← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“A wave of anger and frustration”
00:43:54
Alicia Menendez is in for Nicolle Wallace. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, joins Alicia to talk about the frustration Epstein survivors are feeling after an underwhelming release of the Epstein files. DOJ has yet to release additional files, which is in clear defiance of Congress and the law.
Loading summary
Transcript74 lines
- [00:01]
A
$1.1 billion in federal funding for public media has been eliminated, a decision that could mean fewer local reporters, fewer stories that connect us, and fewer journalists holding power to account as the NPR network enters a new chapter. Your support is critical. Your donation today can make a difference. Donate by visiting donate.NPR.org.
- [00:30]
B
The McDonald's Snack Wrap is back.
- [00:33]
A
You brought it back. Ranch snack wrap. Spicy snack wrap. You broke the Internet for a snack? Snack wrap is back.
- [00:43]
B
Ba da ba ba ba.
- [00:49]
C
No. They're flouting the spirit and the letter of the law. It's very troubling, the posture that they've taken. And I won't be satisfied until the survivors are satisfied.
- [00:59]
A
You know, I said in the hours leading up to this release that we.
- [01:03]
B
Will know if they are complying, if they implicate any of the other criminals.
- [01:08]
C
That are involved and the suspects that.
- [01:10]
B
Are involved, that the witnesses, this the.
- [01:13]
C
Victims themselves have given to the FBI and they've never been mentioned. Hi again, everyone. It is five o' clock now in New York. I'm Alicia Menendez in today for Nicole Wallace, quote, flouting the spirit and the letter of the law. A wave of anger and frustration now directed at the Justice Department after the release of a batch of the Epstein files reveals little new information. It's why the survivors are now calling for the law to be enforced. Expressing frustration at both the lack of new information and the fact that some names were left unredacted, an attorney for several survivors says in a statement that he was contacted only 36 hours before the Friday deadline to release the files, just 36 hours when the Justice Department had 30 days to prep for its release. Here's what survivor Danielle Bensky had to say about that process. Well, just communication across the board has been so lacking. The DOJ has really not reached out to survivors. We don't have our files still from the FBI. I mean, even just the way, you know, this was a deadline, not a slow rollout. This was meant to be a deadline where we could search and go in and find what we were looking for. And instead we just haven't had it. And it feels intentionally careless. It feels like another way that the system has failed us. So I think that's the frustration, right? That's where we're saying we did. We moved mountains, we got a law passed. And that feels unheard of. We had the support of not just Epstein and Maxwell survivors, but survivors as a whole. And then even more people than that, like my family members were calling, everybody was calling. And it felt like this huge momentous occasion where we actually pass a law and the the law needs to now be abided by the survivors and members of Congress calling out the administration for putting little that's new. A conversation is picking up steam about how Donald Trump and his administration can be held accountable. As we discussed in the last hour, the co sponsors of the bill to release the files, Congressmen Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, are discussing a range of options, from inherent contempt for Pam Bondi, which would require a majority vote in the House, to the impeachment of officials at the Justice Department. That conversation is happening even as everyone awaits the release of the next batch of the Epstein files, with several members of Congress telling us that it could come any minute now. Awaiting the next release of files from the Epstein case amid calls for the Trump administration to face consequences for a potential cover up, is where we start this hour. In just a minute, we're going to be joined by the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Robert Garcia. But first, I want to bring in Princeton University professor and political analyst Eddie Glaud. Professor Glaud, I am reminded that this case has always been about power, about who has power, about who does not, how power gets wielded, our trust in institutions. And it is delays like that, it is the way that the first tranche of files was treated that actually has the effect of eroding trust in the system rather than building it, which is what I think fundamentally this was intended to do.
- [04:27]
B
Well, I think absolutely. I think we have to understand how we got to the release of the files, of the so called release of the files. That trust had already been eroded. And we have to keep in mind what's at the heart of this story, what's at the heart of this whole, what we might think of as this kind of morally bankrupt situation. The victimization of young girls.
- [04:49]
C
Yes.
- [04:50]
B
And the fact that the people in power cannot in a reasonable way address the victimization of young girls speaks volumes about who they are. And of course, the COVID up is as much an issue as the actual files themselves. So we're in this moment across the board where the moral and ethical and political character of the country is in question.
