"Ahead of a crucial vote to advance Blanche’s nomination"

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Ahead of a crucial vote to advance Blanche’s nomination"

Podcast: Deadline: White House
Host: Nicolle Wallace
Date: July 29, 2026

---

Overview

This episode, hosted by Nicolle Wallace, zeroes in on the high-stakes political drama surrounding the upcoming Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Todd Blanche's nomination for Attorney General. It also examines the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to politicize key institutions, the erosion of legal norms at the Department of Justice, the weaponization of intelligence and mail ballot disputes, and the hollowing out of the intelligence community. Joining the analysis are John Heilemann, Ken Delaney, Mark Elias, Michael Feinberg, and Laura Barron-Lopez.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Todd Blanche Nomination: Bipartisan Distrust (00:29–06:39)

• Background: Todd Blanche, Trump's pick for Attorney General, is under bipartisan scrutiny for past actions as head of the DOJ, especially targeting Trump’s adversaries and attempts to suppress negative press.
• Key Issue: Blanche is accused of using DOJ powers to subpoena New York Times reporters in what appears to have been an effort to retaliate for negative reporting about the security of Trump’s new Air Force One aircraft from Qatar.
• Democratic Concerns: Committee Democrats want access to records and demand explanations about the subpoenas, citing violations of both DOJ policy and democratic norms.
• Republican Doubt: GOP Senators Thom Tillis and John Cornyn remain non-committal, demanding written confirmation that a controversial “slush fund”—alleged to potentially reward January 6th perpetrators—will be explicitly ended.
  • Quote:
    "They know what they need to do. They just don't want to do it." – Sen. Cornyn (05:07, relayed by Ken Delaney)

2. Erosion of Trust in DOJ: The "Presumption of Regularity" (06:39–08:45)

• ProPublica Reporting: Judges across political appointments now frequently question whether DOJ representations can be trusted, undermining the “presumption of regularity” that government officials act in good faith.
  • Quote:
    "Judges have expressed frustration that they can no longer take the government at its word." – John Heilemann (03:52)

3. The Subpoena Scandal: Overstepping Legal Norms (07:16–11:46)

• Press Freedom, Civil Liberties, and Procedures: Michael Feinberg points out that subpoenas of reporters must be a last resort, per DOJ and FBI policy—not a first option as appeared here. She highlights the lack of exhausted alternatives and political motivation to go after journalists, rather than a genuine national security concern.
  • Quote:
    "From an investigator's point of view in the FBI, you are required before seeking records from a reporter to have exhausted all other investigative means... It's impossible to believe that other techniques were tried." – Michael Feinberg (08:45)

4. The White House’s Culture of Lies and Political Weaponization (11:46–14:29)

• Analysis: Both Mark Elias and John Heilemann stress that all Trump administration crises start with lies, including this controversy, and note Todd Blanche’s role in constructing “safeguards” that don’t exist. They question whether Senate Republicans have the courage to take a principled stand.

5. The Threat to Election Administration: Mail Ballots and DOJ Complicity (24:51–29:07)

• Breaking Legal News: Mark Elias discusses an appeals court win for Trump in blocking some mail ballots—a rare temporary legal victory. He emphasizes that DOJ arguments around “ripeness” are an attempt to stall court interventions until Trump’s orders are acted upon.

  • Quote:
    "Todd Blanche of the Department of Justice is gonna do what Donald Trump's told him to do. So this idea that they’re gonna hide behind ripeness... is part of an effort by the Department of Justice to impose willful blindness on the courts." – Mark Elias (26:20)

• Future Concerns: Ken Delaney warns that Trump has now staffed DOJ and related agencies with loyalists likely to follow orders on election interference, unlike officials who threatened to resign in 2020.

6. Intimidation, Firings, and the Intelligence Community Purge (31:11–35:42)

• Intelligence Community Gutted: With Bill Pulte, a Trump housing appointee, acting DNI, nearly one-third of intelligence staff are fired, and sensitive documents declassified with suspicious timing.
• Weaponized Intelligence: Laura Barron-Lopez details reporting on a suspicious document alleging Chinese interference in the 2020 election. Former officials are alarmed by the document's lack of analytic rigor, suggesting it was created to support Trump’s public claims.
  • Quote:
    "This is just like somebody got told make me a document alleging Chinese interference in the 2020 election, pulled up Microsoft Word and started writing short fiction." – Michael Feinberg (36:44)

7. Confirmation Hearings and Disqualifications (39:37–44:07)

• Jay Clayton’s Confirmation: Trump’s DNI nominee, Jay Clayton, refuses to confirm who won the 2020 election in hearings.
  • Quote:
    "If Jay Clayton can’t do that [tell Trump he's wrong] with respect to who won the 2020 election, why do we think he's going to do it when lives are on the line?" – Michael Feinberg (41:00)
• Implication for National Security: Former intelligence leaders call Clayton "disqualifying," fearing adversaries will sense US intelligence weakness.

