Michael Feinberg (3:59)

Org.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (4:00)

New York Times reports this quote. New York's Attorney General Letitia James is seeking to block a Justice Department investigation into her office's civil fraud case against President Trump by challenging the legitimacy of the U.S. attorney in Albany. The effort to block subpoenas issued by U.S. attorney John Sarcone's office is sealed. The subpoenas are part of a criminal civil rights investigation into two of Ms. James most high profile the civil fraud case against Mr. Trump in which she sued him, accusing him of exaggerating his net worth to defraud lenders, and the office's long running case against the National Rifle Association. New York Times previously reported that Mr. Sarcone's investigation is focused on determining whether Tish James office violated Mr. Trump's rights or the rights of others. An unusual use of civil rights law. Donald Trump's war on the rule of law, defined now by a steady streak of purges of public servants and a push to remove any trace of efforts to hold him accountable, is where we start again today. MSNBC senior investigative reporter Carol Lening is here. New York Times investigative reporter MSNBC contributor Mike Schmidt is back with us. Also joining us, former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI and MSNBC national security and intelligence analyst Michael Feinberg is back with us. He's also a fellow at Lawfare. Michael Feinberg, I want to start with you because I never want the frequency of you being booked when the news is another high level expulsion at the FBI. I don't think those stories should become numbing, but there are so many of them. I wonder if you could sort of unflatten this act, this removal of this 22 year veteran of the FBI.

Michael Feinberg (5:55)

Of course, look, I'm always more than happy to be on the show in the network, but it is generally not a good sign for our country as a whole when you need former officials to come comment on the slow erosion of the rule of law and constitutional norms on a near daily basis. The removal of Aaron Tapp, his special agent in charge of his field office, is one more in a long train of abuses against what the Justice Department and the FBI is supposed to stand for. He is being removed, supposedly, and Carol will be able to speak to this even better than I will for his role in some of the investigations, investigations against the now president. But, you know, this removal has been firing up my phone for the past 24 hours pretty nonstop and a bunch of chains between me and former colleagues and current friends. And it's important to note Aaron wasn't really involved in those. In those investigations to a granular degree. He was in an acting role, is my understanding, as the assistant director of the Criminal Division, while the FBI, of which the Criminal Division is a part, was investigating the president. But the notion that he was some sort of puppet master or string puller for this investigation is based on everything I've heard, 100% false. This is just yet another callous destruction of a civil servant's life for the sole purpose of throwing red meat to a political base.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (7:36)

And would Aaron Tapp have reported directly to Christopher Wray, or were there layers between Aaron Tapp and Christopher for Wray?

Michael Feinberg (7:45)

So I think, and Carol can correct me if I'm wrong with this, at the time in question, he was an acting assistant director, which is a position that has regular access to the director and more frequently to the deputy director. But there still is a level of management between them in the form of executive assistant directors, which is a position that Cash Patel has done away with.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (8:13)

And Michael, would Christopher Wray have known who he was? Would he have interacted with him? Would he be able to speak to his responsibilities and his role and the things that you're articulating, whether or not he freelanced or whether or not he was simply following facts in an investigation ordered by the director of the FBI.

Michael Feinberg (8:33)

Yeah, look, as a special agent in charge, Aaron Tapp was one of 55, what we call division heads in the field. Individuals who are running a field office, whether as a special agent in charge or an assistant director in charge. They had regular meetings as a group over video conference with the director. Another tradition that Cash Patel has ended. They would speak to the deputy director regularly. You know, this is somebody who would have been known on what we refer to as the seventh floor of the Hoover Building, which is sort of the internal shorthand for very senior FBI leadership.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (9:20)

So Christopher Wray who counts among his personal clients Chris Christie and other Republicans who may or may not still be in good standing in MAGA world, would be able to defend this 22 year veteran's conduct as simply being that which was directed by him, the then director of the FBI. I'm just trying to put my finger on what's missing in the near daily appearances, as you just pointed out on this show, on this network. And what's missing is that we cover the purge that Kash Patel seems to be carrying out. And he even nods to the lawlessness of some of these firings. But what's missing are the people who ordered the men and women of the FBI to do the things they're being purged for doing. And this one feels particularly glaring.