- [05:13]
C
And here we are, I'm so struck by that sound from the survivor who was on our air earlier today talking about sort of what the expectation was, the amount of work, energy, personal sacrifice on the part of survivors who faced tremendous burdens, personal risk, in order to make sure that this story stayed at the fore, to then have the Department of Justice an institution that is tasked with upholding the law. One break the law by not releasing these files in a timely. But not only that, the lack of care that was shown to some of these survivor survivors who in some cases were not already public, whose names were not redacted when there were full, I mean, pages, 119 pages in one document of full redactions, where if I held the sheets up right now, all you would see were big black boxes. It is emblematic of what they have argued this entire time, which is that the powerful will protect the powerful. They did not have the same amount of care for the survivors who have been so brave, who've put their lives on the line for this moment, but they were willing to protect the institution.
- [06:22]
B
That seems to me to be so right on so many different levels that repeatedly the least of these, the most vulnerable among us are subject to all sorts of evil practices. I keep using this moral language because it's a moral question, not just simply a political question. And there's a combination, I think there's a combination of factors here. I think we're dealing with the Keystone Cops here. They can't really organize themselves. So there's that and then there's the COVID up. They're protecting powerful people. They're trying to keep hidden monsters. And we need to be very, very clear about it, they're trying to keep from view monsters who have a lot of money, who have a lot of power. And the fact that people, some people are signing off on it or have signed off on it up to this point is unconscionable. And the fact that we have to continue to push this right speaks volumes. I keep saying it speaks volumes.
- [07:14]
C
You say Keystone, I say Scooby Doo. And you are staying with us. I want to bring in Congressman Robert Garcia, ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. All right. Congressman, you said right here on this network we could be seeing more files released this afternoo. It is 5:07pm in the east. Any update on the state of these files?
- [07:32]
A
Yeah, no update yet. I mean, we had heard that we'd possibly be getting another drop today. Obviously it hasn't happened yet. They still have obviously to the rest of the evening. But look, the facts are already on the table. They were supposed to release all of the files to us a few days ago by the deadline. They have not done that. They're defying Congress. They're defying the will of the people. They're lying to the American public. They're posting files and removed. There's pictures of Trump. Then they're taking them out. They're giving us odd explanations. Now we see Todd Blanche trying to skate his way through new explanations. We have no idea why. The Department of Justice, who has had now plenty of time to boot these files out, why are they continuing this cover up? What powerful men are they supporting? What powerful men are they actually shielding from actual justice? I'll say this again, all we want is to hold the powerful men who raped and abused children, women and girls to be held accountable. And I would hope the President of the United States and the Attorney General would join us in holding these men accountable and bringing justice to the survivors.
- [08:44]
C
Well, and I would layer onto that, Congressman, both the individuals, but also the institutions that did not do their jobs and their due diligence in making sure that these survivors were honored, that these survivors had their questions answered, that they were kept informed of the process. There have been failures at so many levels. And with that in mind, as you look, as you anticipate the next batch of files, what is it that you and your team are going to be looking for?
- [09:12]
A
What we're looking for are documents that we have been, essentially we have been, we've been told about by survivors, quite frankly. Documents, bank records. We're looking for the names of the men that were involved in the intention of being co conspirators to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. We're looking for court documents that were presented in court that may actually lead us to who these powerful and wealthy men are. Why are we protecting them is what I don't understand anymore. The documents are there at the doj. We know that what we've released, received so far is a small percentage of, of what they have in total. And so why they continue to delay the release, why they continue to break the law? The only thing that's come out of this is now the American public knows that the Department of Justice and the President are leading a massive White House cover up.
- [10:05]
C
Okay, so it is now 5:09pm here in the east. You have seven more hours today where these files could be released. If they're not, then what? Congressman, what do you see as your next move here?
- [10:19]
A
Well, they continue to break the law. I mean, the law. The fact that they haven't dropped all these files on the first day is the bigger issue. Look, we're looking at a variety of options and I think that the public should also be clear that we've been anticipating this. And so we've known for the last few weeks that this was a possible scenario that they wouldn't release the files. So I've been working directly with Jamie Raskin, who, as you're aware, is one of the best constitutional attorneys in the United States. We have some legal remedies that we have been exploring for several weeks now that are that are moving forward. There's a numerous organizations across the country that are also looking at legal pathways. And then I will tell you that right now we have Ro Khanna and Tom Massey, who have done a phenomenal job with the law. They are also looking at ways of holding Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, accountable within the Congress. And there are actions that I think Tom Massie will likely take here in the days ahead. And it's important that they're led by a Republican, by the way, that Democrats will be able to get behind and ensure that Pam Bondi is held accountable for this delay of releasing these files. The attorney general said she had them on their desk. It's time for her to release everything she has.
- [11:29]
C
Let's talk about some of the things that we've heard from Massie and from Khanna. I mean, they've been floating the possibility of inherent contempt, of impeachment, of referral to DOJ for obstruction. Are those the same legal remedies that Congressman Raskin is exploring, or is that a different path than what Congressman Raskin is considering?
