← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“A traditional political cover up”
01:26:30
Stephanie Ruhle – in for Nicolle Wallace – on the stunning plea from the family of a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein, Trump’s new tariffs going into effect tomorrow, and a new report highlighting the increased force used by immigration officers. Joined by: Lisa Rubin, Tim Miller, Kristy Greenberg, Ron Insana, Gene Sperling, Neal Katyal, Nicole Foy, Lee Gelernt, Michele Norris, Rick Stengel, and Michael Fanone.
Loading summary
Transcript140 lines
- [00:00]
Stephanie Ruhl
Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area. With spacious floor plans, flexible living spaces and home technology packages, you can enjoy more cozy moments and sweet memories in your beautiful new home. With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more@drhorton.com.au Dr. Horton, America's builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder Deadline White House is brought to you by Progressive, where drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average. Plus auto customers qualify for an average of 7 discounts. Quote now@progressive.com to see if you could.
- [00:45]
Tim Miller
Save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.
- [00:48]
Stephanie Ruhl
National average 12 month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who saved with.
- [00:53]
Tim Miller
Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023.
- [00:57]
Stephanie Ruhl
Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations.
- [01:06]
Lisa Rubin
Hello there everyone. It is four o' clock on the east. I am Stephanie Ruhl in for Nicole Wallace and we begin this afternoon with a stunning plea from the family of a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein. It is upended the furor Donald Trump faces over the Epstein case. The family of Virginia Roberts. Jeffrey, who was one of Jeffrey Epstein's most well known accusers, has has released a statement last night about remarks Donald Trump made on Tuesday on Air Force One. Trump had said that he fell out with Jeffrey Epstein because he, quote, stole employees from him, including Virginia Roberts Jeffrey. On that, the family says, quote, it was shocking to hear President Trump invoke our sister and say that he was aware that Virginia had been, quote, stolen from Mar? A Lago. It makes us ask if he was aware of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal actions, especially given his statement two years later that his good friend Jeffrey Epstein likes women on the younger side. No doubt about it. We and the public are asking for answers. Survivors deserve this. And on the possibility that Trump may pardon Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, the family says this, quote, ghislaine Maxwell is a monster who deserves to rot in prison for the rest of her life for the extraordinary violence and abuse. She put not just our sister Virginia throughout, but many other survivors who may number in the thousands. The nightmares of being trafficked never left our sister. Even more than 20 years later, she would wake up screaming about what happened to her. The government and the president should never consider giving Ghislaine Maxwell any leniency. Maxwell destroyed many young lives and she was convicted for only a fraction of the crimes she actually committed, she must remain in prison. Anything less would go down in history as being one of the highest travesties of justice. White House responded to the family statement saying that Donald Trump was directly answering a question about Virginia Giuffre. As for Ghislaine Maxwell, quote, they say no leniency is being given or discussed. The family of Jeffrey told the Atlantic that they are, quote, reeling from her suicide back in April, and they are speaking out right now in, in part because Maxwell has offered to testify before Congress, but only if she's granted immunity. The family of a survivor demanding justice and asking the questions we all have about President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein is where we start today with MSNBC legal correspondent my friend Lisa Rubin. Plus MSNBC political analyst and host of the Bulwark podcast. You know him well. Tim Miller and former criminal division deputy chief at SDNY. MSNBC legal analyst and host of the new YouTube show Courtside Crime, Christy Greenberg. All of us here this afternoon to try to make some sense of this, Christy, let's start with you. Your reaction to the family statement.
- [03:59]
Christy Greenberg
Well, Donald Trump's statement where he said that there were young women, plural, that were coming from Mar A Lago and being hired by Epstein and recruited from Maxwell, that raises a whole host of questions, not only about Donald Trump's knowledge, but about these women. In terms of the Maxwell case, only one of the victims was identified, Virginia Giuffre, as having come from Mar A Lago spa. So if there are other women, as Donald Trump has now said, there is more than enough here. Putting on my former prosecutorial hat, there is more than enough here to warrant an investigation. So the question to Donald Trump should be, is he willing to order his Department of Justice to investigate who are these young women that worked at Mar A Lago that he then hired? Were they sex trafficked, and if so, by whom? If his spa was ground zero for recruiting, recruiting these women to then sexually abuse, I would think the president would want to know about it. And then the next question is, if that investigation does happen, will he fully cooperate? Will Mar A Lago fully cooperate? I mean, these are really important questions. I think the family has every right to be asking them, and we should be asking them as well. And the person we should not be asking is Ghislaine Maxwell, because she is a liar. She is a proven liar. The people to be asking are the victims. Let's find the victims. Let's talk to the victims. Let's have an actual investigation here.
- [05:26]
Lisa Rubin
She's a proven liar. And sex trafficker Tim, I want you to sort of put your strategic communications former Republican hat on for a moment. Is the White House not dying to silence the President? The fact that on Air Force One he would actually be able to think back to the year 2000 and remember who Virginia was, who, by the way, was under the age of 18 and he has hundreds, if not thousands of employees at all of his properties, and he can specifically remember the employment of one specific underage employee who worked at his spa. Is that a huge mistake for him to be talking about any of this?
- [06:08]
Tim Miller
Yeah, I was gonna say I don't think that there's any strategic communications coming from the President on this point. I think the people around him surely would be wishing they were taking a different tact on this because all his answer did was create more questions. Right. You laid out one of them. Why does Donald Trump remember the details of a 16 year old spa staffer at one of his class clubs when it's not as if Jeffrey Epstein was poaching his general counsel or something like that? I think that raises a lot of questions. It adds more questions because his timeline is actually off. Virginia Giuffri was taken and abducted and groomed from Mar A Lago and then groomed by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in the year 2000. And then Trump says that him and Epstein had the falling out in 2004, though Epstein is still a member of the club till 2007. Right. So the timeline of this doesn't even lay out. And the other thing is, if we're just gonna be purely cynical about this, and I think it's important we keep the victims in mind first. But just looking at this politically being purely cynical as a talking point, the Trump White House had a decent one, which was that Jeffrey Epstein was a creep and he didn't realize that and he threw him out in 2004 once he realized the extent of how big of a creep he was. That was like their talking point. I don't think that was true a true talking point, but it was one that they had. And then Trump just changed it all of a sudden and made it about something else completely. Something that's far less sympathetic to him and raises more questions.
- [07:34]
Lisa Rubin
Lisa, can you walk us through the Trump administration's interactions with Maxwell, like where we stand right now? Because again, this is a woman who has been convicted of sex trafficking, which took place over a decade.
- [07:49]
Lee Gelernt
Yeah, well, Steph, the interaction and the timeline here is really curious because on July 14, the Trump administration, through its Solicitor General submitted a brief to the Supreme Court saying Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction should stand, that the sole basis that she advanced for challenging it in the Supreme Court was that she was entitled to basically claim protection under the same sweetheart deal that Epstein had gotten from Florida prosecutors. She claims now that deal was valid, and it should also extend to her because it covered his alleged coconspirators, including, but not limited to foreign named people, none of which were Ghislaine Maxwell. But that's the only basis on which she's challenging her conviction to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General, John Sauer, another former criminal defense lawyer to Donald Trump, opposed that. On the 14th, on the 15th is when Donald Trump was first confronted by the Wall Street Journal with the story about the birthday book. And very soon thereafter, that Friday, the Department of justice gave another statement to the Wall Street Journal, basically saying, no, we didn't really brief him about the findings of our review of the Jeffrey Epstein files. You know, we gave him an overview, but we're not going to say whether or not we told him that he was covered in that by that Monday. That's when Todd Blanche was saying that he thought Ghislaine Maxwell had something to say, that he was going to pursue that line of investigation and have a conversation with her. He went down to Tallahassee, Florida, where Ghislaine Maxwell is now incarcerated, and had two days of conversations with her, not in the federal prison where she's serving time, but in a U.S. attorney's office. So she theoretically could be more comfortable during those conversations. We still don't know who else from the Department of Justice was there. We don't know how that conversation was recorded, if at all. And yet we still don't know what the resolution is. Right. Because at the same time that they are moving to unseal grand jury transcripts, which Christie and others have been insisting rightly on, are not going to show us much of anything. They have not said definitively that they will not offer a commutation or a pardon to Ghislaine Maxwell. And that's Steph, where things stand right now as we await the victims putting in their own filings next week about whether they think the grand jury testimony should be unsealed.
- [10:14]
Lisa Rubin
Tim, with Trump supporters who have been honestly the most outspoken in terms of demanding answers about Epstein, how would they take to Ghislaine Maxwell getting pardoned? Even if they got more answers, would they be okay with it? Again, she's a proven liar, right?
