play that every day. Miles Taylor that was then. That was 2014. Ted Cruz on using the IRS to target enemies.
- [34:57]
A
Yeah, look, someone over at Deadline White House deserves an award for archival footage search. So whoever found that, you know, good on you team because that's the type of thing we're going to have to surface again and again is people, regardless of their political position, need to come forward and oppose the principle that the President of the United States, regardless of party, can weaponize the IRS to go after Americans. And as we were talking about just before the break, Nicole There used to be a lot of safeguards in here to prevent that kind of thing from happening. And Andrew Weissman talked about them a little bit. You know, you've got the. There's legal safeguards there. There's a whole array of attorneys, there's career civil servants, there's prosecutors, processes. It's a federal crime, not least of which one of the securities is the fact that it's a federal crime for the President to go vindictively order IRS investigations. But the fact that we're talking about how that really important piece, the federal crime for doing it doesn't matter anymore because we have a president willing to cloak himself in presidential immunity or pardon people, is what's really scary. It's what we should focus on here. My question is, and it's a very serious question, what is there now to stop the President of the United States from ordering an IRS investigation into anyone, whether it's a tweet he doesn't like or a news story he doesn't like? And I think the answer is hardly anything.
- [36:21]
C
Yeah. Since we've been back on the air, we have received confirmation that former National Security Adviser to Donald Trump, John Bolton, has been indicted. As Andrew and Glenn have pointed out, there are facts still to emerge. It is also a fact that he said of Donald Trump, quote, I don't think he's fit for office. I don't think he has the competence to carry out the job. There's no guiding principle that I was able to discern other than what's good for Trump's election. He also said about Donald Trump, he was. What he was capable of on a daily basis was doing something more and more outrageous than the day before. John Bolton spent a lot of time on television. He. He's a prolific writer. He's been in Republican politics for decades. And he made his disapproval and dislike of Donald Trump's temperament and lack of convictions well known. He did not go to the natural extension of that and support his opponent in the 2024 election. He was a policy critic of both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. He served, though, in the Trump administration at some of the most tumultuous times. He penned a book called the Room Where It Happens. And today, where are we at? October 16th, on the ninth month of Donald Trump's second term, one of Donald Trump's fiercest critics of both his lack of fitness and lack of core values or policy orientation has been indicted. I go to you, Andrew Weissman.
- [38:04]
E
So let's look at the three people who have been charged. What is the message? What is going on here? So what this says to the future Letitia James, the future James Comey is the people who are doing their job, who are trying to bring either civil cases. Letitia James brought a civil case. James Comey referred a criminal matter with lots of factual predication. This is sending a message, don't do it, because in the future this can be the result. If you don't want to get indicted, put your head down and don't do your job. Now, I think it's particularly significant with respect to now indicting somebody who is an insider. And I think that's the reason that you have this indictment. Again, there may be more to it when we see the charges, but one of the things that it accomplishes by doing this, by attacking Chris Krebs, by attacking Miles Taylor, people who used to be inside, is to say, do not speak sort of ill of Donald Trump. Do not go out and say anything that is derogatory, particularly if you are on the inside. You must be loyal. I think it goes to Glenn's point about seeing three people, the three leaders of the Justice Department, the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, and the FBI director standing silent when they have a president doing something that violates sort of all norms and doesn't, and basically using adjectives and adverbs in lieu of facts. And I think that is sort of the way you can tie this all together in terms of what this president is trying to accomplish and, and the lasting harm to our country because of the message it sends about what can happen going forward to hold people to account for wrongdoing.
- [40:15]
C
Glenn Thrush, two part question. Any new reporting you have, you can add to this. Obviously, part of the benefit of having you here is we get to hear it here as well. But let me just add this to it. I mean, we're talking about the treatment of critics through the prism of the rule of law, because Donald Trump has now crossed that Rubicon. And so even an entirely properly predicated investigation and prosecution of a public enemy. And you know, some of the things Bolton said, he was asked on cnn, do you agree with Mark Milley that Trump is a fascist? John Bolton, I don't think he's smart enough to have an ideology. Basically too dumb to be a fascist. Well, that question was out there because his top three former generals, Jim Mattis, Mark Milley and John Kelly, described him as, quote, fascistic to the core. John Kelly said he, quote, meets the technical definition of a dictator. The list of enemies is so long that if we're in month nine and he's checked off three, where are we heading?
- [41:16]
D
Oh my God, I don't know. That sounds terrible. No, look, I think the other thing, Nicole, that is extraordinarily interesting here that I don't think enough attention has been paid to. It's not just about choosing enemies, it's about choosing victims. One of the things that I think you'll notice and let's talk about what's going on in Chicago and Portland, because in many ways it's just as important and very much tied into what experiencing here in Washington and Maryland and Virginia. You're seeing Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, posting three tweets and a video about a right wing influencer who got into a fist fight with anti ICE protesters. Right. And saying that the department would bring the full force of its investigative power to look at if any civil rights violations took place against that individual. By the same token, we just had a judge in Chicago order ICE and Border Patrol to wear body cams because they've been documented and we've all seen these videos firing pepper balls at priests, indiscriminate shooting out of tear gas. What we know at this point in time is that ICE has not begun done a single internal investigation on any of the behavior of federal officials in any of these instances. The same goes true with the Department of Justice. I've asked them repeatedly. So as we're sort of looking at Trump targeting his enemies, it should also be noted that the department is also cherry picking who they choose to identify as a victim in a crime and thus far choosing not to to investigate or prosecute victims whose politics don't necessarily align with theirs. So this is part of a much larger suite of activity that's on the about who you choose to prosecute and also who you choose not to investigate.
- [43:23]
C
It's such a good point because we see the targets more clearly because they're the kinds of events that resemble result in purges of career prosecutors, some of the lack of protecting victims. Some of these people are known to us. I mean, I think of the law enforcement officials who were beaten and targeted by the January 6th insurrection as they are actual victims of violence against law enforcement from Donald Trump supporters. They were all pardoned and so they stopped being victims by law. I mean, all of the protections that are afforded to a victim of a violent crime were erased and they include being able to know things about the criminal's whereabouts and other alerts. But when you pardon Violent insurrectionists. The victims are erased as well. Andrew Weissman is a systematic rewiring and trip down to Alice in Wonderland's Looking glass of the rule of law in America.