- [11:49]
A
Everything that you mentioned with, with Massie and Kana, we're working on, and that's moving forward for the Congress. And I think that that'll be decided over here in the next few days. What we're discussing with, with Jamie Raskin are are other possible legal actions that can have the weight of the House and something we can go through the courts. The courts in this administration, as you're aware, have had some success in pushing back against the Trump administration and forcing them to do things that they didn't want to do. We have had success in the courts. And so the courts have to be another way of pushing to get this full release. And we're also looking at other options here. Look, we have many courts now that have disclosed to the Department of Justice information, grand jury documents that have been unsealed. And we may have to take an unprecedented approach here and having to work, work with the courts to get these documents directly. Because if the DOJ is not gonna give them to us, is there a possibility for these courts to give these documents directly to the Congress?
- [12:52]
C
Well, especially because, listen to your point, they did not release everything they were supposed to release on Friday. But then even a lot of what they released was so heavily redacted so as to render it useless. I'm thinking about that one document that had 119 pages of just black boxes. What remedy is there for you on House oversight to understand why those redact were there and whether or not they meet the standard that was set forth in the law or whether that was at the discretion of doj?
- [13:23]
A
Well, first they don't meet the standard in the law. Let's be crystal clear about that. The, the redactions are supposed to be specifically to protect directly the names or identifiable information around survivors and victims. That's not what's happening when you redact every single word in a court document. That's ridiculous. I mean, there's no person with their own two eyes that are seeing what's happening and looking at these documents and can agree that those redactions have been done correctly and we should be clear about the release. So this big release that the DOJ just did over two days, we think close to half those documents were already in the public record. So that argument, I mean those were already disclosed. And then what was actually produced, the new documents, we got very little new information. And then what, what else was presented was highly redacted. So we got actual, no real new information from this. And so what we have right now is a DOJ that thinks clearly that the American people are not smart enough to figure this out themselves and who want to play games with the Congress. We're on to what they're doing. The American public is onto what they're doing. We're not going to stop until we get every single file and we hold these powerful men. We don't care who they know, what connections they have, who they're friends with or how much money they have or their political party. We are going to ensure that justice comes for every single one of them and that these women get the peace that they deserve.
- [14:49]
C
Well, Congressman, just real quick, I know you've been working in concert with these survivors and there are a number of them who are extremely upset about the fact that survivors names have ended up being released in some of these files. They managed to redact 119 pages back to back, but they can't seem to redact every survivor survivor's name that was in there, particularly ones whose names were not already public. I wonder if you have personally heard from any of those survivors and if there are additional steps that can be taken to make sure that the DOJ is working as hard to protect them as they are to protect whomever else they are protecting with those 119 pages of redactions.
- [15:26]
A
Yeah. Our team has been in touch with all the survivor groups and representatives. In fact, I think we were speaking to a bunch of them just yesterday, more today. I personally talked to a couple survivors today. They're very upset at the way the DOJ is handling this, the transcripts. And they were very upset about the way that the all of the law is now not being applied and that all the files are not being released. I mean, you can see read the public and read the letter from the survivors themselves. They are calling on the DOJ to do the right thing. And as they have stated in that public letter that was put out and in other interviews that you're seeing online, the survivors just want the DOJ to do the right thing and to bring justice. That's the same thing that we're asking for as well is let's release his files. And the one person has the power to do this is the president of the United States and he should do so today.
- [16:20]
C
All right, Congressman Robert Garcia, thank you so much for making time with us on what I know has been a busy day for you. If these files do get released between now and 9pm Eastern when I finally get off the air, I'm going to ask you to swing on back. Eddie, you are staying with us for the hour when we return with news that the Trump administration is pursuing more oil tankers in the Caribbean. There are growing questions about exactly what Donald Trump is doing about Venezuela. We're going to get to that next. Plus, 60 Minutes abruptly pulling a segment about deportation notorious Secot prison in El Salvador where the Trump administration is sending migrants. The correspondent on that 60 Minutes report calling that decision political. How CBS News and its right leaning leadership are responding. And later, the Trump Justice Department hoping to revive its prosecutions of those who tried to hold Donald Trump accountable. What the DOJ is doing now to try to punish James Comey and Letitia James. DEADLINE White HOUSE continues after a quick break. Stay with us. What made you confident that you could do something that hadn't been done before? I have no fear of failure. Trailblazing women, changing the game. One of my favorite pieces of advice, think about what your boss's boss needs. Leadership can look in many, many different forms. It really does come down to just trusting yourself. Life is short and you just gotta think big to accomplish big things. Julia Boorstin HOSTS CNBC Changemakers and Power Players New episodes every Tuesday.