Michael Feinberg (10:09)

Yeah, and look, it is. There's a lot of people who fit in that category. I mean, I think I voiced my opinions yesterday on former Director Ray's silence. But let's not forget that the original special counsel under Robert Mueller was set up by William Barr, Rod Rosenstein, Jeff Sessions. Those were the individuals who created it and oversaw. They have been resolutely silent in defending things their own department oversaw there. I can't explain it. I really don't understand it, other than to say I think it is an immense failure to leverage the leadership values that all these individuals would claim they possess.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (11:03)

Carol Linnig, this is your beat. This is yours as well. Mike, what are we missing? This is again, I think I've lost track of how many decades now of experience in fighting terrorism, in fighting America's enemies, in fighting cyber attacks, in fighting sex trafficking and firing international drug cartels. We're down hundreds of years of expertise at the FBI and the silence from its former leaders is absolutely deafening.

Carol Leonnig (11:37)

Nicole, I couldn't agree more. When Mike was talking, I was thinking about how every morning it feels like my day starts with a tip stir from this place or that place, telling me about another person who's either, you know, has a bullseye on the back of their back or has been told that they have to resign or they'll be fired or has been suspended. And I'm now at the point of saying we've lost centuries worth of experience, as I did in a New York Times essay the other day, centuries worth of experience fighting terror, fighting drug cartels, fighting publicly corrupt public officials, fighting corporate fraud that. That deprives Americans of billions of dollars a year. That's pretty serious. Another thing that's pretty serious is the end of fact. I mean, the. You make the. You ask the question smartly, you know, was Aaron Tapp somebody really directly involved in Arctic Frost, the investigation into whether or not there was a conspiracy to try to block the certification of the presidency, to try to overturn a free and fair election that found Americans wanted Joe Biden to be president much more than they wanted Donald Trump to be. And in reality, it doesn't matter that Aaron Tapp signed some paperwork or was intensely involved. He was a senior official promoted multiple times. But he was recently called out for this role somehow in internal records, a role in this election fraud investigation which was totally, factually predicated, totally legally proper, and whether he had a small hand in it, a huge hand in it. There's nothing wrong with that investigation. It was appropriate to go forward at multiple high level and conservative leaning FBI supervisors authorized it. And there was a reason that it targeted and focused on Republicans. The first documentation that I have reviewed of this investigation showed that there were 84 people who were Republican Party members in various swing states who had signed these certificates that were fraudulent. FBI agents wanted to know, why did you sign this thing pretending to be an elector for your state when you were not? There's nothing inappropriate about that.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (14:04)

You know, Mike, it also brings back the reporting at the time that the other person who fled when Donald Trump began pushing a fraudulent effort to claim he'd actually won was Bill Barr himself. I mean, the reason he's not there on January 6th is because he didn't want to be part of turning over a free and fair election, not to lionize his conduct during any of the years he served as Attorney General or the years after. But why isn't he out there defending the people involved in something that was so malevolent he left before he had a role in it?

Mike Schmidt (14:40)

I'm not going to try and answer for Bill Barr. That's a very difficult thing to do. What I think here to pick up on Carol's point, is that I think there's a political risk in this for Trump. And maybe I'm looking at this too classically or too quaintly, but basically, if you continue to hollow out the FBI, which they're openly doing, I mean, that's not even in question. If you're continuing to hollow out the FBI. Are you setting yourself up for failure when something actually goes wrong? And look, I think it's very, very difficult to run the federal government in normal times. My guess is that it's very difficult to run the FB FBI when you're constantly getting rid of people that have developed this level of expertise. And as Michael, you know, could say, and I'm sure it's true, you can't just grow a new FBI agent overnight. Sure, you could probably get get one within a year, but at the same time, there's all that experience on top of it. And they're not just getting rid of the low level FBI agents, they're getting rid of the FBI agents that have the most experience. And if something were to go wrong in any sort of fashion in this country that relates to law enforcement, the first question the media is going to ask is what was the FBI doing and did they miss something? And was the FBI running political errands for the President or were they doing their job? And I have no idea whether that would have any sort of ramifications, but I do think it is a risky thing to be doing this. Sure, it may feel good for the Trump folks in the short term that they're doing something like that. They think it accomplishes this political ends of retribution. But in the long term, I'm just not sure this is really a recipe for success. Look, it hasn't come back to bite them yet in the first 10 months here in the presidency, but there's a lot more presidency left.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (16:40)

Carol, take us inside. What the actual conduct is that's in question in their view, because it would seem that if they wanted to do in public in the way that Jack Smith has suggested they do, ask questions about January 6, this firing might be another example of someone they wouldn't want testifying in public as to what his role was and why Republicans were ensnared in the investigation in the first place.