- [44:29]
E
Yeah. And it goes to a point which is we have heard Pam Bondi say over and over again, including at her performance, I won't say her testimony in Congress where she kept on sort of saying, don't you believe in the rule of law? The rule of law applies to everyone. No one is above the law. No one is above the law. As if that's supposed to mean that it's okay to target and single out vindictively somebody for prosecution. That's not the way it works. And the sort of key fact about that is you can look at, okay, who are you singling out, which itself is wrong, but also are you subjecting like people to the like remedy? And Tom Holmans seems to be a really good example of somebody where, based on the facts that we know, I know he is denying it, but it is hard for me as somebody who is a career prosecutor to not think you would never in God's green earth close that case where there was a sting operation. And you know, he seems to, according to the reporting, have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Now he is denying it, but my view is, you know what, and show us the videotape. If it really didn't happen, you should be the first person to say that. And the import is not just Tom Homans. I mean, that is an important thing. But it is. What does that tell you? It tells you that for friends there is one thing and for my enemies there's something else. We saw this, by the way, in Trump 1.0. I saw it in the Mueller investigation where there were pardons given out to, I think everyone who didn't cooperate with the government. Just think about that. And so for friends, there's no prosecutions. For enemies there is. That is not the rule of law. That is not Pam Bondi's statement that, you know, no one is above the law. That is the antithesis of what you want in this country, which is everyone's held to the same standard, high or low.
- [46:48]
C
Miles Taylor we have a laboratory for silence in the Mueller team absent Andrew Weissman and present company. But when you don't help educate the public about something that involves something in the national interest, the 23 month long Mueller investigation and you sort of point people toward a fixing, they have to read this Republican Party, this MAGA movement will distort it and pervert it. I don't say that to malign anybody. I say that because Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco and Christopher Wray know that Jack Smith, who worked for Lisa Monaco and Merrick Garland and all of the FBI agents who Glenn Thrush has had to sort of persuade and make feel comfortable talking something they don't do. FBI agents don't have any interest or need in the public because they are too busy catching bad guys. That is what they do. They have no interest in being public figures. But all the people that work for those three people, Chris Railey, Savonaco and Merrick Garland, who were appointed by presidents in all three of their cases and confirmed by senators in all three of their cases, they know everything about the character of the men and women being maligned and being us to do things that are, I'll quote John Bolton, quote un American. What is the obligation of people who can still speak out to do so?
- [48:24]
A
I will answer it this way, Nicole. What this administration knows, what the MAGA movement knows that the political opposition in the United States hasn't fully learned yet, is that for better or for worse. And I think it's for worse. In this day and age that we live in, the court of public opinion is just as potent as the court of law. Doesn't mean I agree with that. But we are living in mob politics right now. And the Trump administration knows that. And that's why, as Glenn said, they're cherry picking cases. That's why, as Andrew just said, they're not treating people with the same standard and doing equal justice under the law. Because they know that even if they're going to lose cases in the court of law, that happens much later. And they can win in the court of public opinion by destroying these people's lives, by destroying their jobs, by alienating them socially, and by scaring others from doing the same thing. They don't have to win a single court case to be able to do that. That's what they know. Which is also why it's so important to keep speaking up up and to not be cowed. Because the one thing they want is to see people hurting and running into the darkness when they get pursued. That's why I was proud of James Comey in his message for saying he's unafraid and basically bring on the trial. He's confronting this confidently and head on. And that's what people who are targeted need to do. And it's a very hard thing to do because every incentive, when you get targeted by the most powerful man in the world is is go protect your family and your interests. Forget about everyone else. You've got to protect you. But you realize that then harms everyone else. And I do have to point out, I know that, Nicole, you've said that irony is dead. And I know Andrew mentioned that. But there is a distinct irony here in these charges against John Bolton. We don't know all the details yet, but of course they pursued him for retention of classified information. John Bolton was someone that I knew personally in the first Trump administration who was worried about Donald Trump's protection of classified information and tried to make sure the president protected it. You can't beat that. Irony is that now Trump is going after him for having exposed those things.
- [50:47]
C
I believe my colleague Fallon Gallagher has new details about the indictment. Fallon, what are you learning?
- [50:54]
F
Yeah, so John Bolton was charged with 18 federal counts. And I apologize, I'm going to look down, I'm reading this. We're still just getting this. We have the first eight counts are transmission of national defense information. The second set of nine counts, those that's counts nine through 18 is retention of national defense information. And that looks like it's US code title 19, section 793D and E, which is part of the Espionage Act. Now, there was another statute that they were considering and it looks like they've only charged him with those Espionage act statutes. But we're still reading through this indictment. It's 26 pages long. There's a lot of background information here. And I apologize, but we are literally just getting this in right now. So I'm still reading through it.
- [51:39]
C
Andrew Weissman, your first reaction?
- [51:43]
E
Sure. Well, so the part about retention, those seem to completely mirror that is the statute that, if memory serves, is exactly the same thing that was charged with respect to Donald Trump. But as you know, Donald Trump said he shouldn't have been charged and he didn't do it. And there were his documents. And you know, in spite of the fact that he, you could see, we all saw images of his retaining documents that were alleged to be of the highest possible classification. The part of the charge, though, that is different is not just retention, but the reporting that we just heard was also transmission. And this is where I do have to put on my former intelligence community hat I want to see what those charges are. There are people who are low level people who get charged with, if they did this intentionally, not by mistake, but if they not just retained, but transmitted classified information, that is a serious offense. And it is something that somebody was in the intelligence community cares deeply about and that is why people care deeply about what Donald Trump was charged with doing. Because these are documents that should not see the light of day and you are trained on how to keep them. And if you are, if it can be shown that you did this intentionally, there are lots of people who have been prosecuted and lots of people who have gone to jail and served time for crimes like this. So again, I'm not in favor obviously of the President ordering investigations, of singling people out. But I do think that if you look at just the nature of the charges, there may be a real difference here between the John Bolton case, not in terms of its import, not in terms of what it means in terms of the message of what the President has done to the Department of Justice. But these really could be quite different than what we have seen with James Comey, where I can't even see it. They are there. And even Letitia James, where at best it is the most minor thing. And I can't imagine why this would ever have been brought as a federal case. This may be in a very different category.
