← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“All gas and no brakes”
00:41:24
Nicolle Wallace covers the breaking news that the U.S. has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. This is the latest in a series of U.S. military involvement in the region, including highly contested boat strikes in the Caribbean.
Loading summary
Transcript132 lines
- [00:00]
Rachel Maddow
Ever spend $200 on a fragrance only.
- [00:03]
Dan Maurer
To realize you hate it?
- [00:04]
Rachel Maddow
Micro Perfumes fixes that. Now you can try luxury scents without the luxury price. Pick from real designer fragrances like Gucci, Chanel and Versace.
- [00:13]
Mary McCord
It's the real deal.
- [00:14]
Rachel Maddow
Authentic scents starting at just a few bucks. They come in sleek travel sprays, ship.
- [00:18]
Mary McCord
Fast and there's no subscription required. Why gamble on a full bottle?
- [00:22]
Rachel Maddow
Go to microperfumes.com podcast for up to 60% off. That's microperfumes.com podcast for up to 60%.
- [00:30]
Mary McCord
Off home to the Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, the Briefing with Jen Psaki, and more. Voices you know and trust. Ms. NOW is your source for news, opinion and the world. Learn more at Ms. Now.
- [00:52]
Rachel Maddow
Hi there everyone. It's now four o'clock in New York. There is brand new explosive reporting today on how the Pentagon is now struggling to deal with surviv of their boat strikes in the Caribbean, a practice which is already under intense scrutiny because of the September 2nd strikes that killed two survivors. From that new reporting in the New York Times, based on interviews with multiple officials, quote, Pentagon officials largely kept State Department counterparts in the dark about strike operations, then scrambled to try to enlist diplomats to help deal with survivors, whom military officials referred to by specific terms that included, quote, unquote, distressed mariners. That phrase is usually used in a peacetime and civilian context. The talks took place after the first attack on September 2, when the US military killed two survivors with a second strike. The New York Times reports that Pentagon lawyers made an extraordinary suggestion regarding the two survivors from an October strike. Quote, they asked whether the two survivors could be put into a notorious prison in El Salvador to which the Trump administration had sent hundreds of Venezuelan deportees, three officials said. The State Department lawyers were stunned, one official said, and rejected the idea that brand new reporting underscores just how important any investigative effort by Congress would be. It's the kind of alarming new reporting and detail about these strikes in the Caribbean that has had lawmakers across the political spectrum clamoring for answers and accountability. Here's what members of Donald Trump's own political party have been saying in the wake of news reporting about that second strike. I think what we have heard shocked us all.
- [02:40]
Mary McCord
And.
- [02:43]
I think most would.
- [02:44]
Rachel Maddow
Say that when you have two individuals that are literally floating in the water.
- [02:50]
Mary McCord
A second order to kill them all is not something that we would consider within.
- [02:58]
The rules of war.
- [02:59]
Jacob Soboroff
Obviously, if that occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that that would be an illegal act that is not the legal opinion or the information or the legal justification. The acts that have been described to Congress that are being undertaken.
- [03:17]
In this. There are very serious concerns in Congress about the attacks on the so called drug boats down in the Caribbean and the Pacific. And the legal justification has been provided.
- [03:30]
Paul Rykoff
Secretary Hicks has said he had no knowledge of this and it did not happen. It was fake news, it didn't happen.
- [03:36]
Mary McCord
And then the next day from the podium with the White House are saying it did happen.
- [03:41]
Paul Rykoff
So either he was lying to us on Sunday or he's incompetent and didn't know it had happened.
- [03:48]
Rachel Maddow
That wasn't the Republican Party line nine years ago and things were less weird and more normal or four years ago when we had a different president, a different party. That was the Republican Party line 10 days ago. But now the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, is reversing course, pretending none of that happened, and saying this about his committee's investigation into the boat strikes, quote, it's done. I've got all the answers. I need it. End quote. Rogers new position comes about despite the fact that the Trump administration has yet to publicly release a legal justification or the written orders for the strike or the mission. All those things were due to Congress months ago. Or even the video of the second strike on September 2, in which survivors of the first strike who were shipwrecked were killed. His backtracking also comes about despite the fact that US Action in the region is very much ongoing. Donald Trump in the last hour announced himself that the United States of America has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela.
- [04:55]
Mary McCord
We've just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela.