- [17:46]
D
Wherever you get your podcasts.
- [17:50]
C
Whatever this is really about drugs or oil or regime change or all of the above. There's one thing upon which most observers of the United States actions against Venezuela can agree, and it's that the situation is escalating almost day by day. As we speak, the US Coast Guard is pursuing a third oil tanker in the waters off Venezuela's coast. The New York Times reports, quote, the tanker, called the Belek 1, was en route to pick up oil in Venezuela and was not carrying cargo. That's according to one of the officials and ship tracking data, and fled northeast into the Atlantic Ocean. The tanker has been under US Sanctions since last year for transporting Iranian oil, which federal authorities say is sold to finance terrorism. When US Forces approached the Bella One late on Saturday, it was not flying a valid national flag, the official said, making it a stateless vessel liable to be boarded at sea under international law. That ongoing pursuit began shortly after U.S. forces seized a separate vessel this weekend, one that was not under any sanctions. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem released this video of the moment that oil tanker was boarded. But again, beyond questions of legality, which seemed to vary by incident, there's no question what all this represents. Swelling hostilities from the United States directed squarely at Venezuela and its president, Nicolas Maduro. Where this trajectory ultimately leads is still an open question, but there is no doubt it represents a betrayal to voters who elected Donald Trump with expressed intent of avoiding armed conflict. Let's bring in former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall. He is a senior fellow at the center for American Progress, plus former deputy national security Adviser to President Obama. MSNL contributor Ben Rhodes is here. Also with us, Princeton University professor and MSNL political analyst Eddie Glaud. Frank Kendall, your appraisal of the situation and where it might be headed?
- [19:43]
E
Well, it's very hard to tell at this point, Alicia. As you said, we are escalating what we're doing. Seizure of the tankers was a major step. The drug interdiction I've heard apparently still continues. Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair that this was about regime change. We should take her at a word about that, I think. But how that would be accomplished, I think is still a mystery. And what use of American force would be involved in that. I think the American people ought to hear from the president about what his intentions really are here. And he ought to hear, he ought to explain it to the Congress so the Congress can do its role in overseeing what the president does. This, as far as any kind of.
- [20:22]
C
Military operation is concerned, still a mystery indeed. Ben Rhodes, I want you to take a listen to What Senator Rand Paul had to say this weekend on abc, I consider it a provocation and a prelude to war. And I hope we don't go to war with Venezuela.
- [20:38]
A
Look, at any point in time, there.
- [20:40]
C
Are 20, 30 governments around the world that we don't like that are either socialist or communist or have human rights violations. We could really literally go through a couple dozen. But it isn't the job of the American soldier to be the policeman of the world. So I'm not for confiscating these liners. I'm not for blowing up these boats of unarmed people that are suspected of being drug dealers. I'm not for any of this. And neither was Donald Trump. Donald Trump was against the Iraq war, against the regime change there. He, you know, at the time understood that the weapons of mass destruction was a ruse, and it turned out to not be true. And so now his administration is calling fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction. Ben Rhodes a provocation, a prelude to war. Is he right?
- [21:26]
F
Yeah, I mean, he's clearly right. I mean, we're already in some kind of new conflict, right? We are blowing boats out of the water in the Caribbean. We're seizing oil tankers. We've deployed a massive amount of US Military force to the Western Hemisphere, including taking it away from other places. And look, what they're doing is they're using legal justifications that have nothing to do with the actual intent of their policy. The intent of their policy is regime change in Venezuela. Susie Wiles did say that in that Vanny Fair interview. President Trump has kind of indicated as much in some of his true social posts. But what they do is they say they're blowing up the boats because of drugs, or they say they're seizing the tankers because of some sanctions violation related to Iran. Sometimes they don't even have a legal justification. And that's what I think is so disorienting about all that's going on. Trump has not laid out to the American people what his policy is. He's not gotten authorization from Congress. There's not a clear legal basis for a lot of what he's doing. They're using these kind of novel legal arguments to post facto justify essentially ratcheting up the escalatory ladder with Venezuela and past blowing up boats or seizing tankers. We could be looking at cyber attacks against Venezuela. We could be looking at US Special Forces or covert operations inside of Venezuela all the way to the potential for land strikes in Venezuela or the deployment of ground forces. We just don't know where this ends. All we know is it's escalated.
- [22:47]
C
I'm going to layer on to Ben Rhodes. Excellent analysis there. The other piece that is disorienting is this is not politically popular. It's not politically popular among Democrats. It's not politically popular among Republicans. And you finally, as has been the case with a series of issues in the past few weeks and months, see a bipartisan coalition forming finally of Republicans who are willing to say, this is not what we support and this is not what our base voted for.