- [54:12]
C
Carol Lennig has joined us. Carol, let me read you from page six of what we're getting of the indictment. Quote, at some point between when John Bolton left government service in September 2019 and July 2021, a cyber actor believed to be associated with the Islamic Republic of Iran hacked Bolton's personal email account and gained unauthorized access to the classified and national defense information in that account, which Bolton. Bolton had previously emailed individual one and two while he was the national Security advisor. A representative for bolton notified the U.S. government of the hack in or about July 2021, but did not tell the U.S. government that the account contained national defense information, including classified information that Bolton had placed in the account from his time as national security adviser. Nor did Bolton's representative tell the US Government that Bolton had shared some of that national defense information, including classified information, with individuals 1 and 2 via personal email and a non governmental messaging application. What are you understanding now that the charges have been made public?
- [55:22]
G
Well, I couldn't agree more with Andrew, that this is a different kettle of fish and it's potentially quite serious. We don't know all of the, all of the, I guess I would say all the undergirding of this case. But we know that it began looking at John Bolton under the Biden administration and that there were this hack was something that the US Government was alerted to and was deeply concerned about because when they found out about the hack, they were able to then see some of the national Defense information that had been obtained by a foreign state. State. Right. And the definition, Nicole, as you know from your own work, the definition of why national security secrets are crown jewels, why they are protected, is always tilting around the axis of what if our foreign adversary obtained this information? What would be the harm to Americans and to the force field that is around the country and our security? And, and so this is pretty serious. Again, we don't know all the undergirding of what has happened, but we have previously reported about this hack and the concern that US Government officials had about it. It does differentiate the Bolton indictment from others that Donald Trump has prioritized. It just so happens to come in this roller coaster of three and a half weeks in, in which three critics of Donald Trump have all been indicted. I have a little bit more to say about that, but I don't want to keep droning on until you ask me your question.
- [57:00]
C
No, no, no. Carolina drone is preferable to any question I have.
- [57:07]
G
Well, today my colleagues and I at MSNBC broke a story that takes you inside. It literally broke maybe minutes before the Bolton indictment. News was broken by several outlets, including ours. And that story takes us inside several U.S. attorney's offices to understand the awkward and tense and actually quite painful navigation that they are all going through as career prosecutors try to take in the pressure from the Trump White House and Trump appointees to prosecute Trump's enemies and also report back to them faithfully and honestly and with candor that there is very little evidence to honorably bring criminal charges against these perceived foes of Donald Trump. So with that backdrop, I'll just say that in the U.S. attorney's office in Maryland, which has now indicted John Bolton. Bolton, there was a lot of pressure on that acting U.S. attorney to indict Senator Adam Schiff. If you could put the enemies of Donald Trump in a prioritization sort of ranking, Adam Schiff would be much higher than John Bolton. And this, what we learned in our reporting in the last several days Was that this U.S. attorney holding onto her job, trying to navigate this painful period while Trump is deciding who gets charged with a crime, regardless of the facts, she has been basically concluding, let's keep moving forward with Bolton because this case has merit. This case has some reasonable facts upon which to base a criminal charge. And at the same time, not slow walking, but not rushing to give the final conclusion of her own office, which is quickly circling around the conclusion that there are no facts to bring the Adam Schiff criminal case. And that will be very disappointing to many Trump appointees who have been pressuring her, including Ed Martin, the new head of the Department of Justice's weaponization task force.
- [59:21]
C
Carol, can I just impose on you to stick around over the top of the hour? I do want to ask you why. One more question about this office and this case. I do, though, for any of our viewers just joining us, it is the top of the hour now. We want to thank Miles Taylor and Glenn Thrush and our colleague Fallon Gallagher for helping us through the 4 o' clock hour. It's now 5 o' clock in New York. If you are just joining us, we are covering the breaking news that Donald Trump's former national security adviser turned fierce critic, John Bolton has been indicted on 18 federal counts. They relate, according to the indictment, to his handling of classified information. He faces 10 years for each count if he is convicted. A grand jury in Maryland has been hearing evidence for several weeks about claims that John Bolton improperly kept classified national security information in his Maryland home. John Bolton's attorney, Abby Lowell, has not yet responded to the charges, but he has previously said that John Bolton has handled, handled classified materials appropriately. His lawyer, Abby Lowell, describing the records in question as, quote, the kinds of ordinary records, many of which are 20 years old or more, that would be kept by a 40 year career official who served at the State Department as an assistant attorney general, the US Ambassador to the United nations and the national security advisor. Bolton has for years now been a target of Donald Trump. On his first full day in office this year, Donald Trump revoked John Bolton's security detail. That security detail was deemed necessary by the Biden Justice Department and put in place in the wake of threats on Bolton's life from the Iranian government following the strike against General Soleimani. Now with this indictment, John Bolton is the third of Donald Trump's critics to be indicted in the three weeks he joins New York Attorney General Letitia James and former Director of the FBI Jim Comey. Here's what Donald Trump had to say about the indictment.
- [61:22]
A
It's Cybersecurity awareness month and LifeLock is here with tips to help protect your identity.
- [61:27]
E
Use strong passwords, set up multi factor.
- [61:30]
A
Authentication and report phishing scams. And for comprehensive identity protection, LifeLock is your best choice. LifeLock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected with a 30 day free trial@lifelock.com Specialoffer terms apply.
- [61:52]
F
Not sure if you have the experience to start your dream job. Good news, these days. It's the skills that count. Udemy can help you get those in demand. Skills. Want to be an AI master? Mastermind? Learn with us. Game developer. We've got you covered. AWS certified cloud practitioner. We can help you prep. You'll learn from real world experts who love what they do so that you can love what you do. Go to udemy.com for the skills to get you started. And get set for your dream job.
- [62:22]
B
From executive producer Rachel Maddow, MSNBC Films presents Andrew Young, the Dirty Work.
- [62:28]
E
I will call for Andrew Young, that dedicated leader.