- [05:01]
Jacob Soboroff
Large tanker, very large.
- [05:04]
Mary McCord
Largest one ever seized, actually. And other things are happening. So you'll be seeing that later, and you'll be talking about that later with some other people.
- [05:16]
Rachel Maddow
America has just seized the, quote, largest tanker ever seized. And according to Donald Trump, other things are happening as well. Joining our coverage, retired U.S. army Lt. Col. Dan Maurer. He served as an active duty officer and as a judge advocate. He is currently a professor of law at Ohio Northern University. With me at the table, host of the Independent Americans podcast, the founder and CEO of Independent Veterans of America, Paul Reikoff is back with us.
- [05:44]
Let me start with you, Paul.
- [05:48]
What do you, what do you make of this moment for the military?
- [05:53]
Paul Rykoff
You and I have talked for months about this. I think the biggest story in the world is that Donald Trump can do anything he wants with the most powerful military the world has ever seen. And nothing is stopping him. That includes now seizing oil tankers. It includes potentially killing survivors. It includes potential black sites. I mean, he is all gas and no brakes right now. And when I spoke to you a couple weeks ago, I said that pieces were in place for a strike on Venezuela. It was just a matter of when. This is a significant escalation today. I mean, oil prices are up. The country, the world is going to wonder if this is why he wants Venezuela for the oil. And our troops are staged all over the region. They're in Puerto rico. We had F18s 20 miles from the Gulf. So it looks like this is happening. And most of the country. This some kind of a strike on Venezuela, an escalation of military action against.
- [06:40]
Rachel Maddow
Venezuela, like troops on the ground.
- [06:42]
Paul Rykoff
He said he would. That's on the table. The pieces are there. If he wants to do that, he can do limited airstrikes, he can do an amphibious assault. He has the entire spectrum at his disposal right now. And he said he will go that far. And I think it's really important to underscore Congress does not support this and hasn't authorized it. Most of the country doesn't support this and isn't behind it. And he's still going full speed. So I think the country needs to ask everybody to put the brakes on here because there is nothing more important than a potential regime change war just in time for Christmas.
- [07:10]
Rachel Maddow
What does it mean, in your view, that after Republicans took, and this is only extraordinary in the context of Trump being president, obviously I worked for a Republican president, and it was commonplace for members of his own party to on a daily basis, attack and criticize and question the conduct of the wars the country was engaged in. And that was, that was healthy. That was good. But in the context of this moment with Donald Trump, it's extraordinary for Republicans to have said what we just played, which was Senator Murkowski, Congress, Congressman Turner, and Senator Rand Paul. What does it mean that Mike Turner is pulling the rug out from under what they said 10 days ago.
- [07:51]
Paul Rykoff
It's, I mean, Mike Rogers, it's cowardly. It's a slap in the face to the American public and it's a slap in the face to our troops, because transparency is absolutely necessary before you send men and women to combat and they're already being put in harm's way. So this, this, this switcheroo they're doing on the tapes. Release the tapes. If there's nothing to hide. Release the tapes. Release all the tapes. Not just for that one strike in question, but for all the strikes, and let's let the American people see, and let's just let our troops see. Let's let our armed forces men and women understand, because there's also Signalgate, where this week Hegseth was found to have violated good protocol. He's using his personal cell phone and using signal to communicate classified information that could have gotten people killed. So the real question is, you already have got troops in harm's way. Now you want to put more in harm's way. How can our troops trust any, any of them on this?
- [08:37]
Rachel Maddow
Dan, it's interesting that this new report in the New York Times has the description of distressed mariners. We've talked a lot over the last two weeks about how this is the example in the textbook of where the line is in the book about the law of war. And it seems that even inside the Trump administration, they use the term distressed mariners. That's a quote from the Trump administration to describe survivors of strikes.
- [09:07]
Dan Maurer
Right. And I think it's important to re emphasize again and again and again that the laws of war don't apply here, frankly, because we're not at war with these cartels, at least not officially, not formally, not in any way that the law understands a war to be happening. So the laws of war, if they applied, if this were truly an international armed conflict or non international armed conflict with cartels, then it would be clearly a war crime, as you said, a textbook war crime. Killing shipwreck survivors, no matter how bad they were, they are called order, combat or out of, out of the fight. But it's not an armed conflict. Therefore, the laws of war don't apply. But that doesn't matter either, because under any law, any legal regime, killing unarmed people, whether they're criminals or not, is a crime. There's no due process. There's no arrest, investigation, trial, prosecution, sentence. It's just an extrajudicial killing. No matter what you call them criminals, distressed mariners, combatants, whatever, it's a crime, period.