- [23:11]
B
I mean, for a moment we see it and then we don't see it. I mean, think about all of the hay, political hay, that was happening around Hegseth for a moment there. The double tap. What happened? Where is Wicker now with regards to that? Were war crimes committed? Was there extrajudicial killings? Are we hearing anything about that? And let's be clear. We have big powerful people covering up for powerful people with regards to vulnerable raped young women. Now we have an imperial presidency acting in a way he's always trying to cosplay. Teddy Roosevelt trying to in so many ways implement 19th century, early 20th century policies vis a vis Latin America. We know what the national security strategy laid bare, laid out. What is the U.S. s role in Latin America? Alicia, how are we to talk about Brazil? What are we to say about Chile? How are we to talk about Bolivia? What are we to say about Cuba? How are we to think about the ways in which we've talked about regime change, the ways in which we've enacted that policy and what has resulted? People disappeared because of the brutal regimes that came into place because of American military power and corporate interest? I know that sounds a bit much, but it's the truth. And so what is Trump up to? Of course he's up to regime change. And what is he up to? Declaring that our land was taken with regards to ExxonMobil and the like and the others? I mean, look, we have to ask ourselves some serious questions about what Donald Trump is doing on behalf of the American people.
- [24:41]
C
Yes, I think that is critical. And I think we have to listen, Frank, for who is standing with him and who is standing against him. You know, we played Rand Paul earlier. Let's take a listen to Senator Lindsey Graham. The question and then the answer. President Trump promised to get America, as you know, out of foreign wars, not start new ones. Would he be going against that promise if he did in fact go to war with Venezuela? Absolutely not. If you're an American and you want Maduro to stay in power, man have you lost your way? President Trump promised to secure our nation from the scourge of narco drug trafficking. The kingpin in our backyard is Maduro and Venezuela.
- [25:24]
F
They're poisoning America.
- [25:26]
C
They're bad news. They did seize our assets in 1976. They are flooding our country with cocaine. They're aligned with international terrorist organizations. I support the idea of standing up to Maduro, and I want him to go. All right, Frank Kentle. I'm not a drug flow expert, but my understanding is those drugs from Venezuela largely headed to Europe, that the cocaine that is coming into the United States is not coming from Venezuela. I mean, they're just sort of two troops. Truths and a lie there, which has the reference to 76, is basically all that he is factually standing on. What did you make of that answer?
- [26:07]
E
No, I think that's very disingenuous. Senator Graham, there's a history here that I think your viewers should be aware of. During the first administration, there was a lot of animosity towards Venezuela and the Maduro regime. There was a history going back to Chavez and then to Maduro of nationalizing oil investments in Venezuela. And there's unfinished business for the Trump administration here, just as there was unfinished business when he went into Iraq in 2003 or 4. There is a history here, and I think that really should be exposed to people. This is not something that came out of nowhere. And I think that is one of the motivators for this administration we all should be conscious of.
- [26:51]
C
I'm just so struck. I'm not sure. Ben Rhodes, if you were watching our program earlier and the reporting that we did on the president's latest moves out of Greenland, naming a special envoy, what he's doing in Venezuela, I mean, the imperialism is just being laid bare. Like, he no longer needs to admire Vladimir Putin from afar. He can simply remake himself in Vladimir Putin's image. When you put it all together, it starts to become clear, I would argue, what he intends to do with his remaining time in office.
- [27:27]
F
Alicia, I could not agree with you more. And it's such an important point, because if you look at this administration, Frank, is correct, that there's unfinished business with Maduro on behalf of oil companies and on behalf of kind of the ideological agenda, to ask Maduro. But more profoundly, everything that Trump has said since he was reelected, what they say their national security strategy makes plain, he wants to essentially be the de facto emperor of the Western Hemisphere. He wants to be able to pick and choose who the leaders of countries are. That's why we did a $40 billion bailout for Milei in Argentina. That's why we got involved in the election in Honduras. And then if you look across the hemisphere, it could start in Venezuela. We could get back to taking the Panama Canal back. We could go back to trying to get our hands on Greenland. We could go into Cuba or anywhere else if he doesn't like the leader. We are really back in the era of gunboat diplomacy here where the United States has free reign to do what we want in this hemisphere. We pick in Trump's instance, kind of right wing autocratic leaders like his favorite Naya Bukele in El Salvador, like Mile in Argentina. And we take the resources, we take the oil from Venezuela, we take the critical minerals from other places. That is what is happening. And people need to understand this, that this is not about narco trafficking. Lindsey Graham. That's ridiculous. That Maduro is the kingpin in this hemisphere. The fentanyl is not coming from Venezuela. Americans need to know this. This is about power, control and wealth in this hemisphere, having a sphere of influence that we control in this hemisphere. Kind of the same way that Vladimir Putin thinks about the former Soviet Union. And so Venezuela should not be seen as even the end of something. It's the beginning of an effort that could ultimately lead all the way to Greenland.