- [62:32]
B
The inside story of Martin Luther King's trusted friend and adviser.
- [62:35]
E
If I had to take a few kicks and licks to get a civil rights act, I'd do it any day of the week.
- [62:40]
B
And how he carried the dream forward onto the world stage.
- [62:43]
D
We had to take the movement into politics.
- [62:45]
B
Andrew Young, the Dirty work, tomorrow at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC.
- [62:54]
C
Was just indicted.
- [62:55]
F
By a grand jury in Maryland. Do you have a reaction to that?
- [62:57]
D
I didn't know that. That you tell me for the first time. But I think he's, you know, a bad person. I think he's a bad guy. Yeah, he's a bad guy. It's too bad. But the way it goes against him, that's the way it goes, right?
- [63:13]
C
Joining our coverage, former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI, now, MSNBC national security and intelligence analyst Michael Feinberg. He's also a fellow at Lawfare. Also joining us, MSNBC column, author of the newsletter to the contrary, Charlie Sykes is here. And with me at the table, former Assistant U.S. attorney and President of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Maya Wiley. And still with us, MSNBC senior investigative correspondent Carol Lennock and former top official at the Department of Justice, MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissman. Thank you all for what a marshaling, what an embarrassment of riches in terms of expert experts and journalists. Caroline, let me come back to you on what has and has not been charged. My understanding is John Bolton has been charged with retaining and then sharing, transmitting, either texting or emailing national defense information, 18 counts of that, but was not charged with unauthorized retention or removal of classified documents. Explain that to us.
- [64:16]
A
Us?
- [64:18]
G
Well, you know, I think it's helpful for readers and viewers at home to think about this in comparison to Donald Trump's indictment on 30 initially 37 counts involving mishandling of classified information and obstruction. But when you willfully retain something, you are holding on to documents or information that you knowing, you know. So it's a grave danger for this to be released to the public to fall into the wrong hands. When you transmit, you are putting this information in danger and peril, as is obvious from this indictment. If all these charges are correct, because it means somebody could hack it, someone could see what you wrote, you are sending it to someone else. And by the way, after looking through this indictment, I'm not going to speculate or hazard a guess, but I'll tell you that many of the descriptions of the transmission appear to overlap with moments when John Bolton was in the process of publishing his book and trying to prepare for writing and publishing that book and getting ready ready for that event. There were some claims in allegations that were made that John Bolton had shared information preliminarily with his publisher and with other and with his agent for a book in preparation for writing and finishing writing this book improperly. And some of the timeline for the charges here about transmission overlap with that a bit.
- [66:02]
C
Carol Leonig, as an expert in sort of reading these documents, is it clear to you that the hack from Iran that is detailed in here and Bolton himself alerting the Department of Justice, and he was, we should point out, national security officials have a line of communication to the national security apparatus regardless, regardless of who the president is. That's why this issue of clearances. A lot of people say, why do they have clearances? Because the expertise and John Bolton worked in national security capacity for decades, I think for four or five decades. So he had a line of communication to the Department of Justice, and when he was hacked, he alerted the Department of Justice to that hack. Is it a scenario that when he alerted them to the hacked material, that the Justice Department, in looking at what was compromised, would have seen notes or things in his system?
- [67:01]
G
Yes. It seems implausible that they didn't determine what were the pieces of information. Just as in this case, there are X number of counts of willful origin, of holding onto these, of having this information and then mirrored, transmitting this information that relates to a specific piece of information, national defense information, or a specific document. Again, to compare with Donald Trump. Initially, Donald Trump was indicted by Jack Smith for willfully retaining 31 different classified documents that were gravely serious and knowingly keeping them. And so this is about all of these pieces of information. In order for the Justice Department to have brought these charges, they had to know what that information was and to have seen it.
- [67:57]
C
Let me bring my colleague Michael Feinberg into our breaking news coverage. Michael, if you've had a chance to look through the indictment, tell us what stands out to you and your Thoughts? I mean, everyone has been so skilled in helping us understand the tree planted in front of us today in the context of the forest that Donald Trump has very clearly and intentionally painted over the last three weeks.
- [68:22]
B
Yeah. So it's difficult to separate this indictment from the indictments of Jim Comey or Letitia James or the rumored attempts to go after Senator Schiff. There's a pattern here. And while that pattern, it might be the basis in at least one of the cases for a vindictive or selective prosecution claim, each defendant is still going to have to stand on his or her own and rebut the charges here. But there were a couple of items in this indictment that struck me as a little bit irregular. It was done pursuant to a section of the United states code marked 793, which is part of the suite of anti espionage laws that the country has. And it struck me as a little bit curious because I've never seen this sort of fact pattern used to justify a transmissive transmission charge. Normally, when we charge people with transmitting classified information, it's to a nation state or an ideological actor like WikiLeaks or Anonymous. I'm not aware of another situation where we've charged somebody for talking to what is probably be a publisher or a literary agent. That doesn't mean what he did was right if he did in fact do that. It just means that, like, this is a little bit of an odd fact pattern for DOJ to charge. I'd also be remiss if I didn't note the irony in using these charges against a Trump administration enemy, particularly given that, as has already been discussed, the president himself retained and was indicted for the retention of dozens of classified documents. And it wasn't a question of him taking notes and transmitting them to a publisher. It was literally taking the documents and storing them in a resort bathroom. And we're also dealing with an administration where an obscene amount of senior ranking officials discussed war plans over an unclassified personal medium signal. And I'm pretty sure that none of those individuals have been referred to the Department of Justice for a mishandling classified information case. So there's a lot here that indicates there's something more going on than simply the facts resuscitated in the indictment.