8. Mitch McConnell’s Health and Pressure to Resign (44:07–45:44)

• **Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear calls on Senator McConnell to show he’s fit to serve or resign, given his long absence since a June 14 fall.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On DOJ’s credibility crisis:
  "It's sort of an insulting. It's one thing when Todd Blanche insults the media. It's another when he insults members of the Senate... But what he says there is the same thing that he's asked. You want to ask them who their sources were? That goes to the heart of the First Amendment. No, I want to ask them who provided them with classified national security information which everybody in this body should want to protect." – John Heilemann and Nicolle Wallace quoting Blanche (07:26–07:45)

• On manipulated intelligence:
  "If this document was actually prepared by a career intelligence official in the normal course of his or her duties, I will happily boil the shoes I am currently wearing and eat them during the 5 o' clock hour of any show of your choosing." – Michael Feinberg (36:44)

• On Republican complicity:
  "The tragedy right now is that good people know the bad things are already happening... They have just made a deal. They have made a deal to go along with it." – Mark Elias (23:20)

• On institutional rot:
  "These aren't even the actions of a lawyer. These are the actions of a mob boss's bagman." – Nicolle Wallace (16:54)

---

Important Timestamps

| Segment Topic | Timestamp | |------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| | GOP & Dem responses to Blanche nomination | 03:00–05:40 | | ProPublica reporting on DOJ trust erosion | 06:39–08:45 | | Feinberg on subpoena process violations | 08:45–11:46 | | Analysis: Trump’s culture of lies, political targeting | 12:52–14:29 | | Appeals court backs Trump, DOJ election interventions | 24:51–29:07 | | Intelligence purge, politicized documents | 31:11–36:44 | | Jay Clayton hearing & reactions | 39:37–44:07 | | Mitch McConnell health: Beshear’s challenge | 44:07–45:44 |

---

Tone & Style

The conversation is urgent, sharp, and at times openly critical—reflecting deep concern about the health of US democratic institutions. There is frequently caustic commentary, especially concerning the motivations of Trump loyalists and Republican senators who are seen as enabling the administration’s norm-breaking.

---

Conclusion

This episode illustrates the unprecedented erosion of institutional trust and the weaponization of both legal and intelligence agencies during Trump’s second term. It details the bipartisan anxiety around Todd Blanche’s nomination, the manipulation of the DOJ and intelligence, and the ongoing struggle to uphold legal and democratic norms. The panelists warn that unless officials act, further degradation of core governmental functions is all but certain.

---

For listeners wanting an in-depth political analysis of the current justice and intelligence landscape, this episode provides a comprehensive, unsparing look at how institutional guardrails are under direct and sustained assault.

Transcript

[Nicole Wallace]

This isn't the end of a fight. It's the start of one. Lioness, the critically acclaimed original series from Taylor Sheridan, returns August 2nd only on Paramount. In the new season, hidden networks, foreign operatives and personal betrayals collide while Joe walks the line between duty and family. Don't miss Lioness, starring Zoe Saldana, Michael Kelly. With Morgan Freeman and Nicole Kidman. Streaming August 2nd only on Paramount.

[John Heilemann]

Watch Disclosure Day at home now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you, would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg, from a screenplay by David Koepp, starring Emily Blunt, Josh o', Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson and Colman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required. Also in theaters. Hi there, everyone. It's four o'clock in the east. So what if doing all the things that makes you Donald Trump's best candidate ever for attorney general means that you never actually get confirmed as attorney general? It's not a riddle. It's being Todd Blanche. All of the ways that Todd Blanche has bastardized the rule of law to whitewash Trump's criminal history, push career prosecutors to their ethical and moral breaking points, and use the Department of Justice to zealously target Donald Trump's perceived political enemies for prosecution, investigation and plain old harassment just might. It might be coming back to haunt him. Two days ahead of a crucial vote scheduled to advance Todd Blanche's nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats on that committee are demanding answers and records on the subpoenas that were sent to New York Times reporters, subpoenas that were so problematic that Todd Blanch's Justice Department was actually forced to retreat and withdraw them. The Democrats write this to Blanche, quote, the administration's attempt to identify confidential press sources in connection with embarrassing public reports regarding the lack of security capabilities of Donald Trump's new Air Force One aircraft gifted from the country of Qatar, appears to be retaliation ordered by Donald Trump himself. The government's conduct involved a series of apparent bad faith efforts to conceal notice of these subpoenas and intimidate journalists and their families following the publication of a story that allegedly enraged President Trump. This conduct appears to have violated the department's own policy set forth in the Justice Manual. Two Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are also holding firm for now on their commitment to not advance to advance Todd Blanche's nomination for AG until their demands are met. And Todd Blanche can't afford to lose either of their votes. Here's what Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Republican Senator John Cornyn told reporters from this network earlier today.

[Nicole Wallace]

Were you on Todd Blanche? We're still waiting on getting the changes

[Ken Delaney]

that are necessary in 1776 and audit.

[Mark Elias]

It has to be in writing and signed by Todd Blanche. Do you need to see that by Thursday in order to be able to vote him out? Yes. And can we.

[Nicole Wallace]

So right now he should not be

[Mark Elias]

counting on your vote unless that is done?

[Ken Delaney]

That's correct.

[Nicole Wallace]

They've been kind of radio silent for

[John Heilemann]

the last 24 hours.

[Nicole Wallace]

So would you.

[Mark Elias]

I think my staff is talking to

[Nicole Wallace]

him, but we're not.