- [10:31]
Tim Miller
She is a proven liar. And I mean, the actions that she was taking with Jeffrey Epstein were downright evil. I would say this. Trump supporters, what he got 78 some odd million votes last time. And so, you know, I know it'd be different reactions. I think that he has a core base of support that goes all the way back to his comment in 2016 about I could shoot somebody in Fifth Avenue and they'd be with him. And I think that's true probably about a third, maybe half even of his voters. I think that he has some newer voters, particularly that we're kind of colloquially calling the people in the manosphere, the younger men of all races, really, who flocked to Donald Trump this last election and who listen to kind of Joe Rogan and these types of folks. I think a lot of them, you're already seeing this feel like he's trying to play them for a fool and that they're not really interested in being played for fools, and that a lot of them have deeper passions about the Jeffrey Epstein case and the Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy than they do about Donald Trump. So I think that he could lose those. And then you have some of the folks that either via the fact that they're genuine or just that they're more anti elite and anti people in power than they are pro Donald Trump people on the Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Candace Owens, like more conspiratorial side of the Trump base. I don't think a Ghislaine Maxwell pardon or commutation or anything will go over very well in those quarters. And so I think that he has a couple of sort of elements of his voting bloc, of his coalition that are very vulnerable here. I don't think that's the core base of people that wear red hats and go to the rallies. But I think that among people who voted for him, he definitely has real risk here, and I think they're obviously aware of that.
- [12:14]
Lisa Rubin
Lisa, what do we know about the survivors and ties they have to President Trump?
- [12:21]
Lee Gelernt
Well, it's interesting, Steph, because people like me have been insisting for weeks, if not months that there's so much public information out there about Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and other people that they associated with. If only people had the patience to go through court transcripts and other things that have been unsealed. So I took my own advice today, and I read a transcript from one of the four victims who testified at Ghislaine Maxwell's trial. She was known only as Jane during the trial, and she met Jeffrey Epstein in the summer of 1994 when she was A summer camper at Interlochen summer camp. But that Same year, in 1994, she testified on cross examination by Ghislaine Maxwell's own lawyers that she was taken by Jeffrey Epstein when she was 14 to mar a Lago to meet Donald Trump. And so the timeline that Tim laid out, that Virginia Gif Ray was, quote, unquote, stolen in 2000, that 2002, Donald Trump's giving that weird statement to New York magazine about Jeff liking beautiful young girls and yet doesn't cut him off from Mar a Lago until 2007. We should go backwards too, right? Because in 1994, Jeffrey Epstein brings a 14 year old girl to meet the king of Mar A Lago, Donald Trump. And there's nothing troubling about that for him, I imagine. And we don't know for sure that the woman known as Jane wasn't the only person that Jeffrey Epstein paraded around Trump. We also know that he brought this same woman to Mike Wallace's 80th birthday party in 1998. He was open and notorious in the company he kept around anyone in his social orbit. And certainly based on this victim's testimony, which nobody questioned the veracity of that aspect of it during the Maxwell trial, she met Donald Trump at Mar a Lago when she was 14 in 1994 because Jeffrey Epstein brought her to meet him.
- [14:16]
Lisa Rubin
Christy, I actually want to play a little bit of what Virginia Giuffre said back in 2020. It was before Maxwell was convicted. Let's watch. What would justice look like for you when it comes to Ghislaine Maxwell? I would like to see Ghislaine stay in jail forever. I'd like her to apologize for what she's done to me and so many others. When Jeffrey Epstein took his own life, many of the victimssurvivors felt that they had been robbed, that they did not get their day in court. It would have been great to look at him in court and say, you know, you hurt me, you took away my innocence, you took away my youth. But he took that away from us, too. I'm really hoping we get to do this with Ghislaine. Does the buck stop with Ghislaine Maxwell, in your opinion? No. The buck stops when every single monster gets held accountable and our children are, are safe. Not just my monsters, but all the monsters. And we need everyone's help. It's hard to just watch her tell her story and know what she's been through. Christy, what's your reaction to what we.
- [15:22]
Christy Greenberg
Just heard that she's right. I mean, Maxwell has not admitted guilt publicly. She's denied guilt. She has said in court that she did not commit a crime. She said in a civil deposition under oath that she did not commit a crime. And she is somebody who has shown no remorse, no remorse to any of these victims. That is something that, as you heard from that statement, these victims so desperately want to hear, to give them some measure of closure, to be able to move on, and she won't even give them that. So the idea that the number two in the Department of Justice, the Deputy Attorney General, is giving this woman the light of day after the horrific things that she did remember. She didn't just facilitate helping Epstein. She abused the girls herself. She identified them, she isolated them, she groomed them, she made them feel safe, and then she turned them over to the devil and she abused them herself. She is a monster. She has shown no remorse, and she is somebody who needs to be held accountable. 20 years, I mean, that is more than fair. I mean, if you look at other sentences for other child sex traffickers, that is definitely in line with what you would say. If she were pardoned now, you'd be looking at five years in jail. That is unheard of. It would send a message to sexual predators that this kind of behavior isn't all that serious. And it would send a message that people who are elite, people who are affluent, that they are above the law, and that is the exact wrong message to send. And that would be a real betrayal of the victims in this case.
- [16:58]
Lisa Rubin
Tim, maybe Christy just laid out the reason no one will move on from this, but I'll try anyway, because Politico compiled a list today of all the things the president would rather talk about instead of Jeffrey Epstein. There was 47 in total. I'm talking sugar and Coca Cola. Renaming the Washington Commanders, Obama, Russiagate. I mean, all of it. I mean, today of all the things, right? Not sending any money yet to Texas or the victims there, but now they've announced a new ballroom at the White House for a mere 200 million. None of these things that the White House wants to discuss seem to be breaking through the focus on this. And it's not just coming from organizations like ours. It's the right wing. I mean, it's Trump's core base that continues to be focused on Epstein. Why is it. Why is it that the president can't seem to steer this conversation away?
- [17:52]
Tim Miller
Yeah, well, for starters, look, the Epstein issue has animated people's attention for, I don't know, half decade now or longer. And so, I mean, this is the type of thing that people care about for good reason, because there's legitimate reason to care about. Also, just because of how crazy it is and, you know, the kind of conspiracies that spin off it, how much is still unknown. So there's that element. There's the fact that this is the most traditional, I would say, cover up that we've seen from Trump. And Trump's been involved in a lot of scandals. Trump's done a lot of unique things that are unprecedented. This cover up is kind of like a traditional political cover up that political reporters and commentators know how to talk about. Right. There's a piece of information that a powerful person said was going to release, doesn't want to release it, and probably because it's embarrassing. This makes Trump more of a politician. And so I think in that way that is something that kind of drives the media narrative. It's also something that people on his own side are upset about, which is different from past scandals. Right. Like he could move on from things by just throwing out some chum and saying to the right wing media, hey, talk about this instead. And they would say, okay, because they weren't upset at him over January 6 or the Qatar plane or you can name any other scandal. So I think that that confluence of reasons has made this really bad for him. And I think he's made it bad for himself by continuing to kind of change the story and do a pretty bad job of managing this as compared to how he's managed other crises.
- [19:19]
Lisa Rubin
All right, well, I've got bad news for the three of you. I'm not letting any of you leave just yet. Lisa, Tim Christie will be with us after the break. Still ahead, Donald Trump's self imposed deadline for negotiating trade deals is just hours away. You know, if I was in the seat, I'd be talking about it because most of the world is still uncertain about what they can expect to pay. And when I say most of the world, I mean US Companies and you and me. The chaos and confusion that is causing just ahead. Plus, speaking with one of the lawyers making the case in federal court today whether Trump's tariffs are even legal. Neil Cartel will be back with us. And later in the show, incredible new reporting on the increasingly cruel and violent tactics used by ICE agents rushing to meet the president's aggressive deportation plans. All those stories and more when Deadline White House continues right after this.
- [20:15]
Michael Fanone
Hey, everybody, it's Rob Lowe here.
- [20:17]
Stephanie Ruhl
If you haven't heard, I have a.
- [20:20]
Lisa Rubin
Podcast that's called literally with Rob Lowe. And basically it's conversations I've had that really make you feel like you're pulling.
- [20:29]
Stephanie Ruhl
Up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire, like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J.
- [20:41]
Lisa Rubin
Fox. There are new episodes out every Thursday.
- [20:45]
Stephanie Ruhl
So subscribe please and listen.
- [20:47]
Tim Miller
Wherever you get your podcasts, CIDP can.
- [20:51]
Stephanie Ruhl
Make your daily routine feel not so routine. The good news? Now with a self injection for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, you have the option to treat at home. Discover more@cidpselfinjection.com and talk to your doctor. That's cidpselfinjection.com brought to you by Argenics.
- [21:17]
Tim Miller
You know who's surprisingly good with money? Greenlight kids.
- [21:21]
Stephanie Ruhl
The other day, mine stopped to think about the ROI on a bag of chips.