- [10:11]
Rachel Maddow
Let me ask you, Dan, what is your sense of how much trouble they knew they were in when you start to piece together the timeline? So the second strike on September 2nd is the video that has been shown to a small handful of lawmakers. But I want to go back and read from this Times story because it, it pulls us through to the end of October, two months later, where they're still struggling to deal with survivors, shipwrecked criminals, as you write in USA Today today. Let me, let me read this. On October 29th, Pentagon officials convened a session about boat strike Survivors, a video conference involving dozens of American diplomats from across the Western Hemisphere. The message was that any rescued survivors should be sent back to their home countries or to a third country, said three other officials who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke anonymously to discuss internal deliberations. Behind that policy was a quieter goal to ensure survivors did not end up in the US Judicial system, where court cases could force the administration to show evidence justifying Trump's military campaign in the region. What is this consciousness of a policy that wouldn't withstand the scrutiny of the US Judicial system? Say to you?
- [11:31]
Dan Maurer
Well, this dancing around and trying to concoct after the fact different.
- [11:39]
Legal frameworks for describing these individuals and for.
- [11:45]
Coming up with different courses of action to deal with them, repatriating them or killing them suggest to me two things. One, it's either pure incompetence because they hadn't planned for the fact that there might be survivors of these missile strikes. What do we do with survivors clinging to the hull of a capsized ship? Any competent military planner would have thought through that and had a plan for dealing with that, other than simply firing another missile at them, because that would have been blatantly unlawful and was blatantly unlawful. The second thing it tells me, and as a former prosecutor, I would call this consciousness of guilt. They know that this would not withstand scrutiny because it simply cannot. There are few cases that I've ever dealt with or ever seen where the illegality is so clear on its face. And to shield the videos from the public, from most members of Congress, to say that for the congressman to say earlier, I've seen enough, I'm satisfied. Well, if you're that confident, then show the tapes to everybody. Be transparent about it. As Paul said, if there's nothing to hide, then don't hide it. Be clear. Disclose the OLC memo that purportedly.
- [13:01]
Sanctions this activity and says service members participating are shielded from criminal liability. Well, okay, if your logic is that sound, if the law is behind you, then provide it. Show us. Demonstrate. Because clearly there's skepticism. Clearly, this is controversial. It's not just the U.S. it's not just Democrats in the U.S. it's the whole world is watching how the Trump administration is handling the aftermath of this strike strikes that they show on TV for the most part.
- [13:32]
Rachel Maddow
What's amazing is that this is not just Republicans who don't approve of what they're seeing. It's not just the UK which has pulled out of this because they don't want to jeopardize their intelligence or Military assets. This is an intra Trump cabinet conversation that's being covered by the New York Times today. And I wonder how, if it's so stark, if the lights are flashing red, how we arrived at the place where Admiral Bradley takes 40 minutes, assesses what has happened after the first strike and launches the second strike.
- [14:12]
Dan Maurer
DAN.
- [14:14]
Right. I'm also confused by that. I would think that a commander of that degree of experience.
- [14:24]
And judgment.
- [14:26]
Would have been able to say, one would have been able to know on its face that a second strike would have been patently unlawful and two would have had the moral courage to say I'm not going to do that. And it defies not only the law, it defies logic and common sense. We're picking up drug boats with the Coast Guard, we're making arrests. We're seizing tons, literally tons of illegal drugs in the Caribbean in the same general area. And as you heard earlier, we've seized the largest tanker ever in the history of seizing tankers. If that's the case, why can't we also seize these little drug boats?
- [15:09]
The math doesn't add up. So I, I don't know how we could have gotten to this point other than to say it's a, it's a cultural problem within the administration. And it, and it doesn't just trickle down, it flows down, it cascades down the chain of command. You have a president who says in an executive order earlier this year that no interpretation of the law is a valid interpretation of the law unless it comes from me, the president or the Attorney General within the executive branch, which means any contrary opinion by, let's say, the DoD general counsel or the legal counsel to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must give way to any contrary opinion or offered by the Attorney General or the president. That signals, well, it has a chilling effect, frankly, down the chain to the lawyers that are in the chain that are advising the commanders at every echelon. It says what we say really isn't going to matter because the president is going to approve it anyway.