[Mark Elias]

They know what they need to do.

[Nicole Wallace]

They just don't want to do it. This vote is coming up very quickly.

[Mark Elias]

Would you rec that be postponed if

[Nicole Wallace]

it's going this way? That's being discussed. That's being discussed, but hopefully it won't be necessary.

[John Heilemann]

So far, neither senator has been willing to take Todd Blanche at his word. Essentially, they don't trust him when he says that Trump slush fund is dead. And that crisis of credibility extends just beyond Todd Blanche and other leaders. ProPublica is out with extensive new reporting that reviews hundreds of cases where judges have said they don't trust DOJ or DOJ lawyers either. From that reporting, quote, from Washington, D.C. to Rhode island to Oregon, federal judges nominated by presidents from both parties, including Donald Trump, have zeroed in on what's called the presumption of regularity. It essentially means that judges must presume that the government did their jobs according to the rules and in good faith. And from the hundreds of cases they reviewed, they found, quote, more than 40 in which judges explicitly reference the presumption of regularity. In many cases, judges have expressed frustration that they can no longer take the government at its word. Todd Blanche's stewardship of DOJ coming under increased bipartisan scrutiny is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. Former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI, national security and intelligence analyst Michael Feinberg is here. He's also a fellow at Lawfare. Also joining us, voting rights attorney and founder of Democracy Docket, Mark Elias is back and Ms. Now justice and intelligence reporter Ken Delaney is here. Ken, what do you know about what Cornyn referenced there as sort of not back channel, but staff to staff level communications? And the possibility of postponing Thursday's committee vote on Todd Blanche?

[Ken Delaney]

Yeah, that's under active discussion, Nicole. It was so interesting to hear Cornyn say they know what they need to do. They Just don't want to do it. Well, who doesn't want to do it? Does Todd Blanche really care whether he, he says in writing that the slush fund is going away or is it really more Donald Trump? Because as Cornyn brilliantly elicited during Todd Blanche's hearing, you know, using his skills as a former prosecutor and cross examining Todd Blanche. This is a written settlement with Donald Trump. And there's nothing in the settlement that says that the slush fund goes away unless there is an amendment to the settlement. Unless Todd Blanche put something in writing. Him just saying it doesn't make it so. They could bring it back at any time. And that's what Cornyn is concerned about and Thom Tillis is concerned about. They find this just completely offensive, the idea that there was going to be a fund that could possibly reward people who assaulted police officers on January 6th. And they are not going away on this. Even as Democrats ask these hard questions, as you pointed out, about, about the subpoenas of New York Times reporters, Democrats not likely to get answers, but Cornyn and Antilles have the leverage.

[John Heilemann]

What's so interesting, Michael Feinberg, is that a single one of these would be a confirmation halting scandal in and of itself. Right? To find out that Donald Trump ordered Todd Blanche to order subpoenas into five New York Times journalists to put them before a grand jury to out their sources and also involve their families, the mother of one and the spouses of two. Here's Todd Blanche just owning what in a normal moment, in a normal time, in a normal future moment is a scandal.

[Nicole Wallace]

The Department of Justice requires that I authorize it, which I did. And those reporters were not targeting reporters. They're material witnesses. Just like a reporter would be a

[Ken Delaney]

material witness to a car crash.

[Nicole Wallace]

They witnesses. And so. And the question you want to ask them is who were their sources? That goes to the heart of the First Amendment.

[Ken Delaney]

No, the question we want to ask

[Nicole Wallace]

them is who provided them with classified national security information which everybody in this

[Ken Delaney]

body should want to protect?

[Nicole Wallace]

I would hope

[John Heilemann]

Michael Feinberg there is. And it's sort of an insulting. It's one thing when Todd Blanche insults the media. It's another when he insults members of the Senate. That will determine whether or not he's confirmed. But what he says there is the same thing that he's asked. You want to ask them who their sources were? That goes to the heart of the First Amendment. No, I want to ask them who provided them with classified national security information which everybody in this body should want to protect. I would hope. This is a line that I think wouldn't have been crossed without sort of roadblock coverage in another moment. And we'll do our best to lift it up for the scandal that it is. But it did elicit, even in these abnormal times, an extraordinary result. Todd Blanche withdrew those subpoenas, and for now, they are dead.

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, in every way you can possibly imagine. These particular subpoenas were in violation of policy, precedent and tradition. From an investigator's point of view in the FBI, you are required before seeking records from a reporter to have exhausted all other investigative means you might have of getting the same information. And in the timeline that we've seen in this case where Cash Patel is whisked back to the White House as he's about to leave town, told to personally take charge of this investigation, and the subpoenas are issued within 24 hours or so, it's impossible to believe that other techniques were tried at all, let alone that all other possible techniques were tried before going to these subpoenas. And the Justice Department itself supports the policy of using the least intrusive means in an investigation and prosecution whenever possible. Just as a general matter of respecting citizens privacy and civil liberties. If you are jumping directly to search warrants and trying to get records of communications, you're by definition not using the least intrusive means. There are a lot of other things you could do if all they are concerned about is who might have leaked classified information. Get a list of everybody in the White House who had access to that information and go after their records first. That's how it's always been done, because we recognize that there is a value in having an unfettered free press that is allowed to do its job. Now, look, there are times that I do think the press oversteps its side of the deal. There was a case many years ago during the Bush administration, I think, or during the Obama administration, where the New York Times ran the true name of some CIA officers and it did nothing to serve the story. I don't have a problem with when you've endangered an American's life trying to get to the bottom of it. But the only reason this story is being investigated is because it embarrassed Trump. We're not giving away weapons systems, war plans. This is solely because there is egg on the White House's face. And I can think of many more instances under this administration where political appointees gave up classified information in some cases by adding journalists to signal chats inadvertently, and the administration did absolutely nothing so to pretend that it's following any sort of normal procedure here. It's not.