- [21:26]
G
Seriously.
- [21:27]
Stephanie Ruhl
From getting paid for doing chores around the house to saving up for concerts.
- [21:31]
Tim Miller
Greenlights teaching my kids how to handle their money.
- [21:34]
Lisa Rubin
Greenlight your kids financial future with the.
- [21:36]
Lee Gelernt
Number one family finance and safety app. Try Greenlight risk free@greenlight.com podcast.
- [21:45]
Lisa Rubin
Ghislaine Maxwell approached me at the spa area. She was like this really bright Mary Poppins kind of a figure. And she said, oh, you're reading a book on massage therapy. And you know, we started talking. She goes, oh, you know what? I know this guy. There's an opportunity actually, if you want to become a real massage therapist, we can get you trained. You can come for the interview tonight and if he likes you, then you'll be a real masseuse and you'll get to see the world and you'll get paid $200 per massage. And no alarm bells went off because it was this proper English lady who just looked so nice. No alarm bells went off maybe because she was just a kid. That was Virginia Jeffrey back in 2020 talking about meeting Maxwell when she was working at Donald Trump's club Mar a Lago in Palm Beach. We're back with Lisa, Tim and Christy. Lisa, can we actually just start with the Epstein files? What do we know what is supposedly in them? Because it's actually been right wing media that's been fixated for the last six years on getting these Epstein steam files. If they were to exist. What do we believe is in there?
- [23:01]
Lee Gelernt
Well, I think one of the things that's definitely in their stuff because the Department of Justice has told us is a large volume of video and still images that the perverse Jeffrey Epstein took from his various homes. And so that is something we should never expect to see, nor should we want to see. But on top of that, and Christie.
- [23:22]
Lisa Rubin
Hold on a second. Hold on a second. I do want to see that. Most people want to see that.
- [23:28]
Lee Gelernt
Well, whether we want to see it and whether we should see it are two different things. And the law precludes us from seeing it under something called the Crime Victims Rights Act. That would be invasive of the privacy of the victims here who were underage at the time, but also victims of a crime. The fact that we have a curiosity to see what Jeffrey Epstein was doing doesn't necessarily justify their release, given those other interests. So when the Department of Justice released their memo in July, and this was that two page unsigned memo that has led to all of this curiosity, the funny thing about that memo is had it been released by any other Department of Justice, we probably would have taken it at face value. They said that the files contain over 300 gigabytes of data, which for anyone who has a sense of electronic volume, is absolutely massive. In that they said a large percentage was a big volume of videos and images. They also say, however, that there are lots of interviews with witnesses and victims. Those are the sorts of things that when people talk about the Epstein files, and the release of the Epstein files legitimately could, of course, be redacted in a way that's protective of victims, that privacy, protective of even crime witnesses. Privacy, because not everybody wants to be identified. In fact, many people associated with Jeffrey Epstein or who have been witnesses to his crimes have said that they have been threatened in the years since by the revelation of their identity. But those are the sorts of things that I think people really have an interest in and that the Department of Justice, on its own initiative, could release at any point were they willing to and brave enough to do so. But of course, we know from the Wall Street Journal reporting that Donald Trump was told in an Oval Office meeting with his Attorney General and his deputy Attorney General, Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, that his name appeared all over it, and that there were people at the DOJ who were doing like 24 hour cycles of review and flagging every time his name came up. Many of those mentions may, in fact be innocuous, but we're dealing with a White House that is so sensitive to the idea of wrongdoing by Donald Trump, who has already been found liable for sexually abusing somebody else, that they don't want us to see any of the times that his name appears, or maybe other people who are friends of the White House may appear.
- [25:57]
Lisa Rubin
Tim, even if we weren't getting this information from the Department of Justice. Steve Bannon. Right. Steve Bannon, who's been outspoken in the last three weeks, that there should be a special prosecutor. He's been very aggressive about this. He himself has between 16 and 20 hours of interviews between him and Jeffrey Epstein from a few years ago when he was working with Epstein on possibly putting out a documentary where Epstein would sort of reinvigorate his own brand, where he says, you know, he's a supporter of MeToo, so on and so forth. Yet Steve Bannon hasn't said word one about releasing the content. He has. What does that tell you?
- [26:38]
Tim Miller
Yeah, it is interesting. Steve Bannon says that this is for a documentary that's been. It's kind of similar to the Donald Trump story, where everything's coming in two weeks. But for Bannon, the documentary has been coming next year for several years now. But, you know, there's other reporting that this was maybe not so much for a documentary or maybe it ended up being for documentary, but he was doing essentially media training for Epstein. And there are some videos have been put out of scenes from this kind of media training where, like you say, Jeffrey Epstein is talking about how he thinks that the future is female or whatever, something ridiculous, and Bannon is kind of playing a pretend interviewer and pushing back on him and saying, aren't you saying that just because of your past behavior with young women? So it certainly would be an interesting document. And I think most relevant, at least to the current scandal and cover up with President Trump is, you have to imagine in those hours of video there was some discussion of Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with Donald Trump, who knows what was said and whether he's speaking the truth, et cetera. But you'd figure if Steve Bannon had 15 hours of media training with Epstein, he would want to kind of go over the Trump matter with him at that time. So I think that it's certainly interesting, and I think the fact that he hasn't released it is similarly to the fact that the DOJ hasn't released the Epstein files, a sign of the fact that there's something in there that would be likely be embarrassing to Trump or someone else in their orbit.
- [28:02]
Lisa Rubin
Christy, the Supreme Court says it's going to consider taking up Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal on September 29th. Do you think they're actually going to do that? Do you think they want to?
- [28:13]
Christy Greenberg
Even if they do, I don't think it goes anywhere, really. So what's important? What's important to understand about that appeal is Ghislaine Maxwell isn't saying, I'm taking this up to the Supreme Court because I'm innocent. She's not making that argument at all. What she's making is an argument based on really a technicality. She's arguing that, look, Florida prosecutors looked at this first before New York got involved. They said they weren't going to prosecute. So I should be covered by any deals that were made by those prosecutors. District court in New York looked at it, said, no, I'm not buying it. The New York prosecutors were good to prosecute you. That was upheld on appeal. So I don't think this will go anywhere. Even if the Supreme Court does consider it, which again, it seems pretty frivolous to me. I doubt that they will. But even then, I do not think she will be successful here. She's not getting out of accountability that way. Her really only option is hoping that Donald Trump decides for a pardon or a commutation, which would be a grave, grave injustice.
- [29:14]
Lisa Rubin
All right, Christy, thank you so much for being here. Christy Greenberg, Tim Miller and Lisa Rubin, I appreciate you all spending time with us on this Thursday. When we come back, consumers and the rest of the world are waiting for anything to come from, from this White House about the trade deals Donald Trump promised to make by midnight tonight. To be very smartest people I know in this space will be here next on what we can expect with mere hours to go until a hostile reforging of reforging of the global economy goes into effect. The Trump administration is sprinting to make some trade deals because come tomorrow's deadline, America's allies and adversaries alike will be subject to higher tariff rates if agreements cannot be reached. So in these final hours, South Korea and Pakistan have made somewhat of what some people are calling deals. And Mexico got itself an extension. Joining our conversation, senior analyst and commentator for cnbc, my dear friend Ron and Sar and former director of the National Economic Council for Presidents Obama and Clinton. Gene Sperling is here as well. Jean, can we start with you? You know, we're talking about these deals like, hey, this trade deal is a win at the end of the day, even if they're making deals that are 10%, 15%, 20%, who are they a deal for? Because not for the American consumer and certainly not for American businesses.
- [30:45]
Michael Fanone
No, I think you're hitting the right question. There's a lot of fascination right now on will he close the deal with this country or that country? But to some degree, things are already baked in now, you do have very vague deals, Stephanie, and you can imagine, particularly with the President's temperament, that the era of uncertainty is volatility is far from over. But what is quite clear is that we have the highest tariff rates since Mood Hawley in the Great Depression, the highest since then. And I think what's really going to be the issue is going to be less how he closes out this last deal or two and more what is the ultimate impact on American consumers. And I think what's very clear right now is that the President inherited a very stable economy that was headed for what people called a beautiful soft landing. And to be clear, what that meant was places like Goldman Sachs were looking at 2 and a half percent growth and inflation coming down to 2%. What's happened you've now, I don't usually use my hands in these interviews, but you're seeing inflation going up and growth going down. That's a stagflationary direction, which is not good. It means we're going to grow less, we're going to be poor, but we're also going to have higher costs, higher prices on what average consumers face. And that also, as we know, puts the Federal Reserve in a bind. They're supposed to both look out for full employment and higher prices. If you just had worse growth from his trade policies, it would make it easier to at least lower rates. But when you have higher inflation at the same time, that puts the Federal Reserve in a real bind. And the last thing I'll just say is, you know, they're trying, you know, people are saying, well, the sky hasn't fallen in well, maybe not yet because people have been kind of gaming the tariffs. But we should know that core inflation was supposed to be coming down to around 2%. It's now 3.2% annualized over the last six months. And, you know, I know economics can be complicated at times, but this is pretty simple. Appliances went up the highest amount ever in a month. Toys were near the highest. You've got people, you've got brand names from Wal Mart to Stanley Decker to Procter Gamble to Nike, all saying prices are going up. So, you know, I think his definition of a win, essentially raising taxes on American consumers, I do not think is being seen now or will be seen in the future as a win for typical hardworking American families or American businesses.