Carol Leonnig (17:10)

You know, Nicole, great question and gotta say there's no answer that anybody can provide me as yet for what the justification is for firing or suspending in this moment anyway. We know he's suspended and being threatened with being forced out. There doesn't seem to be any justification other than his name was on some Arctic Frost paperwork. The name, the code name for the FBI investigation that looked into fake electors initially starting In April of 2022, there was, let's just talk about the chronology of events. Earlier this week there were a series of leaked documents. Clearly senior leadership at Kaz Patel or someone else's, someone else in his orbit that level were providing to Grassley, Senator Grassley, forgive me, documents that then came out into the public sphere. And you noticed almost coordinated, I hate to use the wor word coordinated, it sounds like a conspiracy, but it looks coordinated. Boom, boom, boom. A million true social posts and tweets and public video commentary by Republicans saying, can you believe this weaponization under the Biden DOJ, this effort to investigate hundreds of Republicans and 187 subpoenas. And I kind of chortled as I saw these coming out because it's so, it's such a fractured picture of what really happened. As I said, this investigation started by the FBI, led and authorized by very conservative leaning Republican identifying senior FBI officials was looking into whether or not a series of Republicans may have been hoodwinked by Rudy Giuliani and Trump's campaign into signing these fraudulent certificates to try an end run around certifying the election, overturning it. And of course it's going to focus on Republicans and of course there are going to be hundreds of subpoenas and there's nothing inappropriate about that. But here's what's happening. You've got a email, I'm sorry, forgive me, a social media post by right, right wing MAGA world saying here's Aaron Tapp here and I'm not going to name the rest of them. Here's FBI official 2, here's FBI official 3, here's FB. These individuals are all pictured and named on Truth Social and somebody says Kaj Patel still hasn't fired these people that were involved in Arctic Frost. What happens? My phone rings the next day and it's someone saying Aaron Tapp's been suspended.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (19:52)

And Mike Schmidt, tell us about your reporting into questions about the Tish James and her legal team are asking about whether the folks investigating her investigation of Donald Trump's Trump's company are there properly.

Mike Schmidt (20:08)

Look, all the sort of legal machinations around this can be a little confusing because there's a fight in court, it's under seal and such. The most important thing I think about what's going on here is that the Trump Justice Department is using a criminal subpoena to try and get information about how Tish James officer handled the civil, the civil case that they brought against Trump. And that is just highly unusual and we obviously run out of adjectives, but we'll just use extraordinary. It's the one I use the most. But it's a highly extraordinary thing for the president, United States Justice Department to be using a criminal subpoena to try and get information about civil litigation that was brought against him. I mean, that is a, a personal political errand being done by the Justice Department in a way that, that certainly stands out to me in a lot of retribution. Retribution is kind of straightforward and such. But there is still ongoing litigation between Trump and Tish James, his office as that case is appealed. And here is the Justice Department using a criminal subpoena to try and get more information about what went on inside of Tish James office and for whatever criminal subpoenas were created for. I'm not sure they were created for the president, United States Justice Department to try and get more information about civil litigation that occurred against him that he didn't like and that cost him hundreds of millions of dollars.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (21:43)

Right. It's just another layer. Right. He has, over the objections of politically appointed prosecutors, indicted her, but he's also using criminal investigative powers to harass her office. Remarkable reporting. Thank you both for starting us off, Carol Lennig and Mike Schmidt. Michael Feinberg sticks around. Carol has a new book coming out. We've been covering some of the scoops from that book all week long. It's called Injustice How Politics and Fear Vanquished. America's Justice Department should be at the table to find, throw open the COVID of the book and take us through all of her incredible reporting on Monday. We are looking forward to that. When we come back, there's new reporting on a possible cover up by the Justice Department into just how deep investigations into Jeffrey Epstein actually went, why there are parts of that investigation that were not shared with the lawmakers looking into it. Plus, in a last minute 11th hour ruling from a federal judge this afternoon, the Trump administration has been ordered to continue paying for food stamps during the federal government shutdown. This is another wave of polling shows that the blame for all of this is falling squarely on Donald J. Trump and his MAGA Republican Party. And later in the broadcast, as we watch Donald Trump defy laws and the courts and Congress, we take a look at when a democracy is no longer a democracy. All those stories and more when Devlin Whitehouse continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. 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.