- [71:02]
C
I mean, Michael, some of the dynamics that have been described by the journalists covering all of these indictments, Caroline and Glenn Thrush, is the human element that the acting U.S. attorney who brought this case has. Whatever the evidence is in these documents that we're sifting through right now that the expert Folks like yourself and Carol and Andrew are helping us make sense of that. The human being doing this is the same human being on the receiving end of an enormous amount of pressure, pressure to indict Adam Schiff as, you know, another one of Donald Trump's white whales, you know, someone he's been annoyed by since, I think, the beginning of his first term. Adam Schiff was on the House Intelligence Committee. I think he was the chairman of the Democrats from Control. He basically slayed Devin Nunes like on a lunch break. And Donald Trump viewed him as. As an effective critic. I mean, he kept alive questions about his campaign's ties to Russia, which are detailed in volume one of the Mueller investigation. And he's been obsessed, frankly, with Adam Schiff for the better part of nine years. That same human being that is getting an enormous amount of pressure is the same human being that brought this case. What. What is the human experience, in as far as you understand it, of being in the Department of Justice or the FBI right now?
- [72:35]
B
So, look, there are tens of thousands of employees within the FBI and doj. So I don't want to make any sweeping generalizations, but I do want to point out that a lot of people have already left because they found their integrity compromised by the things they've been asked to do. And it's not just individuals who disagree with this administration's policy priorities. You have individuals like Eric Siebert, who was very much on board with 99% of what the administration was doing, finding that even for him, there was a bridge too far. So with all those exits, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what is the integrity of the people who choose to remain? And even if that integrity is unassailable, what sort of pressure is being brought to bear on them in order to make them do things they would otherwise decline to move forward with? You know, within the FBI, they're making a point of only promoting to Special Agent in Charge individuals who are not eligible for retirement. So these people cannot fight back.
- [73:48]
A
Interesting.
- [73:48]
B
Without getting fired and losing their pensions. I suspect there is probably a similar, if not precisely same, dynamic at play at Main justice and in the various U.S. attorneys offices.
- [74:02]
C
That's fascinating. And that's the first I'm hearing that. I want to ask you one more question. If you are a Justice Department that is going to bring a case about, I want to be sure I get this right. Not unauthorized retention or removal, but retention and transmission of national defensive information, would you be the same government that would bring a case about War plans being communicated by the Secretary of Defense on signal.
- [74:33]
B
Well, the fact that there should be no discretion in whether a referral was given for the signal controversy. If an inspector general, if the head of a department becomes aware that there has been mishandling of classified information or that somebody has disclosed something they shouldn't in a channel they shouldn't, that is not discretionary, for them to refer it to the Department of Justice. It is supposed to be automatic. So the fact that to our knowledge, that never happened really shows that despite this government's claim that they're ending weaponization, there really is a multi tiered justice system where one standard is applied to their enemies and another standard is applied to themselves.
- [75:27]
C
Andrew Weissman, that was a point that you're much larger brain than mine made. This is, you know, and it's just another, it's just another texture. Right. Of this 3D analysis required of those of us still residing on Earth. One, that there may be facts here that didn't exist in the Tish James or Jim Comey prosecution. It is also true that he was perhaps the harshest critic of Donald Trump's, in his words, lack of fitness. He described him as essentially to stupid to be a fascist, which was the biggest critique at the time coming out from his top generals. And it is also true that this administration does not seem to have a clear standard in terms of disclosures of national defense information and active imminent war plans, seemingly or historically the most sensitive of all.
- [76:17]
E
Sure. Yes. So look, what's charged here is that John Bolton was using things like Gmail, a commercial way to disseminate classified information up to and including, just to be clear, top secret information. And the indictment actually gives some color to and alleges what those documents are that he is alleged to have transmitted over commercial applications. You are obviously, everyone knows if you're in government and dealing in the national security world, that you cannot do that. And the kind of information that is listed as top secret, that is alleged and transmitted by John Bolton includes information revealing intelligence about future attacks by an adversarial group in another country. It reveals intelligence that a foreign adversary was planning a missile launch in the future, a covert action in a foreign country. In other words, the same kind of way that we were sort of dumbfounded and sort of my jaw at least was clattering to the ground when I read the allegations in the Trump indictment. You know, this is serious material that's alleged to have been transmitted. I will say that this is very similar to the case that was brought with Respect to General Petraeus, who was giving information that was classified and don't even have to say alleged because he ended up admitting it, that he did this and he gave it to somebody he was having a relationship with who was also helping him write a book. And so there is precedent for something like this. That is not to say that there's the same standard as being applied because obviously the signal gate and what our current Secretary of Defense has appeared to do is the kind of thing that you would definitely investigate. As Michael said. In fact, I asked about this and Jack Smith talked about this sort of this disparate system of justice within the current Trump administration. He said that under any normal administration you would open a criminal investigation into Signalgate. And we haven't seen that. So that to me is really in many ways the lesson here. It's not so much that at least with based on these allegations on a first read that it's so outlandish to have brought this. There does seem to, unlike the other cases, seem to be a real there there. And as somebody in the intelligence community, I can tell you I am going to be strongly in support of measures to make sure that people are held to account if they intentionally disseminated classified information up to including top secret information. But that same standard has to apply to everyone. That to me is the bigger sin. We will always have people committing crimes, but we need to make sure that our justice system is treating it everyone equally. That to me is the bigger issue.
- [79:43]
C
Let me ask you a follow up question, Joycen, because it feels that by the end of the document you understand the possible scenario. It sounds like what has been charged is that the first draft of his book has some of these things in it, but that what he publishes has nothing classified in it. Can I just read that to you and ask you if that's one way to understand. On or about December 30, 2019, Bolton submitted a manuscript of his book the Room Where It A White House Memoir to the NSC National Security Council for the required pre publication review process. Based on an initial review of the manuscript by the NSC staff, the US Government concluded and told Bolton that the initial manuscript contained significant amounts of highly classified information that needed to be removed. On or about June 23, 2020, Bolton's book the Room Where It Happened A White House Memoir, was published and became readily available to the public. None of the classified national defense information charged in counts one through 15, further described below, was published in Bolton's book. Does that help Bolton argue that he was sensitive to these concerns or is his decades of work in the field make the fact pattern around that irrelevant? What is the, the importance of that?