- [29:07]
C
Here, to say nothing of the president naming a new class of warships after himself. Secretary Frank Kendall, who is gracious enough to allow me to call him Frank. Thank you, Ben Rhodes. Thank, as always, Eddie, you are sticking with me. When we return, one of the most respected names in broadcast news is facing accusations of being forced to capitulate to Donald Trump. That story after a short break. In what one network veteran is calling a political decision, the new editor in chief of CBS News, Bari Weiss, pulled a 60 minute segment on the conditions inside a notoriously cruel prison where the Trump administration has sent hundreds of deportees. Just hours before it was scheduled to air, the segment was on the El Salvadorian prison Cecot, which has become synonymous with human rights abuses. In a statement, CBS News wrote the 60 Minutes report on Inside Seekot will air in a future broadcast. We determined it needed additional reporting. It is a claim that the correspondent who reported the story, Sharon Alfonsi, pushed back on an email to her fellow correspondents. The Wall Street Journal reports that she wrote what she learned Saturday that new CBS News editor and chief Bari Weiss, quote, spiked our story and she told colleagues, quote, our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. It is factually correct. If the standard for airing a story became the government agreeing to be interviewed, she wrote, the network would cede editorial control. We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state. In a statement, CBS News editor in Chief Barry Weiss said in part, holding stories that aren't ready for whatever reason, that they lack sufficient context, say, or that that they are missing critical voices. Happens every day in every newsroom. I look forward to airing this important piece when it's ready. The New York Times Michael Greenbaum reports that one of the critical voices Weiss suggested including was White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump's immigration crackdown. Let's bring in media correspondent for the New York Times Michael Greenbaum and former DHS official and White House advisor, founder of America's Promise and senior fellow at Forward us Andrea Flores is here. Eddie is still with me. All right, Michael, in your experience, is it typical for a story like this to be pulled on a program like 60 Minutes?
- [31:31]
G
No, it's extraordinarily rare. In fact, I spoke with veteran 60 Minutes producers who couldn't recall something like it happening in the last 20 years. In fact, Sharon Alfonsi, the correspondent evoked the famous, famous case that was in the movie the Insider, Jeffrey Wigan, the tobacco whistleblower when CBS yanked that segment under corporate pressure back in the 1990s. So this has really set off a firestorm within the CBS newsroom.
- [32:00]
C
You posted some brand new reporting on social media about the mood at CBS right now, quote. At a somber 60 minute staff meeting today, Scott Pelley and others expressed frustration at Bari Weiss's handling of last night's canceled segment and management style. It's not a part time job job, Peli said, referring to Weiss missing screening of the segments per sources. Your sense, was her position there weakened by this incident?
- [32:25]
G
Well, there's been tensions. Bari Weiss has no experience in the broadcast space and of course rose to fame as a anti woke opinion journalist. She did start and found the Free Press, the news and opinion site and she's come in with a mission to change CP CBS News, which has been the third ranked broadcast network for quite some time. But there's a real clash between the old guard CBS journalists and a new boss who in some ways made her name by criticizing the ways of the old line mass media. And we've seen a lot of these tensions playing out. It feels like what has happened over the 24 hours has really broken out, these fissures that were under the surface. And Bari Weiss maintains that the segment was not ready to for prime time, essentially that it needed more reporting, that she thought that it did not advance the story of the Venezuelan men who were deported to this prison. The view from 60 Minutes is that that is not a legitimate criticism that Bari Weiss came in with less than 48 hours before the segment was to air and demanded a lot of changes and essentially de facto was able to keep it off the air at the last minute. So there's still a lot of turmoil in there right now that we're reporting on.
- [33:41]
C
Andrea, part of this is clearly about freedom of the press and the press as a check on the US Government. But it's also about these men who've been deported to Seekot prison. And earlier this month you had Frontline air documentary containing interviews with some of the men who the Trump administration deported to Seekot. Let's take a look and talk on the other side. Being beaten by officers, sometimes even the prison director. Rather kill yourself or die than have to live the way that these men were forced to live at the hands of the United States government because it was our government that chose to send them to Seekot. I am not sure that that requires the context of an interview with Stephen Miller. What do you think?