[John Heilemann]

Yeah. I mean, Marco Lias My recollection of this story was that Donald Trump in a press conference announced that he was sending the Qatari gifted Air Force One on a tour by itself to visit troops without him on it. So he tells this lie and the reporters who were there start asking questions, why is he sending the Qatari gifted Air Force One to visit troops without him on it? Like every Trump scandal, if you, if you just like, you don't even scratch, it's not even scratching the surface. If you just touch the screen starts with a big bold Trump lie. And Miles Taylor has made my favorite point on this whole story. The truth didn't just get out to the press. The truth of the leak into the truth getting out to the press got out immediately that Kash Patel had squatted at the White House for eight hours to spearhead a leak investigation was out within hours of the original reporting about the security concerns about the Qatari gifted Air Force One.

[Mark Elias]

Yeah, I mean, I think the point you made is the most important one. Everything with Donald Trump begins with a lie. It then proceeds to lies, and then it ends with a lie. And so, you know, anyone who starts with the proposition that what Donald Trump and this White House are telling them about anything of consequence is making a huge mistake, whether it is this airplane and you know, what, why it was that they had to shift up how he was traveling, whether it is what methods they use to investigate, down to what standards they are going to use to investigate. I mean, you know, one of the things that Todd Blanch has done repeatedly over and over again is to suggest that there are safeguards in place that in fact are not in place. We see with our own eyes that what we are witnessing are political decisions by a Department of justice targeting their political opponents. And Donald and you know, Todd Blanche will deny that, but it's just not true. And so the question I have for Senator Cornyn, the question I have for Senator Attilis, and I don't mean to take the under on the do Republicans in the Senate have basic courage and decency? Because I got to tell you, if you bet on the under, you're usually the winner. But I just think like, in the end, will the two of them actually cast a hard vote or will they, as they always do, as Republicans always find a way to will they find a permission structure out of that and just allow this nomination to go forward?

[John Heilemann]

Kendall, anyone to weigh in on that?

[Ken Delaney]

That is the million dollar question. Although you know, Cornyn and Tillis have really nothing to lose, except maybe there are some unpleasant conversations in their country clubs back home. So why wouldn't they at least hold up for this, for this principle? You know, I was struck, actually, Nicole, by reading, reading the column by George Will in the Washington Post, who, when I started paying attention to politics, probably when you did, was the embodiment of the conservative establishment, you know, headline against Todd Blanche. And he made the case for why Todd Blanche should not be confirmed, even though Bill Barr, as he pointed out, said that, look, basically this is the best we can do. And, and Will was saying that's not the reason to confirm him, because he is responsible for all of these horrors that we have seen at the Justice Department over the last year and a half. All the investigations of Donald Trump's political opponents, all of the missteps in court, the erosion of the presumption of regularity, that all falls on him. He has presided over that, and now he faces a moment of truth. And if the Republican senators can't send a message about this, what can they send a message about?

[John Heilemann]

Yeah, I mean, I think this is what I want to spend the rest of my time with you guys talking about. I mean, the other thing that used to be a roadblock coverage scandal is if you pissed off judges, especially conservative judges, especially conservative judges appointed by conservative presidents, especially even in this bizarre, upside down world, conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents named Donald Trump, that is exactly what they've done. Let me read this reporting from ProPublica. Until Trump's second term, which has seen an exodus of veteran DOJ lawyers, this foundational tenet, the presumption of regularity, had rarely been discussed in federal courtrooms, former judges, lawyers and scholars say. But as Trump's DOJ exhibits behavior that judges have called unlawful, unethical, unseemly, and otherwise dishonest, adherence to that bedrock standard is now being questioned. Judges simply don't believe the representations that are being made by United states attorneys, assistant U.S. attorneys, and the like. That's John Jones, a former federal judge for the District of Pennsylvania. There's also an unprecedented level of threats of violence against judges. The general counsel at DHS was threatening a judge in California yesterday, Michael Feinberg.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah, I'll confess, as we've been talking about this over the past days and weeks now, I think we've made a fundamental category error in viewing Todd Blanche's actions over the past year and a half through the sort of lens of Justice Department norms and politics. Because at the end of the day he's not acting as an employee of doj, he's not acting as the attorney general. I would argue even further, he's not acting as Donald Trump's personal lawyer. What he's fundamentally acting as is a roving fixer who just happens to use the legal system as the arena in which he gets things done for his patron. The spurious prosecutions brought, the shady settlements reached, the individuals who have been driven out of employment, the civilians who have been killed by federal agents, whose families get no recourse or answers ever. These are not the actions of an attorney. I don't use the analogy I'm about to state lightly, but these aren't even the actions of a lawyer. These are the actions of a mob boss's bagman. This is somebody who will use whatever tools are at his disposal to accomplish whatever his boss wants. And it's for that reason that I would hope Cornyn Nintellis might not be willing to give him the full arsenal that the Justice Department represents. Because once he has that, there's no indication that he's going to back down or slow his pace. If anything, recent history shows us that he's gonna ramp it up.