- [81:01]
E
Sure. Well, certainly if he went ahead and put it in a book after being told that it's classified, that would be worse. That would clearly show his intent. However, just to be clear, if you have already sent this classified information, again, if it can be proved these are allegations knowingly and intentionally over Gmail to somebody who is not clear to see it. So these are two sins. You've sent it over a, you know, an unsecure means of communication and you're, you're sending it to somebody who is not cleared to get it. That is very similar to the allegations with respect to General Petraeus that were actually admitted to him, admitted by him. And so I think that if he's going to have a defense here again speculating, it's going to be that he may not have thought that they were continued to be classified at the time. In other words, if he was presenting them to for classification review and thought that he wrote a book that was actually going to clear that he may have in good faith thought that this information was no longer classified. And, and so he didn't have the necessary intent to disseminate classified information. That's just speculation on my part. But the fact that he was having these discussions with government officials at the time apparently about this information does suggest that he was not doing something that was that secretive. But it'll remain to be seen what exactly he comes up with as a defense. But I do think in my mind at least, I very much can this moment separate this case in terms of just the merits of the case from what we've seen with respect to James Comey and Letitia. James.
- [83:02]
C
All right, no one's going anywhere. I want to pull Maya and Charlie into the conversation. We'll have much more with the full panel. On the breaking news that former national security adviser turned fierce Trump critic John Bolton has been indicted by a federal grand jury. Also ahead for us increased increasingly heavy handed and brutal tactics being used by federal forces in Chicago. Illinois Governor J.B. pritzker is fighting back today alongside top retired military leaders who say there's no place for troops on the streets of American cities. One of those military leaders will be our guests later in the hour. DEADLINE White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [83:44]
D
I don't think he's fit for office. I don't think he has the competence to carry out the job.
- [83:48]
A
There really isn't any guiding principle that.
- [83:51]
D
I was able to discern other than what's good for Donald Trump's reelection, what he was capable of was on a.
- [83:58]
A
Daily basis, doing something more and more.
- [84:00]
D
Outrageous than he had done the day.
- [84:03]
A
Before, all to the same end of staying in power. I think when you challenge the Constitution.
- [84:09]
D
Itself, the way Trump has done that is un American.
- [84:13]
F
Do you agree with Mark Milley that.
- [84:14]
C
Trump is a fascist?
- [84:17]
D
You know, I don't think he's smart.
- [84:18]
A
Enough to have an ideology.
- [84:21]
C
We are. We are all back. Maya, I want to pull you in on this. Your reaction to today's news?
- [84:28]
H
My biggest reaction is wonder how John Bolton is feeling now about refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena during Donald Trump's impeachment. And as we all wondered at the time, as to how much he was waiting for his book to come out and benefit from that. But he was standing behind an extremely flimsy executive privilege argument that none of us gave much credence to. And given all those statements you just played, Nicole, why wouldn't he have seen it as his obligation to come before that congressional hearing and testify? And the very vindictiveness, all of the characteristics he's ascribing to Donald Trump, he could have shared with the American public without coming anywhere near even an allegation or a whiff of national security and classified documents. So I keep. Keep thinking how important it is for public servants to remember their service to the public. And while none of that has anything to do with the merits of this indictment, I think it has everything to do with what we're seeing in terms of Donald Trump's retribution and the very abuses of power that include selective and vindictive prosecutions. And they will continue.
- [85:56]
C
Carolinian, do we know who individuals one and two, do we know who he is charged with sharing the information with?
- [86:05]
G
We do now. It took us a few beats, but MSNBC is not confirmed. My colleagues have confirmed that the people that John Bolton was sharing the information, person one and person two, as alleged in the indictment, were his wife and his daughter. And of course, neither of those people had any security clearance to look at national defense information. And by transmitting it to them in different unsecured forms, there was obviously the risk that this would fall into the wrong hands. But it's already in the wrong hands when you're sharing it with family members who don't have that kind of approval to review this kind of secure material, like the collection of a foreign government information about spying on them and how we do it.
- [86:58]
C
Charlie, your thoughts on all of it.
- [87:01]
A
Well, first of all, I think the conversation has been excellent, given the complexity of it. You know, there used to be that old Soviet adage, you show me the man, I will show you the crime. So there might be a crime here. As Andrew Weissman says, you know, there is a there.
- [87:16]
E
They are there.
- [87:17]
A
But the crucial question right now is whether or not we have two sets of Lawsone set of laws for Donald Trump's friends and a very different set of laws for his enemies. And so, you know, it may turn out that John Bolton broke the line and he will get his day in court. He will be able to offer his defense. We have not yet heard from Abby Lowell here. But I also think that it's impossible not to look at this within the context of the fact that this investigation, these charges were essentially ordered from the Oval Office. They were made mandatory by the President of the United States as part of his campaign of retribution against his political enemies. So, again, we have to balance these thoughts. At the same time, you know, did they, you know, find that, that John Bolton broke the law? And by the way, the same, you know, the sort of thing that, that Donald Trump, Trump himself got away with. Did they do it? But why are we even having this conversation? Why is this happening? Because Donald Trump has ordered his Justice Department to systematically go after his political opponents. Again, show me the man, I will show you the crime. And I think that, again, we need to balance those thoughts at the same time. And I really appreciate the caution with which people are addressing, addressing this right now and the distinctions between this prosecution and, say, the prosecution of James Comey. But let's never forget that this prosecution is taking place because Donald Trump wills it and will continue, as Maya just said, will continue to insist upon these kinds of vindictive prosecutions. We've seen Comey, the indictment of James Comey, of Letitia James, now John Bolton. This is just a down payment on what's coming, and we understand exactly how the dynamic is working.
- [89:09]
C
Carol, I cut you off. Carolinek.
- [89:12]
G
No, no, I thought what Charlie said was so smart, so I'm glad that I misheard. Charlie versus Carol. I would just say that it's really critical to remember how these cases have been handled in the past. David Petraeus, who was engaged in something very similar, is not and did not face 10 years in prison for each count of national defense information that he scribbled into a journal on a regular basis and then shared with a publisher slash writer. Joe Biden took a lot of classified notes, or I should say, took notes in which there was classified information, and he was alleged to have been uncareful about keeping these kinds of notes. And he argued, hey, I was the Vice President and the President, and these are my property to keep notes about. It's. I'm a, I'm a distinct and unique character in keeping these notes, and ultimately did not face prison or criminal charges for taking this kind of information, jotting it down. But John Bolton is facing something quite different. And until we all know everything that's behind all of the charges, they look quite serious. It's just really intriguing to me, having watched so many of these kinds of cases roll, how much more draconian this one is even different than Hillary Clinton. And of course, the most dramatic difference is the difference between this case and Donald Trump. He took at the outset 31 different documents that could have caused grave harm to national security, and he's now the President of the United States.