- [33:45]
Lisa Rubin
Ron, let's go back to this point Jean just made, where people are saying, well, you know, the sky hasn't fallen, the economy looks good and people point to the markets. You're Right. When you look at the S and P, we've been hitting new highs. But explain to our audience how there are some massive trillion dollar companies in the S and P that are so overweighted that you could look at Microsoft and Metta and yet they're doing phenomenally well. But beneath that, Jean just named a few of these companies across industries that are struggling and will struggle more once these tariffs are implemented.
- [34:18]
Stephanie Ruhl
Yeah, we saw that today with the late day reversal in stocks. Stephanie, that was down more than 300 points. The Nasdaq gave up its gains even though Microsoft is now worth $4 trillion, the second company after Nvidia to be that valuable. And Metta had blowout earnings. Amazon had a disappointing forecast after the close and that stock's down 4%. So we'll see how that affects the markets tomorrow. But you're right, when you look at the smaller companies which are contained in an average called the Russell 2000, they're flat for the year, they're not up. And so we haven't seen, you know, from small companies true admissions yet as to what this is doing to their pricing structure, how it's going be to affect demand for companies that are really mom and pop oriented businesses or small businesses. The so called very large technology companies, the hyperscalers, as Wall street likes to call them, are all doing extremely well and making just extraordinary sums of money. But that doesn't represent what's going on throughout the economy. And as Jim was pointing out, there are a variety of different industries that are taking the hits already. And this is just in the early days of how these tariffs are likely to affect business. I should point out that I've known gene for over 30 years and I think some of my Italian heritage has now spilled over to him since he started using his hands to explain complex economic ideas.
- [35:36]
Lisa Rubin
Well, I like that. I want to talk about the honesty behind this trade war. Right. The president for a very long time has presented this, we need to go into this trade war because we're getting ripped off. He has been misrepresenting the way trade deficits work. But his argument has been, you know, these other countries are ripping us off. Right. That's why we need to do it. And there's a lot of Americans who said, yes, things have been hollowed out here, we should do this. But let's talk about the latest things that he's doing. Right. We mentioned earlier there's an extension now for Mexico. But overnight, Trump suggested that Canada's decision to recognize the Palestinian state will make it Very hard to make a trade deal with them. Canada and their take on Palestine has absolutely nothing to do with trade or the fact that he's hit Brazil with a 50% tariff on most goods over what he calls a witch hunt, which is the Brazilian government going after their former president Bolsonaro. Those two examples have absolutely nothing to do with US Manufacturing. Manufacturing abroad, US Consumers are trade deficits. Deficits. None. James.
- [36:47]
Michael Fanone
Yeah, I mean, what you've hit is just a vital point because let me take it to the, to the economics of what you just said. Those people who are suggesting these tariffs won't be a big deal are wrong on two different levels. First, they say it's just price levels. What that means is the price of buying an Air Jordan or Nike will go up significantly, but it may not keep going up. Well, we just learned how much Americans hate price levels going up. Joe Biden didn't get much credit for inflation coming down because people still said the level of price for eggs, the level of price for milk, so, you know, is higher. So one, the idea people would be okay with this is fanciful to me. But secondly, the idea that we're kind of one and done, we have a president who thrives on uncertainty and volatility. So one, he is absolutely using tariffs as kind of a threat, a way of distracting from, you know, things, you know, other scandals he might be dealing with. But also there think about what this means, Stephanie, for economic uncertainty. If he supposedly has these deals which are term sheets which he doesn't even put the papers out, and he's willing to threaten countries for anything he doesn't like on a foreign policy matter, that means this is never ending, the uncertainty is never ending. The tariffs are not ending. And I think it be should again not going to speak well for the American consumers and as you said, has very little to do with the trade deficit. When a country like Brazil where is a place where we have a surplus with and we buy things from them like coffee that we could never make ourselves.
- [38:44]
Lisa Rubin
It also hurts sort of the US Being the economic superpower and the dollar being the reserve currency. The reason so many people invest in the United States is because they trust our rule of law are three separate but equal branches of government. But if suddenly we're acting in a temperamental way and changing trade policy based on politics, it changes the whole game. All right, gentlemen, great to see you both. We're going to leave it there. When we return, the legal test for these tariffs, the case that could be the first real check on his Presidency, Neil Cartel. We haven't seen him in ages. I am thrilled that he is back. He's the one who argued the case today. He's joining us next. Just a day before Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs are set to go into effect, his trade war faced a crucial test in the courtroom. A small group of businesses and states argued before a federal appeals court today that no emergency exists to allow Trump to impose tariffs without approval from Congress. And a panel of judges appeared skeptical of the tariff authority that the Trump administration is claiming. The last court to hear this case, the U.S. court of International Trade, sided with those businesses and states in May, finding that Trump did not have unbounded powers to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country. The Justice Department quickly appealed that decision and secured a temporary pause while the legal process plays out. Joining us now is the lead lawyer who argued the tariffs case against Trump's executive order today, Neal Katyal. Neil, I have not seen you in ages. I'm thrilled that you're joining us today. Walk us through what you argued today.
- [40:25]
H
Yeah, it's wonderful to be back with you, Stephanie. And, you know, given your expertise on these issues, I'm particularly thrilled to be on your show. So, you know, the question today was whether the president, just by his own say so, can impose all of these tariffs. And the argument we made was really simple, which was, hey, take a look at the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 gives the power to Congress to tariff, not to the president. And it's for a really important reason. You know, going back to the Revolutionary War and the Boston Tea Party and all the fears that our founders had about an unlimited power to tax or tariff citizens. And here President Trump came in and said, I'm going to impose these tariffs. The largest tax increase on Americans since Bill Clinton, Stephanie, in 1993, an average of for every American household, $1,300 a year they're going to have to pay because of these tariffs. And, you know, maybe that's a good idea, maybe it's a bad idea. What we said in court is that's something for Congress to decide, not the president.
- [41:34]
Lisa Rubin
The president side. What are they arguing is the emergency that they're addressing? Because when I think of what they're doing, even in the last 24 hours, they might not make a deal with Canada because of Canada's take on Palestine. They're going after Brazil because of Bolsonaro. What emergency do either of those situations pose when it comes to trade and trade deficits?
- [41:56]
H
Yeah, that came up today. And I certainly want to be very respectful of the court. They have this under advisement. So I'm just here really to just tell you what the arguments are, not to tell you how the court's going to rule or anything, but, you know, the emergency that the government lawyers pointed to today was the large trade deficit. And the problem for them is that the law that they're trying to claim gives the president this authority, says it can only be exercised for extraordinary and unusual things. And the president's own executive order for these tariffs says that I'm doing it because trade deficits have been persistent for the last 50 years. So he kind of pled himself out of court. And that's, I think, one of the problems that came up today with the administration's defense of what they're trying to do.
- [42:44]
Lisa Rubin
Well, I want to share what Donald Trump himself posted this morning about the case, and I want to get it right. So here we go. Quote, to all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our country, good luck in America's big case today. If our country was not able to protect itself by using tariffs against tariffs, we would be dead with no chance of survival or success. What is your reaction to that?
- [43:09]
H
Well, I want to actually agree with some of it. He does have great lawyers defending him in today's court proceeding. They made something that's totally unconstitutional seem a little less unconstitutional. And, you know, that requires a lot of panache and skill. And so, so I want to compliment them on that. But the problem is not with the lawyering. The problem is with the underlying policy. And we've never, Stephanie, in our 200 year history had a president who says, I can do this tariff stuff on my own. I know better than the Congress, I know better than anyone else. That's just never been the American system. And no president has even tried to do that. Donald Trump comes along and says, I'm going to do it. You know, Congress has given the president powers over trade deficits, limited powers. They've said, look, if you have a large trade deficit, Mr. President, you can increase tariffs by 15% for 150 days. And then after that, you've got to come to us. And what did Donald Trump do? He just blew that off. He didn't even look at that statute. He just did what he wanted to. And, you know, I think that's the fundamental constitutional problem here. And this matters to just ordinary Americans. You began the segment by talking about what you said was a group of small businesses. And those are my plaintiff, those are the plaintiffs in the case. These are small businesses who've come to the court and said, look, these tariffs are crippling us. One of them, Microkits, is not able right now to make their products for children's toys for Christmas. They've canceled their orders and they're worried about baking payroll and the like. So this has real profound consequences to every American.