- [35:15]
D
I think this was a confusing decision because this administration is in court most every month now. As you know, Judge Boasberg and other judges are unpacking what happened in this incident. We know that the administration entered a highly suspicious deal to Pay to use US tax dollars to pay for over 200 fathers, sons and brothers to be imprisoned and to be tortured. You do not send anyone to a place like Sika and pretend that you do not know they will be tortured there. And that's what we're hearing all of the time from really important reports, whether it was a Frontline documentary or the New York Times. So while there may have been intent to hide this story, there's no way to protect the administration from what they did. This is one of the most indefensible things this administration has done when it came not just to immigration, but when it came to testing their foreign policy powers, their constitutional powers on due process. And I want to remind people this story is also connected. And this may lead to some of why you want to hide it to the Venezuelan boat strikes that are happening because advisors like Stephen Miller are still trying to justify that Venezuelans should be massive expelled from this country. So this isn't an isolated incident that we're learning about. It's still in some ways happening, and it's critical that we hear what happened to these men who were persecuted based on their nationality by our government.
- [36:37]
C
Andrea Flores, Michael Grinbaum, thank you both so much for joining us today and talking us through this important story. When we return, what the Justice Department is doing to carry out Donald Trump's calls for retribution against those who tried to hold him accountable. We have that story after a short break.
- [36:55]
A
Start your day with the MSNow Daily Newsletter. Each morning, read sharp insights from the voices you trust. Catch standout moments from your favorite shows.
- [37:04]
C
The second Trump administration has gone to.
- [37:07]
G
Unprecedented lengths to radically transform America.
- [37:10]
A
Stay up to speed on our latest podcasts and MSNow events and get fresh perspective perspectives from experts shaping the news. It's everything you love about Ms. Now delivered to your inbox. Sign up at Ms. Now.
- [37:30]
C
Donald Trump's relentless, increasingly desperate retribution campaign continues today with an appeal by his Justice Department, the November orders that dismissed its cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The DOJ is also appealing the disqualification of the lead prosecutor in those cases, the insurance lawyer and former White House advisor Lindsey Halligan, who a judge ruled was unlawfully appointed as acting U.S. attorney. The White House had almost immediately promised to make such an appeal back in November. But despite controversy and factual challenges plaguing these cases since the beginning, the DOJ instead attempted to and failed to re indict AG James not once, but twice. I want to bring in voting rights attorney and founder of democracy docket Mark Elias. He is no stranger to Trump's retribution campaign, has been targeted multiple times by this administration. Eddie is back with us. All right, Mark, your reaction to this appeal and a DOJ clearly set on retribution.
- [38:32]
H
I mean, you're right, this is a Department of justice set on retribution. This is also an incompetently run Department of Justice, which may be the only thing that winds up saving democracy. The fact is that this entire scandalous affair of these political persecutions and prosecutions and indictments, you know, these, these have failed. These have failed because they, they didn't have a properly constituted U.S. attorney. They failed because they couldn't get competent people to be in the grand jury. They failed because, let's not forget, Donald Trump actually posted to the public, public what was clearly intended to be a private directive to Pam Bondi to go after these political opponents. So this is them continuing to perpetuate these, this effort to go after these folks. They know they're going to lose. I mean, everyone needs to be clear. They're going to lose on appeal. They're going to lose all the way up the chain. They're doing this for the same reason that after 2020, when I was representing President Biden, they filed all those lawsuits, which is they want to set up up a grievance structure. They want to be able to say they were, they were done in by a deep state judiciary or a liberal judge or whatever it is. So they have to go through this theater. At the end, it's going to be just that theater. But I promise you, at the end, they will also say that they were, they were treated unfairly.
- [39:51]
C
Right. Which is interesting, Eddie, given that they are now so on the record about what it is that they were doing. You've, I think, earlier referenced the Susie Wiles interview in Vanity Fair. This is what she has to say about her conversations with Trump. In some cases, it may look like retribution and there may be an element of that from time to time and that the case against A.G. james, quote, might be the one, retribution. And now we are just watching it all play out.
- [40:15]
B
Absolutely. You have 90 days to engage in your retribution campaign. And what he's doing with Letitia James is obviously retribution. And let's be clear, this is an example of the overreach of Executive Powell. Mark has been doing yeoman's work in trying to challenge the imperial presidency on steroids, which we're experiencing right now. But there's a through line here. Powerful men trying to protect powerful men, imperial presidency trying to engage in 19th century, 20th century imperialism, shrinking of the fourth estate to hold accountable men with power. And here you have Donald Trump engaged in the overreach of executive power. But think about it. Of course, it's Letitia James and James comey. But Congresswoman McIver, she's still in the crosshairs.