Nicole Wallace (23:34)

Deadline White House with Nicole Wallace, weekdays from 4 to 6pm Eastern on MSNBC. Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust, standout moments from your favorite shows, and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up now@msnbc.com 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 New. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (24:29)

There is a blockbuster new piece of reporting today, the kind that hits and you stop and you pull over on the sidewalk and read the whole thing. At least that's what I did. It's a potentially major development in the Jeffrey Epstein story. Remember last month we learned about Alex Acosta's testimony, Donald Trump's former secretary of labor and the prosecutor who just so happened to be behind Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 plea deal before landing in the Trump Cabinet. Well, he told the House Oversight Committee that he did not recall any discussion of potential financial crimes as part of his office's Epstein investigation. But today Bloomberg is reporting this revelation. Quote, emails and documents from Epstein's Yahoo account show that prosecutors in his office discussed the financial crimes component of the investigation with Acosta and copied him on correspondence about it. Congressman Robert Garcia, the ranking member on House Oversight, shared his alarm with my colleague Katie Turr last hour over this news of a money laundering investigation. Garcia also told Bloomberg this, quote, this information makes it incredibly clear that there is a massive cover up happening right now. It appears that DOJ is likely sitting on evidence that Epstein's crimes were perhaps even bigger than have been publicly reported. I think this calls into question Acosta's entire testimony. Joining our conversation is Bloomberg senior investigative reporter Jason Leopold. He is bylined on that reporting. We just read from Michael Feinberg still with us. Jason, take us inside. How these two things that seem impossible to coexist can be.

Jason Leopold (26:07)

Well, it is really difficult to comprehend how on the one hand, former U.S. attorney Alex Acosta said that his office, he said this during his testimony in September, that his office was focused predominantly on Epstein sex crimes. But through these emails and other documents that we've obtained, we found that there was a real money laundering investigation taking place. And it went on for 18 months beginning in February 2007, going all the way until June 2008 when Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to that state charge in Florida. So this investigation, essentially what it shows is that the U.S. attorney was leading the probe at the time. She subpoenaed all of Epstein's financial records. She contacted one of his most important clients about the investigation, Les Wexner, the Billionaire CEO of, excuse me, of Victoria's Secret Limited. And she was working on this case for quite some time. And Acosta was copied on all of these communications that were going back and forth between Epstein's attorneys and his office, Acosta's office, as well as main justice that sought to undercut the prosecutor and try to get this case scuttled entirely.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (27:48)

Let me read from the reporting and I have another question about that. Federal prosecutors expanded their probe into Epstein's sex crimes in 07 to include potential charges of money laundering. The lead prosecutor requested that a grand jury issue subpoenas for, quote, every financial transaction conducted by Jeffrey Epstein and his six businesses dating to 03. Email show prosecutors also subpoenaed major banks for records about Epstein's accounts and financial activity, according to two people. Now, what is the scenario, Jason, wherein the politically appointed U.S. attorney and maybe even main justice wouldn't know if someone that is a financial heavyweight with the kind of high level contacts Jeffrey Epstein had and those kind of holdings at a major bank wouldn't have been aware? I mean, was there any precedent or somebody like that with that much money and that kind of sort of social and economic status wouldn't be flagged for the U.S. attorney in that office and main DOJ as well?

Jason Leopold (28:52)

I mean, it's a good question. That's one of the, that's, that's one of the questions that we don't have, you know, an answer to. And you know, it's interesting because these details about the money laundering investigation as well as another financial crime, it's been completely erased from history, if you will. I mean, this is, this is, we're revealing this. You know, for the first time, it was not included in the Justice Department report, the Office of Professional Responsibility report that came out in 2020 that took a look at the integrity of the U.S. attorney's office handling of the case. So, I mean, it's very odd. I mean, it's interesting that one, this was happening, this investigation was happening for 18 months. And in fact, the lead prosecutor on the case, Marie Vilafagnia, she had recommended a charge of money laundering as well as one other financial crime in a prosecution memo. This is the 82 page memo that we've heard about for quite some time, which again remains shrouded in secrecy. So I think with the reporting today that you've also seen from the New York Times about these suspicious transactions related to, you know, Epstein's accounts at JP Morgan and other banks, that they're, you know, these are puzzle pieces that you know, starting to put together as to why the banks, one, either didn't flag him early enough, but two, what records and what kind of evidence did prosecutors get early on as they were following the money? And I think that's one important point is that the prosecutors in Florida were following the money way before there was this, you know, way before there was public interest in seeing that and before, you know, Congress started taking that on as well.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (31:00)