- [44:51]
Lisa Rubin
It's just a huge reminder for our audience just this idea we're going to manufacture here and we're going to bring jobs back. It will cost trillions and trillions of dollars, potentially decades, to try to reshore manufacturing in businesses that have left the country years ago with no intention of coming back. They have yet to make a case for why this actually works in the short or long term. Neil, it is great to see you. Thanks for joining us.
- [45:17]
H
Great to see you.
- [45:18]
Lisa Rubin
When we return, the White House pressure campaign against another university seems to be working. A third Ivy League school has reached a deal with the Trump administration. We're going to tell you about it next. Brown University just became the latest Ivy League school to make a deal with Donald Trump, announcing a $50 million deal with the government to have their funding restored. They will make those payments to state workforce development programs over the next 10 years. The deal also requires Brown to comply with the Trump administration on issues like transgender athletes and merit based admissions policies. Trump reacted on truth social, writing this woke is officially dead at Brown. His administration, of course, has already reached agreements with the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University. Harvard is the major holdout, but the New York Times has reported this week that the university is open to spending up to $500 million to settle if they can avoid the Columbia model of allowing in an outside monitor. We will stay on that story. Coming up next, an alarming escalation in tactics by ICE in the administration's mass deportation campaign. All of it caught on tape. That story right after this quick break. Hey there, it's Kelly Ripa. And if you've been listening to my podcast, we are knee deep in season three. And if you haven't heard it, it's time to get on board. After years of interviewing celebs on camera, I finally get to bring you the real conversations that take place when the cameras aren't rolling. Where else are you going to hear Michelle Obama talk about keeping her girls out of Page Six? Hilaria Baldwin's hilarious reaction to Alec running for office? Or Jeremy Renner's lucid hallucinations about Jamie Foxx? Nowhere else. It's raw, it's honest, and best of all, it's off camera and believe me, that's where you get the good stuff. So download. Let's talk off camera with Kelly Ripa now. Wherever you get your podcasts.
- [47:24]
Stephanie Ruhl
CIDP can make your daily routine feel not so routine. The good news? Now with a self injection for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, you have the option to treat at home. Discover more@cidpselfinjection.com and talk to your doctor. That's cidpselfinjection.com brought brought to you by Argenex.
- [47:51]
Lisa Rubin
Did you know that parents rank.
- [47:52]
Lee Gelernt
Financial literacy as the number one most.
- [47:55]
Lisa Rubin
Difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families.
- [48:00]
Lee Gelernt
With Greenlight, you can set up chores.
- [48:02]
Lisa Rubin
Automate allowance and keep an eye on your kids spending. With real time notifications, kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely and parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money.
- [48:13]
Lee Gelernt
With guardrails in place, sign up for Greenlight today@Greenlight.com podcast.
- [48:22]
Tim Miller
He can either give us a license.
- [48:23]
Stephanie Ruhl
And we can run them and decide.
- [48:24]
Tim Miller
If we're going to let him go, or we'll smash the window out and drag him out. I'm going to get him out.
- [48:36]
Lisa Rubin
Hi everyone, it is five o' clock on the East. I am Stephanie Rule in you of front from my friend Nicole Wallace and that video you saw right there. That is what life under Donald Trump's campaign of mass deportation looks like here in the United States of America. ICE agents threatening to smash a man's window and drag him out of his car during a traffic stop in Maryland. And if you were hoping that kind of violence is an aberration or a case of just a few bad apples, there's new reporting out by ProPublica that finds it is actually part of a broader escalation of the use of of violence by ICE during Donald Trump's presidency as agents rushed to meet his aggressive deportation and arrest quotas. ProPublica reporting this quote it was one of nearly 50 documented instances of immigration agents breaking vehicle windows the ProPublica has identified. We found just eight in the previous decade. ICE says its officers use a minimum amount of force when making arrests. Use of force Experts and former Immigration and Customs Enforcement insiders say that tactic was rarely used during previous administrations. They say there is no known policy change. Green lighting, agents smashing of windows. Rather, it is part of a broader shattering of norms. ProPublica's reporting includes videos of that so called minimum amount of force. Take a look at this and I warn you, these are graphic. Look. Open the door.
- [50:05]
Stephanie Ruhl
No, you can't.
- [50:07]
Lisa Rubin
You can.
- [50:08]
Stephanie Ruhl
Why is it illegal? Look, look. It's pregnant. It's pregnant.
- [50:15]
Lisa Rubin
Here's another video uncovered by Popublica from an ICE arrest that took place on mother's. Watch our back. Watch our back. Watch our back.
- [50:38]
Stephanie Ruhl
I'm not resisting, man.
- [50:39]
Lisa Rubin
What's your problem? What are you looking for? Who are you looking for? One of the children you just heard screaming in that video is a toddler. The other is a 12 year old with severe disabilities. They had just left church. The family and a bystander said the agents threatened them with what they believe was a gun. The White House, though, stands behind the scenes. We have just shown you. Here's what they told ProPublica when they asked for a comment. Quote, ProPublica is a left wing rag that is shamelessly doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens. Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson said this in a statement. ICE officers are heroically getting these violent illegal aliens off American streets with the utmost professionalism. I got to take a deep breath on that one. We begin this hour with ProPublica reporter Nicole Foy. She is bylined on that reporting that we just read from. Also joining us is Deputy Director of the ACLU Immigrants Rights Projects, Lee Gellerant. Nicole, this is an incredible body of reporting that I want to point out. While the White House sort of insulted or tried to drag ProPublica, they didn't deny, they didn't refute any of your reporting. Tell us about what you uncovered in these stories.
- [51:55]
I
Well, what we've uncovered is that a tactic that many people may have seen at a certain point of a really horrific video, maybe one of the ones you shared coming across their screens or their Instagrams is actually something that's happening all around the country. There's immense pressure on immigration officials to complete deportations at a really increased speed. And although there is a professed administration focus on arresting the worst of the worst, what we end up seeing broadly and also certainly in these videos is that many of the folks who are being arrested and rather forcefully with their windows broken in, dragged out onto the ground in front of their children or in front of a pregnant spouse, they don't have much of a criminal record. And maybe, maybe people who, it would be confusing to the average viewer why such force is needed to arrest them. ICE and the administration has told us that they believe that this falls within the bounds of a reasonable use of force. But I think what we wanted to show for this story was that not only is this happening at A much higher pace than people may be aware of and happening in their neighborhoods. But that the way that some of these people are being arrested may not appear to be reasonable to the average viewer.
- [53:19]
Lisa Rubin
But the way they're being arrested, this use of force, whether you want to call it minor or major, these ICE agents aren't being punished or questioned according to your reporting. It's just the opposite. It's like they're being celebrated and promoted.
- [53:32]
I
Yeah, that's accurate. I think that this is definitely a tactic that while former officials have told us it was certainly never against policy. It was something that happened from time to time. It was rare. It was not something you saw very often. But from very early on in our reporting, we were able to track as early as January and February, increased uses of ICE officers, even top government officials. That first video that you saw is the former Maryland ICE director who is now in one of the Top positions in ICE in Washington D.C. break a window on camera. Even while saying on camera to a local TV reporter, this is not the person who we set out to look for, but we did determine that they're undocumented and so we're going to break the window and arrest them. You know, after that he was promoted and there's officers in Border patrol on the west coast and operating in California right now who have also been incredibly supportive of this tactic. There's increased pressure and focus on completing arrests by any measure. And breaking windows appears to now be.
- [54:43]
Lisa Rubin
One of those tactics in that statement from the White House where they are saying this is all part of our effort to get violent people off the streets. I want to show our viewers one more video clip and think about that statement that the White House put out. Watch this. You guys cannot take her just because you guys want Nicole. Not only is this woman not resisting arrest, I know it's in Spanish, but she's actually thanking the people who just smashed her car window and cooperating with them. Talk to us about her story.
- [55:57]
I
Yeah, this is Elsie Noemi Berrios. She was arrested in the in the New England area earlier this year. She is actually someone who this video may have made the rounds before. You can hear her 18 year old daughter who recorded the video in the passenger seat next to her, crying and begging officers not to break the window, telling them that she believes it's illegal. This when her arrest started to make the rounds and get attention, there was a lot of questions about why is this 51 year old mother who has abused apparently no criminal record that we can see and who is Cooperating doesn't appear dangerous. Why was it necessary to break the window? And the statement that DHS put out at the time was they said, oh, she is an affiliate of the violent gang Mississippi 13. We and several other reporters who covered the story when it came out, but we asked again for any type of information or evidence to support this claim. We looked for this information ourselves and could not find anything to bolster that claim by dhs, by the government. And so it's not an uncommon claim, especially as the administration is trying to make the point that they are only going after the worst of the worst. But sometimes when you dig a little bit deeper into the individual cases, like this mother who is still in ICE detention, there's not always a lot of their there. That makes sense.