[John Heilemann]

Yeah. And I mean, I think Trump's pattern over 10 years is once he's humiliated a former prosecutor like John Cornyn, he's laughing all the way to the rest of the abuses he plans on using Todd Blanche to carry out. I mean, that is the pattern. He likes the people that oppose him and then ultimately cave. And even more than the ones who just cave in advance, there's more on the threat to the rule of law that this current leadership represents. There's also some breaking threat to election news that we want to get the panel to weigh in on. We'll do that on the other side of break. Also ahead for us on his way out the door, Donald Trump's housing guy who has been running our nation's intelligence agencies, has announced another round of purges, firing nearly one third of the agency's intelligence staff. We'll look at what is left of this vital government agency. Also ahead, exclusive new reporting about one of the documents Donald Trump used to peddle his 2020 election lies live in prime time earlier this month. Former intelligence officials are demanding answers about where that document came from and when it was created. And later in the broadcast, new signs that show American are placing the blame for their economic struggles squarely on Donald Trump as Trump continues to dismiss those very real concerns. We'll get to all those stories and much more When Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[Nicole Wallace]

This isn't the end of a fight. It's the start of one. Lioness, the critically acclaimed original series from Taylor Sheridan, returns August 2nd only on Paramount. In the new season, hidden networks, foreign operatives and personal betrayals collide while Joe walks the line between duty and family. Don't miss Lioness. Starring Zoe Saldana, Michael Kelly. With Morgan Freeman and Nicole Kidman. Streaming August 2nd only on Paramount.

[John Heilemann]

Watch Disclosure Day at home now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you, would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Koepp. Starring Emily Blunt, Josh o', Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson and Colman Domingo. Find Disclosure day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required. Also in theaters.

[Sponsor/Ad Voice]

The days are longer, the calendar is filling up, and I want to feel as good as this beautiful summer weather. That's why I've been loving groons. It's one daily pack of gummies that covers my greens, vitamins, minerals and even has 6 grams of prebiotic fiber so I don't need to juggle a complicated wellness routine on top of everything else. They taste amazing. They're easy to toss in my bag on the go. Plus they're vegan, gluten free and HSA FSA eligible for reimbursement. Save up to 52% off with code podcastruns co. That's Code Podcastruns co.

[Nicole Wallace]

I think that the challenge you have is you don't know who to fear. People have been fired for simply doing their job. They just didn't like the job that they had done under the previous administration or the cases they had been assigned under the previous administration. You can be fired for saying no to something that somebody has asked you to do. You can be fired for speaking up and saying this isn't legal. A court injunction has said you can't do this. And so where does that come from?

[John Heilemann]

We don't know.

[Nicole Wallace]

Sometimes you get an email and it's from the White House. Sometimes you get an email and it's from the deputy attorney general. Sometimes you get an email, it's from the attorney general.

[John Heilemann]

We're back with Michael Feinberg, Mark Elias and Ken Delaney. And I mean Mark Elias. What strikes me, listening to Peter Carr, who Ken Delaney has described as just a long, long, long, like a fixture of the Department of Justice through Democratic and Republican presidencies and administrations is that the truth will come out. It'll come spilling out slowly at first, in sort of careful, cautious, fearful drips and drabs, but ultimately, it'll all get sort of puked out like a dam breaking. And everybody will know, everybody will know what they voted for if they vote to confirm Todd Blanche.

[Mark Elias]

Look, they know right now, I mean, this is the tragedy of this time, is not that bad things are happening and good people are not doing them. The tragedy right now is that good people know the bad things are already happening. Like, in other words, we don't need to wait for Todd Blanche to be confirmed for there to then be another scandal. The scandals have already taken place. We know about some of them. We don't know about others. The whistleblowers may not have all come forward, but we basically know the tale that they will tell. This is a corrupt administration from start to finish, from top to bottom. It begins with Donald Trump. It flows through his family. It then goes to his Cabinet, his hangers on and his sycophants. And the Department of Justice is no different. Which is the reason why, you know, like I said, count me as the skeptic and the cynic. Because the truth is, every one of the Republicans in the United States Senate, whether they have won their primaries or lost their primaries, whether they're up for election or not up for elections, they know who this guy is. And they have just made a deal. They have made a deal to go along with it. And so that is the reality. They've made a deal to go along with it. The large law firms have made a deal to go along with it. Too many of the corporate leaders have made a deal to go along with it. And then periodically they feign, you know, surprise, like, my God, Todd Blanche won't sign this document. Oh, give me a break.

[John Heilemann]

It's so weak. I want to ask you, while we have you, about the breaking news of an appeals court backing Trump's effort to block some mail ballots. This is another story where they've thrown spaghetti at the wall. They've largely been met with legal defeats. This feels Mark Elias, like a rare legal, even if it's temporary victory. Is that right?