I mean, Michael Feinberg, it adds such depth to the political hunger. Again, this is an 8020 issue. 81% of Americans would like to see the files released and believe Donald Trump is covering something up. He actually fares the worst, is viewed as most culpable. But his senior Department of Justice leaders don't fare very well either when those questions are asked by pollsters. But the money and the transactions, those are not subject to the sorts of character assassination that the victims of sex trafficking, some of them were children when those crimes took place. The documents are the documents. Seems like that would be a rather easy thing to release publicly.

Michael Feinberg (31:47)

Yeah. Financial statements generally don't lie. It is, as you mentioned, hard to undermine their character. They don't shade the truth. They are printed numbers and words on a page authoritatively provided by a bank or credit institution. But what this reporting reveals is that with every new fact we Learned about that 2008 plea deal, we realize more and more doesn't pass the smell test to a degree we wouldn't have thought possible the previous day. You know, so much about it was irregular. We now know that there is a nascent money laundering investigation that apparently was just dropped somehow, despite the lead assistant U.S. attorney arguing for it in her pros memo. We know that, I believe, three dozen alleged victims of Epstein were not consulted about the plea, even though DOJ policy generally requires victims be made aware of plea negotiations. Nothing about this seems above board.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (33:03)

And we owe a great debt to the survivors of Epstein and Maxwell's abuse for keeping the story front and center. This reporting adds a great depth of new questions, if not clarity and answers. So thank you very much, Jason, for joining us to talk about it. Thank you, Michael, for sticking around and helping us make sense of it after the break. For us, a court ruling late this afternoon likely gives millions of Americans the ability to exhale and feel a little bit of relief that some food benefits that were set to expire tomorrow now will not. There is more pain, however, to come from the government shutdown as the MAGA Republican Party digs in and takes zero responsibility for their own conduct. We have Much more on that story next.

Nicole Wallace (33:51)

As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda. Follow along with MSNBC's newest newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (34:09)

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

Nicole Wallace (34:13)

Sign up for the Project 47 newspaper at msnbc.com project47.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (34:21)

Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes.

Mike Schmidt (34:22)

This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening? Beth Macy, author of Paper Girl, A.

Jason Leopold (34:26)

Memoir of Home and Family in a Fractured America.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (34:28)

One of the lessons, I think is.

Carol Leonnig (34:30)

Just showing up for each other.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (34:31)

I've been on tour, I get this.

Carol Leonnig (34:33)

Woman in the Q and A, she goes, help.

Mike Schmidt (34:34)

How do I get through Thanksgiving?

Carol Leonnig (34:37)

And I say, first of all, do go.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (34:39)

You don't have to stay forever, but go and remember what it is. We're not just our politics. Remember who we are as people.

Mike Schmidt (34:47)

That's this week on why is this Happening?

Jason Leopold (34:49)

Search for why is this Happening?

Mike Schmidt (34:50)

Wherever you're listening right now. And follow.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (34:53)

Earlier today, a federal judge calling BS on the Trump administration's claim that it can't use emergency powers to free up food stamps. Obviously this brings about a whole bunch of relief. Rev. For one of the most intentionally terrifying aspects of Trump 2.0, letting politics get in the way of.

Rev. Al Sharpton (35:16)

No, it was stunning to us and we're very grateful what the judge did because we're talking about 42 million Americans possibly being vulnerable here. Food assistance. This is not a political issue, it's a moral issue. And the families that get this kind of food assistance, that involve children, that involve seniors, I mean, this is something that should be way beyond the reach of politicians of either side and should be the concern of both. So I think the judge giving a pause here does not mean we can exhale because we don't know that it's not going to be appeal. We don't know where they're going. But I think you'd have to be the ultimate mean spirited politician to try and fight this around this. We've seen the shutdowns before. We've never seen food involved in that. It's always been that we're not going to interfere with programs like this. This is the first time we're seeing where they even potentially had hooked snap benefits into part of the shutdown. This is unheard of.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (36:21)

Well, but what the judge surfaced was that they chose this. Right. What the judge was able to surface from the Trump Department of Justice was that, yes, they had a pile of discretionary funds and they didn't have to play politics with fidicists since they chose to.