- [57:33]
Lisa Rubin
Lee, tell us what's happening out there. How many cases have you seen with the use of violence by ICE like this?
- [57:41]
G
Yeah, I think Nicole's great reporting is showing what's happening. You know, we're seeing in case after case exactly what Nicole is saying. They're trying to justify everything by saying we're going only after the worst of the worst. Serious gang members. People have committed serious, serious crimes. And then when we push back in court or otherwise, it's clear that that's not what they're doing. They're trying to get their numbers up. And the tactics are widespread. They're unprecedented. And I think, you know, Sony, you put it, you put it exactly right. If you have impunity for the officers, they're just going to keep doing it. They've been led to believe that we're at war with immigrants. And so that's what's going to happen. I mean, I, you know, the Alien Enemies act. The President invoked it. It's only, it's a wartime measure. He's invoked it against immigrants. It's only been invoked three times in the country's history, all during major Wars, War of 1812, World War I and World War II. He invoked it against the gang and said, all these people are serious gang members, sent them to the most notorious prison in the world, or one of them in El Salvador. They've finally gotten back to Venezuela. They're in danger in Venezuela. But he said, well, these are all very serious gang members. The evidence has emerged that these people overwhelmingly had no ties to the gang. And so I think he has a big bully pulpit and is constantly saying, we're going after the worst of the worst. And this is what it's going to take, reporting like this, MSNBC doing stories like this people getting out and showing, look, look who they're going after and why are they wearing masks? I've never heard a good justification for that. Regular police are in our city streets and have been forever without masks. And all of a sudden they're wearing masks, they're breaking windows, they're going after families. And I think the American public's going to start pushing back.
- [59:31]
Lisa Rubin
Lee, did you ever think that you would be seeing this in the United States in your lifetime?
- [59:37]
G
I did not. I mean, you know, you and I, Stephanie, have had conversations. We had conversations right after the election and right after his inauguration. And at that point we talked about how there seemed to be some mandate to do more immigration enforcement. And one of the things that I was mentioning is I thought the American public was sort of voting for sort of an abstraction, a vague idea of what mass deportations look like. And that's something you and I talked about. But now when people are starting to see it in practice, thanks to your reporting, thanks to Nicole's reporting, they see what it actually looks like to say, we're going to arrest this many people and we're. There's just not the worst of the worst being arrested. And I think this is shocking and people really need to push back because not only is this happening, but the elimination of due process is very scary because all of a sudden people think, well, I don't care about immigrants, but I do care about citizens. All of a sudden you're going to see citizens being sent away to gulags or in detention. If there's no due process, anybody can end up like that.
- [60:38]
Lisa Rubin
Then Lee, if. And what do you think is going to change this? Because the White House is showing no signs, unhappy about these policies. They're going full steam ahead. Right. Even, what was it a month and a half ago where you had that two day period where the President said, you know what, we're going to lay off. We're not going to go after farm workers, hospitality workers, after he got a big push from people in that industry. And then after two days and Stephen Miller regaining control of the wheel, they said, forget that. So do you see anything besides public outrage or people who do what you do for a living standing in the way of, of this slowing down or changing in any way?
- [61:16]
G
Yeah, I think that's exact right question, but I would. I'm not sure there's going to be one moment like during Trump won the family separation when the whole world was outraged and it transcended ideological political lines. That changed things. I think it's going to be a matter of just pushing back every day. And I think the courts will hopefully push back, and they have been. But ultimately, as you said, it's going to take the American public saying, wait, this is not what we voted for, and really pushing back. But as long as the Trump administration thinks the American public likes this, I think they're going to continue doing it. And they've really been disrespectful to the courts. And that statement about ProPublica, I mean, that's an absurd statement, right? It's, as you said, it doesn't actually deal with the issues. But I think it's, we're seeing more people push back, and I think that's what it's going to take. I think people can't feel frustrated by it's not all happening at once. And because from the time you and I talked after the election to now, many more people are taking into the streets, many more people are saying, we don't like the immigration policies. So it's going to matter of just keep pushing and pushing and showing these things. Ultimately, it's about getting these stories out there.
- [62:26]
Lisa Rubin
But at the same time, Nicole, think about Tom Homan, right? Trump's border czar has been talking about Trump's budget bill and really boasting or saying with enthusiasm that now that I is going to get even more money, it's going to allow them to turbocharge ICE arrests. What is that going to look like when this money goes through?
- [62:47]
I
I think you're going to see more arrests like this. The reason why we have so many of these videos to document this is because immigration agents, often with the help of many other federal agencies like the FBI, the dea, are going increasingly into neighborhoods, into communities, to make these arrests. And people are shocked to see their neighbors among those arrested, sometimes in a very violent way. And with ICE tripling in size, the ability to hire so many more immigration agents and still very aggressive quotas, 3,000 arrests a day, more deportations. We're going to see more of this when ICE and other agencies that are tasked with immigration enforcement now have more money and resources behind them like they were just given.
- [63:37]
Lisa Rubin
Lee Our colleague Jacob Sobroff went down to the New York Immigration Court to document ICE arresting people that are outside their immigration court, check ins, doing what law enforcement has told them to do. To me, this seems like a far, far cry from going after criminals, right? Hardened criminals like Trump claimed the whole point of this to be like if Donald Trump just was aggressive in his rhetoric, that actually would have gotten him the support from his voters who said, we just don't want so many illegal immigrants crossing the border. He would have gotten that. But instead, here we are picking off people going to their immigration check ins in court. Who asked. Who asked for that?
- [64:21]
G
Right, exactly. And, you know, forgetting the illegality of it for a moment, as a matter of policy, we want people coming in, check in. I mean, the Trump administration screaming, no one comes to their hearings. That's why we have to put everyone in detention. Well, these are people coming to their hearings and then being arrested. How can you expect people to continue coming to their hearings, which is one thing after another. And it is about just getting the numbers up. And I don't want to be Pollyannish about it. We need to keep pushing back, and I think we're making progress, but I think it may get worse before it gets better. Nicole's absolutely right. And you're right, there's so much money now being poured into the system. We're going to see lots more detentions. We're going to see family detention pensions. And the Trump administration, nothing is off limits for them. I am in court tomorrow again on the family separation policy because the Trump administration is trying to blow up the settlement we reach with the government to help the families that were subjected to that horrific family separation policy. So they're, they're basically declaring war against immigrants. And I think the fever that the American public was in for a while needs to break into. People need to see, wait, this is not what we voted for. If you have a very serious criminal, so be it, deport them. But, I mean, going after people the way they're going after them, smashing windows, wearing masks, scaring everyone. You know, I don't, I hope the American public will push back, but it's going to take reporting like this to show people what's really happening on the ground.
- [65:47]
Lisa Rubin
Then, Lee, are you having success in the courts? You said you're going to court tomorrow. You've been fighting a number of issues since Trump won.
- [65:54]
G
Yeah, we have been. I mean, it's not a clean slate, and we never thought it would be a clean slate, but enough that we are having victories and slowing them down. I mean, it remains to be seen whether the Alien Enemies act is going to be. The use of that is going to be struck down. Family separation. The judge has already found that the Trump administration breached the settlement twice. We are having success, but I don't. I think every civil rights lawyer will tell you it can't just be through the court. Ultimately There has to be public pushback to go along with the courts. And so I'm, you know, people talk about the courts are not going to step up. There's a lot of serious people, regardless of who's appointed them to push back. These courts are very serious. These judges are very serious. So I think we will win our share of cases. But ultimately, people need to send a message, hey, wait, this is very different than what you were promising about going after only the worst of the worst.
- [66:48]
Lisa Rubin
Lee, thank you so much for joining us. Nicole, thank you. Extraordinary, extraordinary reporting. When we return, a loyalty purge led by right wing activist Laura Loomer is gaining steam. Several more officials have been fired after Loomer deemed them insufficiently loyal to one Donald J. Trump. We'll have that story next. Plus, one of the police officers who protected the capitol on January, January 6 has found a new way to sound the alarm against Trump. Officer Michael Fanon will be our guest later in the hour. And how Trump stands to profit off the next G20 summit by, guess what, hosting it at one of his own resorts. Conflict of interests abound. Deadline White House continues right after a quick break. Stay with us.
- [67:39]
Tim Miller
Can you tell us a little bit.
- [67:41]
G
About your meeting with Laura Loomer and.
- [67:43]
Tim Miller
Mike Waltz today and how that came about?
- [67:45]
Michael Fanone
So Laura Loomer is a very good patron.
- [67:49]
Lisa Rubin
She is a very strong person. And I saw her yesterday for a little while.