[Mark Elias]

Yeah. So this is actually a case in the D.C. circuit I know a lot about. I actually represent the Democratic Party in this case. So full disclosure, this case and the case that's in the Supreme Court basically share two common legal questions. The first is, is Donald Trump's executive order trying to take over voting, particularly mail in voting? Is that constitutional, illegal or not. And I think the answer to that is clearly it is not. Which is the reason why in both cases, what the Department of Justice is arguing, you know what, it's not ripe yet. You know, like, we don't know yet that the Department of Homeland Security is going to do the thing that Donald Trump has told them to do. We don't know the Postal Service will abide by the orders they've gotten from Donald Trump. Perhaps there will be, you know, government officials in the Cabinet who won't follow the orders of Donald Trump. So this is a big moment for the judiciary because, you know, we just talked about the feigning of ignorance that is going on in the political process. We know that Mark Wayne Mullen is going to do exactly what Donald Trump

[Nicole Wallace]

tells him to do.

[Mark Elias]

And we know that, unfortunately, the Postal Service is gonna do what Donald Trump told him to do. And Todd Blanche of the Department of Justice is gonna do what Donald Trump's told him to do. So this idea that they're gonna hide behind ripeness and say, look, Mark Elias claim on behalf of the Democratic Party, it's too soon. We don't know that anyone will go along with Trump's scheme and the arguments made against these ags, it's too soon. We don't know that the states will be injured. This is part of a effort by the Department of Justice to impose willful blindness on the courts. Let's hope that the Supreme Court doesn't go along with it. But I can promise them this. If they do, like the D.C. circuit just did, the moment that there is a concrete step forward, a more concrete step forward, there will be new litigation and we will win then on the merits, which is what the Trump administration is trying to propose, prevent the courts from reaching.

[John Heilemann]

I mean, Kandelanean. So much of it feels like a rehash of the stinging 0 or 1 for 65 record that Trump had in his election litigation in 2020. And that sort of dramatic telling from the January 6th select committee of the efforts, the sort of 11th hour efforts and the violence inside the Oval Office to seize voting machines and use the Pentagon, it all feels like a redo of what he tried in 2020.

[Ken Delaney]

Yes, but with one huge and dramatic difference that we've talked about before, Nicole, which is that he's installed people that will say yes this time. Back then, he didn't have that. He had a whole group of Justice Department leaders who threatened to resign rather than issue a letter saying there was fraud in the election. They wouldn't do it. Now, this crowd will absolutely do it. There's I talk to people every day inside the DOJ and the FBI and former officials talking to their friends. There is huge concern right now about what will happen in the midterms. What will they do? Obviously, for example, there's a federal law that says that armed federal agents cannot be in polling places. Michael has talked about this. But that law doesn't apply in exigent circumstances. For example, if there was a terrorist attack, a bombing at a polling place, the FBI could go and respond to that. Well, how thoroughly will they stretch that existent circumstances exemption to do something really disturbing at election time? And there's just a million scenarios up and down the government at the FBI, at the Department of Homeland Security, at other places where people are very, very concerned. And to your other point and Mark's point, there are people inside the government who are essentially resisting, trying to resist this. And they're writing things down and they're keeping records. And you're right, the truth will come out. But the question is, can they stop really bad things from happening in the election?

[Nicole Wallace]

Nicole,

[John Heilemann]

as you said earlier, the $64 million question mark. Elias Kendallanean, thank you so much for starting us off. Michael Feinberg sticks around a little bit longer after the break. Former intelligence officials are demanding answers today about a document that was reportedly used by Donald Trump to help prop up his phony primetime election claims. We'll bring you that new reporting next.

[Sponsor/Ad Voice]

The days are longer, the calendar is filling up, and I want to feel as good as this beautiful summer weather. That's why I've been loving Groons. It's one daily pack of gummies that covers my greens, vitamins, minerals and even has 6 grams of prebiotic fiber. So I don't need to juggle a complicated wellness routine on top of everything else. They taste amazing. They're easy to toss in my bag on the go. Plus they're vegan, Gluten Free and HSA FSA eligible reimbursement save up to 52% off with code Podcastruns co. That's Code Podcastruns co. You know, recommendations can be great.

[Ken Delaney]

Maybe someone recommended this podcast and here you are. But home projects are different. If a podcast isn't your thing, you lose a few minutes. If you hire your cousin's neighbor to mount your tv, you might end up with a lopsided screen and wall damage. Maybe I know a guy.

[Nicole Wallace]

Just isn't enough for your home. That's why thumbtack works. It matches you with top rated local pros with photos, reviews and credentials all in one place.

[Ken Delaney]

For your next home project, try thumbtack Hire the Right Pro Today

[John Heilemann]

at dsw,

[Nicole Wallace]

we ask the important questions like what shoes are you going to wear?

[John Heilemann]

Whether you're prepping for wedding season, festival season, or just planning the ultimate vacay, the right shoes can make or break in rs.

[Nicole Wallace]

So own the moment. You've got big plans and we've got

[John Heilemann]

just the shoes at the perfect price, of course.