Rev. Al Sharpton (36:35)

And I think that that is the thing that's the most galling to me and to most people, even people that I've talked to that's on the right, is that you did not, it was not like you had to break some kind of regulation inside or you were moving one part to another. You had discretionary funds. So not only are we having a relief here, we're having a relief on something that should not have got to this point in the first place. Now, where it goes long term, we don't know. But the immediate relief was in your hands. It was at your disposal. You chose not to use it. So what message are you sending to the American people saying, oh, yeah, we know people are hungry and I've got three dozen loaves of bread and eggs in the cabinet, I'm just not going to open the cabinet and feed you? That's in essence, what they were saying.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (37:27)

Yeah. I mean, John, you were here yesterday. We put up all of the food bank orders that were canceled by Donald Trump. The data shows that overwhelmingly food assistance benefits counties that voted for Donald Trump. The need is not partisan. The response. Completely partisan.

Mike Schmidt (37:48)

Yeah.

John Heilemann (37:49)

Yes. And the only thing I would say about this, rev to you, is that, you know, it shouldn't come as a total surprise. I mean, we have had the concept. I'm not approving this concept, you'll understand when I say this. But the concept of some on the right, that there is a class of people who are considered the undeserving poor is something that we've heard over the course of our lifetimes of. The notion that there's some people who are just. This is the stereotype of the welfare queen that Ronald Reagan propagated, that the undeserving poor stretch back at least 30 or 40 years. The notion there are some people who are just too lazy, that therefore it's their own fault, if they just pulled themselves up their bootstraps, they'd be fine. And I don't know that Trump even has a concept of that kind, but it's not. This is one of those old ideas on parts of the right that has kind of made its way back up. And I don't know if it's that well thought out or if it's just in the end, they think this is all just a giant game. And so the game, if you're a deal maker like Donald Trump and like some People in the Republican Party are in this area and Democrats are doing this too. Everybody's leveraging each other. But for Democrats, there's like a line where it's like we will leverage to a certain point, but we won't leverage over that line.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (38:58)

But the Democrats aren't in charge of anything. They couldn't edge it if they wanted to.

John Heilemann (39:01)

I understand, but there's leverage on both sides though, and they try to apply political leverage. I'm not blaming Democrats here. I'm just saying there is. Both sides are engaged in a game of chicken. They are playing. That's what shutdowns are. And people try to find leverage points and weak points on the other side to inflict political pain on the others. But this is a thing where that's a line that you would never imagine. I say this kind of, not in a partisan way because I can't even imagine some of the worst Republican administrations we've seen ever looking saying we have a discretionary fund here and we're just not going to tap it. What else is it there for?

Rev. Al Sharpton (39:36)

Yeah, but I think that the, and I certainly agree that there's been all the way back to Reagan and the welfare queen, but 42 million welfare queens, I mean, you can't even be, and.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (39:48)

Let'S just call it, it is a racist smear against the kind of people that they think receive food stamps. But when they look at the fact.

Rev. Al Sharpton (39:54)

That a lot of their own voters, their supporters are getting snapped, a lot of businesses, Walmart uses people that use snap to come in. They're hurting their own people. So where I agree that this is a leverage game, I'm stronger than you. I think that they are being blind to the fact that they're talking too much. Their own base, it's like they did with the soybeans in China situation. And their own base would rise up, particularly when they know. You mean you had the discretionary money and put me through this and you're going to use some 40 year old welfare queen mentality. It doesn't work here.

John Heilemann (40:34)

Well, it's the same thing with the Medicaid cuts though. You know, it's another area where, you know, we ran those, everybody put those charts up and said here's what the distribution of Medicaid cuts are. Medicaid cuts are going to fall disproportionately on rural Americans, many of whom are Trump voters.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (40:45)

That's why Hawley voted for the Medicaid cuts and then came out and said he's going to undo it. I want to put some of that up, because you're right, they do fall disproportionately on red states. We have to sneak in a quick break. We'll all be right back. On the other side. We are back with the revenge on Hellman. So, Halman, to your point about Obamacare subsidies, this is from Time magazine and involves Marjorie Taylor Greene. Nationally, the Urban Institute state by state modeling estimates that there will be a 38% decrease in subsidized health care coverage. But in Georgia, where Marjorie Taylor Greene has been sounding the alarm from inside the MAGA revival tent, the number hits 53%. In Louisiana, the dip reaches 61%. And in Texas, a staggering 60% of the lone Star State's residents enrolled in a subsidized health care plan will be cut.