- [91:03]
C
It's unbelievable. Just, I mean, I know it, but to hear it wrapped up that way is remarkable. Michael Feinberg, I'll give you a last word.
- [91:11]
B
Yeah, I think there's another issue that is sort of in the clouds above everything we've been talking about that we also need to keep in mind. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take official government pronouncements, whether they are speeches by members of the executive branch or documents like indictments, at face value. You know, we haven't talked about it, but earlier today there was a per curiam opinion on the 7th Circuit stating that the way the executive branch has been describing what is going on in Chicago and the need for deploying the National Guard there is frankly untrue and not supported by any actual facts. So if I'm a little more hesitant to take the charges against Bolton as seriously as other members of the panel, you know, that's why there has been a repeated trend by this administration pretty much since day one to play fast and loose with the facts in a lot of official documents and venues that we have not seen before in American history.
- [92:29]
C
That's such an important note. And it brings us back to the lie tracker. You know, we don't even do that in 2.0, but the Washington Post had a tremendous feature during Trump 1.0, and I think by the, I don't know, maybe they stopped, but I think at some point got up to 35,000 lies that have been told. I mean, most people. Most people don't tell that many lies in 10 lives. Carol Lennig, thank you for your reporting. Oh, Carol, you got something Go ahead.
- [92:55]
G
Yes, we have a statement from Abby Lowell, if you don't mind me reading.
- [92:59]
C
Of course. Please.
- [93:01]
G
The underlying facts in this case were investigated and resolved years ago. These charges stem from portions of Ambassador Bolton's personal diaries over his 45 year career. Records that are unclassified, shared only with his immediate family, and known to the FBI as far back as 2021. Like many public officials throughout history, Ambassador Bolton kept diaries. That's not a crime. We look forward to proving once again that the ambassador did not unlawfully share or store any information. Just you'd want to hear it.
- [93:33]
C
Thank you very much. And your reporting. And then the note from his lawyer, Abby Lowell, about his immediate family is just. Is an important reminder that context, should this go to trial, will be important to the jurors who render the ultimate decision. Carol Lennox, Michael Feinberg, Charlie Sykes, and Andrew Weissman. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for starting us off and all of you for staying longer than you planned. Maya sticks around a little bit longer. When we come back, my friend and colleague Alicia Menendez will pick up our coverage. I have another obligation, work obligation to head to this time. Usually it's mommy duty. It's work. Today, Alicia will pick up our coverage of another big story that Michael Feinberg just alluded to. The violence being carried out in the name of the US Government against men, women and children in the state city of Chicago. It is now getting worse as federal agents use increasingly harsh tactics in the Trump administration's campaign against a great American city and its people. Today, Illinois Governor J.B. pritzker enlisted former top military leaders to help make the case that Donald Trump's chaos agenda is wrong. One of those leaders will be our guest, so don't go anywhere.
- [94:50]
D
The use of the military by this administration in Los Angeles, Memphis and possibly Chicago is inappropriate. It's dangerous, and it is a clear and present danger to the security of our nation. It is un. American history warns us of this danger. The Posse Comitantis act of 1878 was created precisely to prevent the military from enforcing domestic law because our founders understood that freedom cannot thrive under the shadow of military control.
- [95:29]
F
That was Major General Randy Manor, former acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, along with Illinois Governor J.B. pritzker on Donald Trump's attempts to weaponize the US military against Blue states and cities, including Chicago. That warning from Major General Manor comes as the chaos caused by Trump's Department of Homeland Security continues to grow. Yesterday, the Chicago Sun Times reported that ICE intentionally rammed a car during a high speed Chase and then tear gas bystanders who showed up in the aftermath. The Sun Times obtained footage of the crash. You can see the white car being driven by federal agents. According to the Sun Times, intentionally crashing into the car it was chasing, causing the car to spin out. That sort of a maneuver is considered highly dangerous. It's restricted by some police departments nationwide, including Chicago's. As if that weren't bad enough, the Sun Times reports this about the aftermath of that crash. Quote, the commotion attracted a crowd of onlookers and protesters. A large number of armed Customs and Border Patrol agents respond to the crowd by hurling smoke grenades, shooting pepper balls and deploying at least three rounds of tear gas over the area. Even with children and seniors in the area, at least four protesters were detained. Parents can be seen running from the area carrying a baby in a carrier. You can see here images of protesters and onlookers thrown to the ground by ICE agents. It wasn't just the bystanders who were harmed. Thirteen members of the Chicago Police Department also were overcome by tear gas while on the scene to try to de escalate tensions between, between protesters and federal agents, police said. In a rebuke to the Trump administration. Just moments ago, a federal appeals court denied the administration's request to allow the deployment of the National Guard in Illinois pending appeal. The court noting that political opposition is not rebellion. Joining our coverage, Chicago Sun Times reporter Nader Issa. Also with us, retired National Guard Major General and member of the National Security Leaders for America, Randy Manner. Maya Wiley is with me at the table. Nader, your paper has done just absolutely some remarkable reporting on what it is that is transpiring in Chicago. What more can you tell us about that crash?
- [97:44]
E
That crash, it happened on a residential street. You know, it was this high speed chase. It's kind of jarring seeing the video because it's, it's a residential block. People live there. And I think what gets lost sometimes when we're talking about the aftermath of these things and, and we talk about protesters in this crowd gathering. These aren't protesters that are coming from anywhere. These are just people who live on the block. This sort of came to their doorstep. My colleagues heard from residents that they heard this crash while inside their homes. They came outside to see what all the commotion was about and then it escalated from there. And so I think it's important to note that this is sort of coming to people's doorsteps rather than people seeking it out. Out.
- [98:28]
F
Well, general manner, when you call it a clear and present danger, this has to be what it is you're talking about.