[Nicole Wallace]

Get ready to get ready with Designer Shoe Warehouse.

[John Heilemann]

Head to your DSW store or dsw.com

[Nicole Wallace]

today and let us surprise you.

[John Heilemann]

With just hours left in his tenure, the acting Director of National Intelligence, also our country's housing person, Bill Pulte, was working overtime not to save America from threats, but to hollow out the office, all in service of Donald Trump's agenda of politicizing our intelligence community. Earlier today, ahead of this evening's confirmation vote for Donald Trump's nominee for the permanent dni, Jay Clayton, who wouldn't say that Joe Biden won in 2020. Bill Pulte, the temporary guy, posted this on social media, quote, good news in addition to the historic declassification, transparency, with an exclamation point is in parentheses by the President. We are this morning executing a fifth and near final round of all caps terminations and approximately 30% inexplicably capitalized staff, inexplicably capitalized reduction from inexplicably capitalized weeks and similarly capitalized ago. It's not only the hollowing out of our intelligence community that is raising alarm bells. Those declassifications Bill Pulte alludes to have caused veterans of the intelligence community to urge Congress to investigate what they say is a suspicious document. It's one that happens to coincide with Donald Trump's conspiracy theories being broadcast in prime time about the 2020 election defeat. MSNOW's Laura Baron Lopez and David Rhode report this quote Former officials warned that the document appears to be raw intelligence, all supporting a single view, alleging that China wanted Trump to lose the 2020 election and sought to influence the outcome without including the full scope, context or any definitive conclusion from the agency's information. The Trump administration, the official said, should answer whether the document was drafted in response to a narrowly tailored request from someone within the administration, noting that to do so with the purpose of supporting Trump's accusations about the security of America's elections would be a clear politicization of the country's intelligence community. Let's bring in MSNBCow White House reporter Laura Barron Lopez, who's by Land on that reporting. Michael Feinberg is still here. Laura, take us through what you and David are reporting.

[Laura Barron-Lopez]

Thanks, Nicole. So basically we talked to a number of former intelligence officials, including the city State, which is a group of former national security and intelligence officials. But we, and I also spoke to one Democratic lawmaker who has national security oversight. And all of them said that this document seems off, it doesn't look right to them. And it was the one document out of the 58 that they pinpointed that were declassified by the president about two weeks ago now when he gave that primetime speech. And this document is, as you read in our reporting, it is about allegations of China attempting to influence the 2020 election against President Trump. And it has this single view and it's just looks like raw intelligence and bits and pieces of this intel. It has no context, it doesn't have a full scope, it doesn't have any definitive conclusion. And so these former intelligence officials told us that it doesn't look like any typical or normal product that would usually be drafted and written by the analysis house of the CIA, by an actual CIA analyst. And so they want answers. They're asking who wrote it? What is the date on this document? When was it created? Because again, that's redacted, there's no authorship. And yet a similar CIA note that was released also at the same time during President, during President Trump's speech that was about alleged Venezuelan influence does have a specific author. It's very clearly from the CIA's Directorate of Analysis. It also has far more context, it has contradictions in it. And so they said that this document doesn't look like one typically crafted by an analyst and they want to know who created it. And this national security lawmaker, a senior one, told me that they're sending a list to the CIA and they expect to get some answers on what exactly who wrote this and when it was written, because they are concerned that this was written specifically for the President's speech.

[John Heilemann]

Michael Feinberg, none other than John Solomon, right wing MAGA media fixture, currently special government employee, stood on the lawn of the White House and said no votes were flipped, no foreign adversary. The intelligence doesn't show that any foreign adversary flipped any votes. So this is above the line of what even John Solomon, one of the President's most devoted election deniers and sort of muckraking journalists in this space, admitted on the drive of the White House. But the back end work to arrive at that, what Laura's reporting suggests is may have created, may include creating a document I'll read this line quote. If it was created recently, the official argued it raises questions about why it was produced and by whom in the Trump administration. This is just next level. I don't even know if meddling is the appropriate way to describe it. Your thoughts?

[Nicole Wallace]

I will be a little less circumspect than Laura and simply note that if this document was actually prepared by a career intelligence official in the normal course of his or her duties, I will happily boil the shoes I am currently wearing and eat them during the 5 o' clock hour of any show of your choosing. Intelligence the intelligence community has a lot of different types of products and they don't all look the exact same. But there are standard templates and there are analytic tradecraft standards they are supposed to abide by, which are actually put in place and enforced, ironically by odni. And this document in question doesn't have any of that. It is incredibly rare, if not non existent, for a product to state factual conclusions but not provide any supporting analysis about how those conclusions were reached or what the likely probability of them being true is. You don't have that. You don't have competing hypotheses as you normally would. You don't have alternative explanations. You don't have footnotes, even redacted that say what the primary source reporting relied upon. This is just like somebody got told make me a document alleging Chinese interference in the 2020 election pulled up Microsoft Word and started writing short fiction. The intelligence community alumni with whom I talk all the time are unanimous in their belief that this document was cooked up in order to support a political narrative. It looks like nothing any of us would have drafted during our entire careers.