- [67:54]
Michael Fanone
She has she makes recommendations of things and people and sometimes I listen to those recommendations.
- [68:01]
Lisa Rubin
What did she recommend? She recommended certain people for jobs adding.
- [68:08]
I
To the administration, not adding.
- [68:09]
Lisa Rubin
Who did she want? Not firing. Well, she'll recommend that, too. Back in April, President Trump had that to say about right wing conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, the woman who has called 911 an inside job, who said racist things about Kamala Harris and in 2017 was banned from using using both Uber and Lyft for an anti Muslim tweet storm. According to the president, Luber is making good recommendations of who to hire and fire, an influence that has only seemed to grow since Trump made those comments. She is now, according to a count by the Daily Beast, taken The scalps of 15 individuals in the Trump administration, not Biden holdovers, people in the Trump administration. She, she even has a word for it from reporting in the New York Times. She describes it as being Loomered. After that article was published, the employment offer for a woman named Jen Easterly, do you remember this woman who led the nation's cybersecurity agency under President Joe Biden? Well, it was pulled Loomer has criticized Easterly after her name was announced, saying, quote, there are clearly a lot of Biden holdovers at the DoD undermining the Trump administration. Joining our conversation, MSNBC senior contributing editor Michel Norris, plus former under secretary of State for public diplomacy and public affairs during the Obama administration, MSNBC political analyst Rick Stengel. Michelle, it's funny, when we saw President Trump making those comments, his commerce secretary, Howard Letnick, was standing right behind him. And so on one hand, you could say this woman has absolutely no experience in government, in management, in leadership, in any way, even being part of a corporation in any organized fashion. But I think back to the transition when Howard Lutnick said the most important thing you need to be to be part of this administration. And to be clear, she doesn't have an official role, is loyal to Donald Trump, and she certainly has that in spades. What's your take on the influence she has in this administration?
- [70:14]
J
Well, we shouldn't be surprised that people get fired the way that they do and with the that they get fired this often because the man who's leading the country used to take glee in telling people you're fired when he was at the center of the television show the Apprentice. She is who she is and she has made this her calling card. And so more people will probably get loomered in the future. But to me, this is really about competency and this idea that they've set a standard that's about loyalty before merit. We've heard a lot about so called DEI hires. They have introduced a standard of LBM hires people who are in their jobs principally because they are loyal to Donald Trump. And I just, you know, don't know that this is a standard that would work anywhere else. And the American public has to decide if this is something that is acceptable. Would this be acceptable in the hospital where you're going to get treated for cancer or delivering a baby in the school where your kids are taught, in the place where people are making decisions about your financial well being because all your savings are there. You know, is it, is it okay for someone to be there because they are loyal to the person at the top or do you want someone who's actually competent? And that's the real problem here, is that it's not just about Laura Loomer. It's about a standard that has been established within our government, our government where loyalty is more important than anything else, including merit and competency.
- [71:38]
Lisa Rubin
Rick, that's a hugely important point. This isn't about Laura Loomer. When you think back to the first Trump administration, his greatest frustration was not Democrats. It was people in his own administration who were adhering to the rule of law or the American people and not him. You think back to his frustration with whether it was John Kelly or H.R. mcMaster or. Or Rex Tillerson. This is about Donald Trump.
- [72:03]
Stephanie Ruhl
Yes, Stephanie. Everybody in the executive branch takes an oath, a loyalty oath. Not to Donald Trump, not to the president, but to the Constitution of the United States. They work for the American people in service to the Constitution. And as Michelle so eloquently said, when loyalty trumps expertise, that's something that's not good for the American public. And I would say that it's not a form of strength as a leader. If you have loyalty be the absolute top virtue, that means you don't have much confidence in yourself. That means you're not hiring people to give you a different opinion. And I just want to add, if I can, because you mentioned her in the top. I worked with Jeanette Esterly for three years when I was in the Obama administration. She was then working at the White House in counterintelligence. She's worked for Democratic and Republican presidents. She's a graduate of West Point herself. She is a Rhodes scholar. She served in Iraq and Afghanistan in cybersecurity and intelligence. She's one of the most competent people in the world at this. And the idea that she shouldn't be a professor at West Point because she worked for four years in the Biden administration, that's a sad day. That's a sad day when the commander of West Point responds to the head of the army by firing someone who's absolutely competent, who has stood up for decades with the values of West Point.
- [73:25]
Lisa Rubin
You know, in the New York Times reporting on Loomer, they discussed how one of the ways she comes up with her conclusions is she gets tips on her website, many of them anonymous tips, where she gets information about administration officials. This is the vetting process our White House is relying on. Laura Loomer is saying, tell me what you want to tell me about these people from anyone. And she then funnels that to the president. This is how our White House is operating.
- [74:02]
Stephanie Ruhl
Michelle, is that for me?
- [74:04]
Lisa Rubin
Well.
- [74:04]
Stephanie Ruhl
Oh, sorry.
- [74:05]
J
I wasn't sure who should jump in there. But, you know, I will say that times when the government does create tip lines, you know, for people to do exactly that, to call in in the name of transparency and to create some sort of engagement with the public, this is not an example of that. It also raises a question about the vetting process that the current administration is using for people when they bring them in, if they're vulnerable to this kind of thing. But, you know, an anonymous tip that's coming from someone who is herself not vetted, and to the extent that she is vetted, as you noted, was not able to work in the campaign and was not able to work in the administration, it's very troubling. One thing that is probably coming down the line here are some lawsuits because of the way that people are being dismissed, because of the standards that are being used in their dismissal. I imagine that some of the people who are being shown the door will probably come back knocking with their lawyers in tow.
- [75:01]
Lisa Rubin
Wow. All right, slightly new topic. Yesterday we saw the Senate narrowly confirm Joe Kent. This is Trump's pick to be the director of National Counterterrorism Center. I want to share Kent during his confirmation hearing. Watch the this.
- [75:16]
Stephanie Ruhl
Do you believe that the violence on January 6th was intentionally organized or directed? Still under investigation, we're looking into whether elements of the government could have enhanced the criminal acuity of some of the rioters that day. So you've said on Twitter that the FBI and the intelligence community were involved in planning and directing the riot, Is that correct?
- [75:45]
H
Sounds like something I said.
- [75:46]
Lisa Rubin
Yeah. Okay. So not only have we whitewashed January 6th, one of the most violent days in our lifetimes that we all witnessed at the Capitol, but you now have the head of counterterrorism believing conspiracies about that day.
- [76:08]
Stephanie Ruhl
Rick? Yes, we have the inmates who are being made the head of the asylum. That seems to be happening all across the administration, and it dovetails with the previous discussion, because it's not about expertise, which this gentleman obviously does not have. It's about loyalty. And, you know, I'm going to make one other point about this. I also worked with NCTC when I was at the State Department. The people who are there are super smart, they're super knowledgeable. But one of the things that gives a flaw to the Trump administration's idea that supposedly they're streamlining government or making government more efficient is that they're putting every. Every empty spot in every agency. They're appointing somebody in it. I would say, you know, the NCTC budget is classified. If there's redundancies in government, it is in the intelligence area and the counterterrorism area. Why aren't they looking at reforming the institution? Why are they automatically putting someone else at the head of it? And by the way, the FBI in the last administration and still holding over here said that the greatest terrorism threat to America is domestic, not international. This organization just looks at international threats.
- [77:27]
Lisa Rubin
I'm taking a deep breath as you are saying all of this. All right, you two, I'm not letting either one of you leave. When we return, we're going to bring back someone we've gotten to know since January 6th. Former police officer Michael Fanon. He was beaten by a mob of insurrectionists on that very day. He is once again sounding the alarm over our current president. He will explain why he is not backing down. We'll be here right after the break.
- [77:58]
Stephanie Ruhl
What Trump has done with respect to.
- [78:00]
Michael Fanone
CDC is basically stop communication from CDC to practicing physicians. We're practicing without the tools we need to take the best care of you.
- [78:12]
Lisa Rubin
The patient, the vilification of federal employees.
- [78:16]
Lee Gelernt
That they're corrupt and lazy, which is further from the truth. And that I think, hurts more than anything else to know that we have a president who hates us.
- [78:27]
Lisa Rubin
Any good businessman, any good businesswoman knows.
- [78:30]
Stephanie Ruhl
That you've got to have some predictability in what you're creating right now. In agriculture, we don't have that.