- [40:58]
H
Right.
- [40:58]
B
The judge in Wisconsin still.
- [41:01]
A
Right.
- [41:01]
B
Indicted, convicted. So this man is still using the doj, still using the justice system. And these political entities are still using the justice for their own political aims and ends.
- [41:11]
C
Mark, I want to show you what Deputy AG Todd Blanche told NBC's Kristen Welker just yesterday about Halligan's predecessor. Career prosecutor Eric Siebert was fired after refusing to prosecute these cases. Is the Justice Department taking directions about who to prosecute from President Trump?
- [41:31]
A
Trump?
- [41:34]
B
No, of course we're not. And also, Mr. Siebert wasn't fired because he refused to bring cases. He resigned. Okay.
- [41:43]
C
Okay, Mark, after Siebert stepped down, this is what Trump posted just so that we have the paper record here. He didn't quit. I fired him. How then do you Trust what DOJ says, Mark.
- [41:57]
H
I don't, I mean, you know, they, these are just liars and they lie with impunity. They lie so often they can't even keep their lies straight. And so why anyone would believe Todd Blanch or the rest of them, you know, is beyond me. The fact is, as Eddie said, this has been a retribution campaign that is not just Tish James and James Comey. And I'm glad He mentioned Congresswoman MacGyver, because I think, I think in some respects, that's where it began. And in many respects, that case is the one to watch. But the fact is that this Department of Justice will lie about everything and anything that they have to in order to accomplish what Donald Trump wants him to accomplish.
- [42:37]
C
Let me ask you then, about something that is potentially more, more material, Mark, which is Todd Blanche told Kristen Welker that Halligan is, quote, still doing a great job as our U.S. attorney. That's despite the ruling that she's unlawfully serving. Where do you go from here? I mean, that's the thing. The courts keep holding the line, and then the administration seems to say, well, we don't care what the courts say.
- [43:01]
H
There's literally no part of what he said that's true. Number one, she's not doing a great job. Okay, like, let's, let's just like, acknowledge that regardless of the fact that she's not currently the U.S. attorney or the Acting U.S. attorney, she did a terrible job. Right. She did something that no one else was willing to do at the, and then like, screwed it up. So she's not doing a great job, number one. But number two, she's not the U.S. attorney. Like, that has been the decision and the ruling of a court. That has been the decision and the, the, the position of the judges in that courthouse. And, you know, for the career prosecutors in that office who keep showing up in, in the courtrooms and the judges are asking, why is Lindsey Halligan on the papers? You know, you're running out of excuses. You know, the first couple of times you get to say, I don't know, or we were, that's what we were told do. But at some time, at some point, these line prosecutors need to step up and do the right thing. When you're working for someone like Pam Bondi and this guy, this joker that we just saw, ask yourself about the life choices you're made.
- [44:00]
C
You couldn't even let her be doing a good job at a job she doesn't have. Marc Elias, Eddie Glaud, thank you both. So much for being with us. And if you just can't get enough of Marc Elias, and I know there are a lot of you out there who cannot his insight on everything from voting rights to the rule of law, well, you are in luck. He is Nicole's guest on this week's episode of the Best People. You can listen to their conversation by scanning the QR code on your screen or downloading the Best People wherever you get your podcasts. You can also watch the full interview on YouTube by scanning the QR code up on your screen right now or head over to msnow. Thebestpeople. We're gonna sneak in. Quick break. We'll be right back. The Trump administration, some might say no stranger to redactions, is escalating the pressure on the Smithsonian to submit documents in their content review or essentially a purge of what Donald Trump has called improper ideology. In a letter sent last week, OMB Director Russ Vogt and Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley write, quote, we wish to be assured that none of the leadership of the Smithsonian museums is confused about the fact that the United States has been among the forces for good in the history of the world. The Smithsonian appears to be pushing back. The Washington Post obtained an email from the Smithsonian secretary asserting all content, programming and curatorial decisions are made by the Smithsonian. Vogt's letter also threatens funding for the museum if they fail to comply by the new deadline of January 13th. Gonna stay on that. Another quick break for us. We'll be right thank you for spending part of this Monday with us. We are so grateful.
- [45:41]
A
Ms. Now presents season two of the Blueprint, hosted by Jen Psaki. In each episode, she talks to leading Democrats about how they plan to win again, including Texas Congressman Greg Cassar, who chairs the Progressive Caucus Congresswoman Sarah McBride of Delaware, the first openly trans person elected to Congress and more who are.
- [46:01]
B
Healthy, helping to shape the future of the party.
- [46:04]
A
The Blueprint with Jen Psaki Season 2.
- [46:07]
B
All episodes available now.