Rev. Al Sharpton (41:39)

Right.

John Heilemann (41:39)

And just to be clear, that's not even strictly speaking what I was talking about, which is the original Medicaid cuts.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (41:44)

Medicaid cuts. Right. But 17 million people lose coverage altogether.

John Heilemann (41:48)

Right. I mean, they're part and parcel of the same thing, which is that without repealing Obamacare, the attempt to essentially to undermine the entire system by which government supports healthcare one way or the other, whether it's through a direct intervention like Medicaid or whether it's through the subsidies of the, of Obamacare. But it's brutal in it's, I mean, the rural impact. If you're in a rural America, you are the one, you are going to get screwed worse than anybody else. Rural hospitals are going to be closing, and a lot of these subsidies in the Obamacare program go to those places. MARCIA Taylor Greene, I think she has a lot of motivations for what she's doing, including what she thinks is the right path for her to run for president. But in 2028. But the fact that her district where I have spent some time, we went down there for the circus a couple years back, that is a district where I do not she's not making up the notion that she's hearing from her constituents about their fear about what's about to befall them. And when they get the sticker shock from how the Obamacare rates go up, they are going to be screaming even louder in her ear.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (42:48)

Well, and the thing about Marjorie Taylor Greene is she's the story. And we focus on her because she's criticizing maga, but it really brings into focus the cowardice of every other Republican.

Michael Feinberg (42:58)

Yes.

John Heilemann (42:58)

Because the thing about her that's unlike them, she's really rare in this regard. She's fearless because she is, as Steve Bannon will tell you she's more MAGA than Trump. She was a fundraising machine. Trump can't primary her. She has this kind of like this Teflon in terms of political vulnerability. She has almost none. The rest of them cower in front of Trump. She agrees with him when she wants to, when she thinks he's right, which is a lot of the time. But when she disagrees, she's worried that he's going to turn on her and that she has some vulnerability where he could primary her from the right. She's like, I'm pretty secure in the Republican Party in my district. And that gives her. It actually highlights how much cowardice is involved in a lot of the other members of the MAGA coalition because they are terrified of Trump. She's just not.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (43:42)

It's amazing. We just need one more break. We'll give Rev the last word on the other side.

Carol Leonnig (43:48)

Rev.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (43:48)

People are really smart. I hate when people sort of blame propaganda and people not understanding who's to blame. But we've been talking about how Trump's choices and his policies disproportionately impact his own voters. What is the way to make sure that those people know the facts of who's to blame for this Cliff people are going to drop off of on health care costs and food stamps?

Rev. Al Sharpton (44:11)

I think that the way to deal with it is that we've got to be big enough on one side to reach out to the other side and say, we're both suffering. Let's stand together on this. Which is why I agree with John that when somebody like someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene stands up, we need to say I disagree with her on everything else, but I respect the fact she stood up for her constituents and she should be given credit for that. And those of us that are true believers on the other side should say that, because are you in this for your constituents, your following, whoever they are? Are you in this to hold your side? And your side ought to be your constituents or your following or your supporters.

John Heilemann (44:53)

Or your principles or your principals are people.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (44:55)

Is that message getting through? Do you.

Rev. Al Sharpton (44:57)

I think little by little is getting through, and I think that that is why they are trying to now make it some kind of way to get back into dialogue. Phone saying, we'll talk, but and I think that the more the polls come this way, the more Trump is going to start saying, well, we've got to do the Michael Jackson moonwalk.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (45:17)

That's an image I never, ever need to see. You could barely walk the rectangle. Rep. Thank you very much for being here with us. John sticks around a little bit longer. Ahead for us, a look at what happens when democracies are pushed to the brink, as ours is right now. The next hour of Deadline White House starts after a quick break. There's a big change coming to this network. We will still seek the truth. We will still follow the story. The big change, the only change, is our new name, same mission, new name.

Nicole Wallace (45:49)

MSNBC becomes Ms. Now. November 15th.