[John Heilemann]

Yeah, and there's a pattern, I think. Ten years of Donald Trump asking for phony things to be created. It's a footnote in volume two of the Mueller report that Donald Trump wanted Don McGahn to create a phony statement denying a true story. So Donald Trump has a long, documented, investigated record of calling for phony documents to be created when he wants them. And he certainly has the people in place who seem willing to do that. We'll talk about that on the other side of a short break. No one's going anywhere. Stay with us.

[Mark Elias]

It's a simple question, Mr. Clayton, and I've answered. Who won the 2020 presidential election?

[Nicole Wallace]

I've answered it.

[Mark Elias]

You're here asking for the support of senators to lead America's intelligence community. We've established that you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with this committee and with the American public. But you refuse to answer a simple matter of fact about the 2020 election. Is that right?

[Nicole Wallace]

No, that's not right.

[Mark Elias]

Then answer the question. Who won the 2020 election?

[John Heilemann]

I have answered the question.

[Mark Elias]

Answer it. What is your answer?

[Nicole Wallace]

I've given you my answer.

[Mark Elias]

What is your answer?

[John Heilemann]

That's Jay Clayton, whose full Senate confirmation vote is scheduled for later today. We're back with Laura Baron Lopez and Michael Feinberg. Michael Feinberg, former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, including for Donald Trump, Sue Gordon, described that 40 seconds of Jay Clayton's political life as, quote, disqualifying. Not because he looks like a stooge and a weak person, but because our adversaries took note of how little power, influence, and courage he actually has. What does that mean? When the top intelligence official for America is neither feared nor respected by our allies or our adversaries?

[Nicole Wallace]

Plainly speaking, it means they're going to assume they can push the envelope with respect to collection and operations against the United States because their assumption is going to be that the people who would otherwise be minding the store are more consumed by having to project fealty to their current leaders. Watching that clip, I felt embarrassed. On behalf of Jay Clayton, this is clearly not an idiot. He's worked at one of the most powerful law firms in the country. He's worked at one of the most powerful private equity shops in the country. He's not a dumb guy, but he was willing to look like one solely for the purpose of not offending Donald Trump. And it's important to note presidents don't need intelligence officials when the President's instincts and plans are correct. They need intelligence officials to tell them that when they're wrong and to explain why they're. And if Jay Clayton can't do that, with respect to a basic fact of recent historical vintage, who won the 2020 election, why do we think he's all of a sudden going to have the courage to do it when lives are on the line and American interests are at stake?

[John Heilemann]

Laura, most people who say they're voting for Jay Clayton seem to, at least publicly and privately, say he's better than Bill Pulte. Is there any more ringing endorsement that you're picking up in your reporting?

[Laura Barron-Lopez]

More ringing and not necessarily of Clayton. I think that, again, they think that he may be more measured given his history that Michael just laid out. Given Clayton's history and his prior respect, including respect of Democrats prior to that, that hearing where he was questioned and couldn't answer who won the 2020 election, I think that they're hopeful that once he's in the job that maybe he would hold more of a line than Bill Pulte, despite the fact that that hearing didn't reassure them or make them feel good. And he lost Democratic support because of that hearing. But I think that what you heard there and what you see across this administration is that the red, the litmus test, the red line for President Trump is that you have to be someone who is willing to ignore the truth when it comes to the 2020 election and to not state fact when it comes to the 2020 election. And so I think that Clayton, as well as Bill Pulte, we're going to continue to hear from veterans of the Intelligence Committee saying that they are incredibly concerned about that Intelligence Committee intelligence community being used for political gain for the president.

[John Heilemann]

I can't believe they don't just hang it on Trump's quote, right? He said to Sarah Matthews, quote, I can't believe I lost to this effing guy. I mean, Trump knows he lost. He, he told his aides that. Laura Baron Lopez, amazing reporting. Thank you for joining us to talk about it. Michael Feinberg, thank you for spending the hour with us. Next, speak up or resign. That's the demand from the governor of Kentucky to ailing Senator Mitch McConnell. We'll bring you that reporting next. Kentucky's Governor Andy Beshear is calling on his state's Republican Senator Mitch McConnell to prove he has the capacity to serve or to resign. McConnell was hospitalized back on June 14 nearly six weeks ago after a fall at his home. According to his office. He has not been seen in public since then. The Kentucky governor called him McConnell today to publicly show he's able to hold his job. Watch.

[Ken Delaney]

I hope his health is improving, but if he can have a 17 minutes conversation with his protege, he can call into any of your news stations for three. All we're asking is just a little bit of proof. And I get that everybody wants a certain level of privacy, but when you run for these jobs, you know, you're given some of that up. All we're asking is what anybody who watches your news, if they were out six weeks, they'd be expected to call their boss, that's the people of Kentucky, and explain what's going on and when they'll get back to work.

[John Heilemann]

Beshear also asked that McConnell's GOP colleagues in the Senate investigate if the Sen cannot prove he should stay in the seat. After the break, a closer look at why Republican enthusiasm among their core voters is below the basement. The next hour of deadline white house starts after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Watch disclosure day at home now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you, would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David koepp, starring Emily blunt, Josh o', Connor, Colin Firth, Eve hewson, and colman domingo. Find disclosure day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required. Also in theaters.