- [98:38]
D
It's actually even beyond that because the idea that the administration is trying to normalize the idea of military being on our streets or people who look like military, those, those agents, by the way, they're just app. They're operating like thugs. They are not. No regard for public safety, no regard for constitutional rights, no regard for the human treating. The concept of treating people with dignity and respect, it is an affront to all Americans no matter where you come from, no matter what your political persuasion. To see what these people are doing at the federal level is just. It's just unacceptable.
- [99:15]
F
Maya Wiley, from a civil rights perspective, what recourse do these folks have?
- [99:19]
H
Well, I mean, you can work to bring an excessive force case. I mean, one of the things we've fought about as a civil rights community is the difficulty that we have under our current law to hold those who use excessive force accountable. You know, Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security have had allegations against them of excessive force for years. This isn't new. What is new is what General Manor is talking about, which is the. Not just the unleashing, but the unleashing and militarization that we're seeing in cities and the permission structure to violate constitutional rights. Remember, we now have a Supreme Court who's basically said, yeah, racially profile. When you think about the combination of these things, including the very active propaganda campaign to suggest that there is out of control control, rampant crime as an argument for militarizing our cities. This is all part of a playbook. And I would take what I don't know if General Manor will agree with me. I have the utmost respect for the general. I would take it a step further and say we have heard Donald Trump throwing up the trial balloons about the Insurrection act, which is his way to say, no, I'm not violating Posse Comitatus. We just are going to declare a form of national martial law in the United States. Consider that. And consider that in concert with the willingness of this administration to weaponize government against foes and perceived foes, and right now, anyone who disagrees on policy and exercises first amendment rights in this country is something that this administration considers to be a foe.
- [101:10]
F
General Manor, speak to the point that Maya just made about the Insurrection Act.
- [101:15]
D
This is something that the president probably is desiring to do. It somehow, quote, unquote, would legitimize what he is doing. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is where he is making up lies about what is going on in various cities. I'M here in Chicago with my family, and I will tell you, this is. Is not Baghdad. This is nothing like what the President or Stephen Miller are talking about in any way. It's something where this is what dictators do to normalize the concept of using the American military or any military against its own people. And the fact that he is doing this, this with paramilitary forces called ice. Again, this is not the American way. We should not accept this. We cannot accept this as the new step status quo. We will not be a police state. We will not be a militarized state. That is not what America is.
- [102:10]
F
I want to underline something that General Manor just said, which is using force against its own people. A local TV station interviewed an American teen who was arrested by ice. Take a listen.
- [102:25]
E
He's a citizen.
- [102:27]
C
He's a citizen. You don't know what's going on.
- [102:29]
D
So get the back.
- [102:30]
A
When he calls for backup, other people.
- [102:32]
E
Come in, and that's when I start to leave.
- [102:34]
A
I'm telling them, I'm a US Citizen.
- [102:36]
E
I'm here, I'm legal, I'm born here. So they didn't try to hear none of that, though. I just graduated high school. So they could come from literally anybody.
- [102:46]
A
And that's not right, Peter, just how.
- [102:49]
F
Quickly we have moved from this administration's false promise that who they were going after was violent criminal. That's what you heard all through the campaign. Now you're talking about a kid on a US street who's US born, US Citizen. What do we know about the other people who've been caught up in these ICE raids?
- [103:10]
E
It's happening all over. I think once the federal agents are chasing after people who they call, you know, violent criminal, you know, they say illegal aliens is the terms that they use once they're chasing after them. There are a lot of people in Chicago who don't want federal agents here. And so they follow them, they take videos, they try to document what's going on. And a lot of those people are getting caught up. And, you know, we're seeing that in some cases it's unprovoked. In some cases, there are. There's a little bit more, you know, bystanders getting closer to the agents, antagonizing them a little bit.
- [103:47]
G
But.
- [103:48]
E
But the sort of reaction that comes after that is not in any way matching what the action of the protesters is. And so we are seeing American citizens who are getting caught up. They're being pulled to the ground, they're being detained. I think one of the issues we're also seeing is that statements come out saying that bystanders or protesters are being violent, they're throwing things, they're assaulting federal agents, but then they're released without charges or a grand jury declines to indict them or charges are filed and then they're later dropped. And so a lot of these cases and these original statements aren't really holding up well.
- [104:29]
F
And that was sort of alluded to in the appeals court ruling. Maya, I'm just going to read you just a little bit of it. I wanted to say one of the judges who ruled here was appointed by Donald Trump, quote, political opposition tension is not rebellion. A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protesters advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the US Government, use civil disobedience as a form of protests. Nor does a protest become a rebellion merely because of sporadic and isolated incidents of unlawful activity or even violence committed by rogue participants, participants in the protest. Do you think the Supreme Court's going to agree with that?
- [105:11]
H
I can't speak for this Supreme Court. We certainly have a court where a majority has demonstrated that they are not particularly focused on civil rights, nor do they understand the experience of people who are on the ground like that young black man. And I say that explicitly, that young black man who is a citizen. We are experiencing this in Washington, D.C. d.C. We have seen this in Los Angeles. We believe it's coming. And it's already begun to happen in New York City. We already talked about Memphis. This is not something staying contained. But the point that you read, those are constitutional rights. We won because we protested peacefully. And that is what they're trying to take away.
- [105:57]
F
Especially big story in the light of what is happening this Saturday, this protest all across America. Major General Randy Manor, Nader Issa and Maya Wiley, thank you all so much for being with us. We have some more breaking news to get to this hour. We're going to have that after a quick break. Some breaking news in just the last half hour. The voting machine company smartmatic has been indicted by federal prosecutors in Florida over allegations that include money laundering and conspiring to bribe foreign officials. As the Associated Press explains, according to the indictment, the alleged crimes arise from more than $1 million in bribes that several executives allegedly paid to election officials in the Philippines. The payments between 2015 and 2018 were made to obtain a contract with the Philippines government to help run that country's 2016 presidential election and secure the timely payment for its work. The indictment comes amid Smartmatic's $2.7 billion lawsuit accusing Fox News of airing claims that Smartmatic helped rig the presidential election here in the United States in 2020. We're going to sneak in one more quick break. We'll be right back. Thanks for spending part of this Thursday with us. We are so grateful. Fear not, Nicole is going to be back tomorrow.