- [78:41]
Lisa Rubin
Just a few of the countless lives that have been impacted by Donald Trump's agenda. But a new pro democracy platform called Home of the Brave is enabling everyday Americans, real Americans, to speak about how Trump's policies are impacting their everyday lives. From gutting of the resources for veterans and firing tens of thousands of federal workers, to slashing funding for health research, economic distress, to small businesses and pardoning armed insurrectionists that assaulted officers defending the U.S. capitol on January 6th. Including our next guest, who we've gotten to know very well over the last few years, former D.C. police officer Michael Fanon, who writes this about why he has become part of Home of the Brave. Quote, right now, those people think they've won. If now isn't the right time to speak out, when is. One thing you learn from being a cop for 20 years is that you can't back down. A bully like Trump only responds to strength. You have to meet them head on or they're just going to roll you over. I didn't face down the mob on January 6th just to back down now. Joining us now, Michael Fanone himself. Michel and Rick are still with us. Michael, tell us about what you're doing.
- [79:54]
Stephanie Ruhl
Yeah, so I got involved with this organization, Home of the Brave, which really has two key components. The first one is platforming everyday Americans like myself, who've been adversely affected or impacted by the Trump administration. The second is going after and calling out entities like law firms, tech companies, big business, you know, all these different industries that are cowtailing or caving to the Trump administration in exchange for favors or just to avoid being the recipient of a lawsuit.
- [80:37]
Lisa Rubin
Talk to us about your reaction to how the president has treated insurrectionists, those very people who attacked you.
- [80:46]
Stephanie Ruhl
I mean, listen, I was outraged on January 20 when he issued those pardons, but I knew that it was coming. You know, Donald Trump had been promising those pardons ever since he announced his candidacy for a second term. He did it, if you remember, in Waco, Texas, the scene of violent confrontation between members of the far right extremist groups and law enforcement, where law enforcement officers lost their lives. And it was there that he chose to announce that the insurrectionists on January 6, some of whom were charged with assaulting me, pled guilty and were sentenced to time in jail, were patriots and heroes. And that effort on January 20th to pardon them was just furthering his whitewashing and rewriting of the January 6 narrative, which now I see as almost complete.
- [81:47]
Lisa Rubin
Rick, it seems almost every day we're seeing sort of a new stroke of loyalty or capitulation to Trump. Can you speak to. Maybe you don't think it's difficult, but for businesses big and small, right when we saw law firms, right when Paul Weiss was the first to sort of bend to Trump, maybe that wouldn't have happened if all the other big law firms said, well, we're going to stand with Paul Weiss, we're all going to stand together and not stand for this. But business after business are making business decisions that they believe for their survival. They've got to play ball with him or he'll come for them. What's your take?
- [82:27]
Stephanie Ruhl
I think it's sad, Stephanie. I mean, that people need to stand up for their values. And when they capitulate to a bully, they're not standing up for their values and they're sending a message to other people that they should do the same. I do think there are many counter examples, if you use the examples of law firms. There are so many law firms now that have stood up to the administration that haven't capitulated. There are universities like Harvard that have stood up to the administration and not capitulated just to kind of bring it home to the new website, home of the grave. Those are the kinds of examples that people need to see that everyday people need to see that somebody is taking a risk, somebody is taking a chance to stand up for their values. And that would enable and empower ordinary Americans to do the same thing.
- [83:19]
Lisa Rubin
Isn't that easier said than done?
- [83:22]
J
MICHELLE it is, but I'm a big fan of what they're doing at Home on the Brave for a couple of reasons, because people get their news, get their information in lots of different ways. And in the quest for speed, you often hear people who are delivering the news very quickly and moving from one topic to the next and hearing them talk about federal workers, for instance, there was a time when Doge first came to town. We were actually talking about federal workers and what they did and how important their work is. And then we moved on, and we haven't been talking about that enough. So platforming that kind of story is really important. And making a space for people to talk about the granular ways that these cuts will have on their lives is very important. But also, as Michael Fanon was saying, to make sure that we're putting on the record what actually happened on January 6th and the continuing sort of tributaries of impacts of that. Also, because America is the home of the bravery, but we're also the land of amnesia. We forget very easily what happened, and there is whitewashing that happens often over decades. But this is happening just in such a short period of time. We're beveling the edges of what we saw on that day in January 6th, and it's important to put that on the record. And it's also important to put the impacts of these Doge cuts, because people will forget otherwise.
- [84:41]
Lisa Rubin
MICHAEL what does it say about Home of the Brave and the power of the individual right individuals standing up and speaking out when some of the most successful, powerful people in government and business who know better aren't speaking out?
- [85:00]
Stephanie Ruhl
Well, I mean, I think we're a nation that's being run by cowards. You know, regardless of your political affiliation at this point, I don't see anybody really acting courageously. And so at the end of the day now, our institutions have failed us, our political leaders have failed us. This administration has no accountability other than we the people. That's why it's important to platform these Americans who again, have been had their lives turned upside down and in some cases destroyed by this administration so that people see what's actually happening and what's going on.
- [85:43]
Lisa Rubin
It makes me think of every Fortune 500 CEO out there, every business organization that said nothing yesterday when Trump flashed his big headline, foreign countries just paid us $150 billion in tariffs. No, they didn't. None of them did. It's US Importers, it's companies, and then it gets passed on. To us. And none of these business leaders are saying that's not true. So, Michael, thank you for what you're saying and what you're doing. The truth matters, but only if you hear it. Thank you for joining us. When we return, the latest example of how Donald Trump might be looking to profit off the presidency. Is this White House for sale? In the latest example of Donald Trump using the office of the presidency for personal profit, Bloomberg is reporting that plans are being made for Trump's Doral Club in Miami to potentially host next year's G20 summit. As Bloomberg points out, this isn't the first time Trump has wanted to use his club to host world leaders. Quote, Trump planned to host the 2020 Group of Seven summit at Doral before backing off amid widespread out outcry and warnings from legal experts about steering the gathering to one of his businesses. But any ethics concerns appear to be gone in the second Trump administration. That is further on display this week with the fact that the US And Qatar are just days away from a final deal on the United States accepting that unconditional donation of a Qatari jet for use is Air Force One. We are back with Michelle and Rick. Michel, what is your take on this? I mean, when I read this reporting today, it was actually our MSNBC reporting during Trump's first administration when he wanted to use Doral and suddenly it came out they were going to use government dollars to renovate the place to prepare it for a summit. And now here we are, Trump 2.0 man, the guardrails are off.
- [87:45]
J
Well, the ethics concerns aren't gone. They're just ignoring them. The concerns are still there. The standards are still there. They're just blowing past them. And it's important to continue to report this and remind people that they are standards. There are standards and they should be followed. And they're just not in this case.
- [88:00]
Lisa Rubin
And that's unfortunate. Okay. This one blew my mind because this Qatari jet, Republicans voted today, Rick, to let Donald Trump take it with him when he leaves office. Right. This happened today. A week ago, these same Republicans were blowing their lids that Jay Powell had gone over budget in the renovation at Fed headquarters. But the Federal Reserve headquarters. But this is going to be ok.
- [88:29]
Stephanie Ruhl
Well, you've talked about it many times before, Stephanie. There is something called the emoluments clause in the Constitution that bars presidents and members of the executive branch from getting gifts like this. I mean, it is just astounding. It's astounding that we have a president who doesn't understand what a conflict of interest is I think he thinks that I'm interested in any conflict that benefits me. That's a conflict of interest because he's basically using the presidency. I don't think he ran for president to increase his wealth, but now that he is president, he's acting like anything that could benefit me through my office is fine. It's like he, he's governing the country as a gigantic branding exercise for his company.
- [89:15]
Lisa Rubin
And Rick, it's working for him. Thank you both for joining. And the question is, what is it going to do to the American people? Rick, Michelle, thank you so much for spending time with us today. We're going to a quick break and we'll be back in a minute.
- [89:31]
Tim Miller
So what you want about Trump? He's good at the hat. You know, I don't, I really, I keep defined to make America great again. America first. Like it's graspable in a way that pro democracy kind of isn't. Is our hat pro democracy? Probably not, right? If you're going to try to reach the Doc Rivers people, you know what I mean? Like that we're talking about the disengaged 20 something. If I was somebody that's thinking about running in 2028, which I'm not, that would be what I'd be spending most of my time thinking about right now. Like, not all the other stuff. Like what is on the hat.
- [90:03]
Lisa Rubin
Breaking news. Tim is not running in 2028. The bulwarks. Tim Miller is Nicole's guest on this week's episode of the Best People podcast. They go deep on Jeffrey Epstein, the cracks inside MAGA World and what Democrats need to be talking about ahead of 2028. Just scan the QR code on your screen to watch Nicole's interview with Tim. You do not want to miss it. We'll be right back after this quick break. Thank you for spending this Thursday afternoon with us. We are grateful and I will see you again this evening at 11pm Eastern. Of course, for the 11th hour, Pandora.
- [90:39]
Stephanie Ruhl
Makes it easy for you to find your favorite music. Discover new artists and genres by selecting any song or album and we'll make you a personalized station for free download on the Apple App Store or Google Play and enjoy the soundtrack to your life.