- [16:09]
Rachel Maddow
Let me bring into this conversation someone we turn to when we are this far down a legal rabbit hole of a story. Joining our panel, former acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Department of Justice, Mary McCord. I mean, Mary, when you read this New York Times reporting today, which really advances the story to not just an intra party divide around the legality of the strikes in the Caribbean, but an intra Trump Cabinet, intra Trump national security team fight where the State Department says absolutely not, you cannot go dump the and I'LL use their words, quote, distressed mariners into seacot. You have in writing a description of the survivors of the strikes that makes it all the more clear that they knowingly struck what they describe as, quote, distressed mariners.
- [17:10]
Mary McCord
Yeah. And, you know, again, we're jumping to that part, too, which is such an obvious violation of laws of war if they applied. But as your, you know, previous guests, as Dan has explained, we can't lose sight of the fact that these strikes from the very beginning lacked any authority, any lawful authority under domestic law or under international law. And to see. And, you know, we also know Admiral Halsey, Right. Has. Has, you know, put in his resignation, and of course, he briefed some members of Congress yesterday, but we don't have transparency into all of that. So I think we have lots of signs of people within the administration pushing back, and don' forget as well that months and months ago, at the beginning of this administration, once Secretary Hegseth got into office, he promptly fired the top military lawyers and said explicitly that he didn't want any roadblocks. Right. Standing in the way of what the President might want to do. And so I think, you know, it's really important for the American people to understand that they cannot just take the secretary's word for it that we had, you know, lots and lots of intelligence that these were drug cartel runners. For one thing, we don't know if that's true. Secondly, it doesn't matter. It does not give us the authority to kill them. If that's the case that they're drug cartel runners, then we interdict them with the Coast Guard like we have for decades. We bring them back here. If the, if there's probable cause and evidence to support that. We were right about that. We bring them back here to face justice. And Dan's right, the fact that we're not bringing back survivors, but instead repatriating them to their countries of origin shows this has never even been about stopping the drug cartels. Because if that was the case and you actually had the intelligence that the people on those boats were drug runners or cartel members, you wouldn't just send them back to start over again and run more drugs up the United States. You would take them into custody and you would prosecute them. So we're seeing pushback within the administration. We're seeing pushback from at least some members of Congress, and we're seeing just complete inconsistencies between, you know, with the stated rationale for these strikes. And, and this is why it's not okay for some members of Congress to say we're satisfied, we've seen enough. And the last thing I'll add to that is also look at the selective decisions about what to make public and not the administration was all too happy to put out, you know, videos of these strikes on the boats, but now they don't want to put out the video of the second strike where we would be able to see, like you said, stranded mariners clinging to the wreckage for their. That's what they don't want to put out. And they're making noises about maybe it's classified. How can that be classified? But the initial strikes not so there's none. This all smells terrible. And it's why people across party lines are being concerned. It's why people within the administration are being concerned. And it's certainly why our allies overseas have said we're not going to supply information related to this to you anymore because what you're doing with it is unlawful.
- [20:22]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah. I'll show you some of that high level.
- [20:26]
Critique coming from Democratic senators on the other side of a short break. No one goes any. We'll have much more on this story after a short break. Also ahead for us, New York City is bracing for the possibility that some of the harrowing scenes we've seen in cities like Chicago and Los Angeles could transpire here. Our colleague Jacob Sobra spoke to our mayor elects or Mamdani on what his incoming mayoral administration is doing to prepare for that. Plus, Donald Trump says he took three separate cognitive tests. But don't worry, he keeps saying out loud that he's acing all of them, while also claiming that reporting on his health has been, quote, seditious, perhaps even treasonous, end quote. Questions around why he's taking all those tests and what he's saying about them are multiplying today. And a speech billed as tackling a affordability becomes a speech about anything and everything but affordability. Donald Trump ranted and raved and mocked the facts that Americans are struggling to afford the things they need for their families every day. We'll bring you all those stories and much more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [21:36]
What made you confident that you could do something that hadn't been done before? I have no fear of failure.
- [21:42]
Mary McCord
Trailblazing women, changing the game. One of my favorite pieces of advice, think about what your boss's boss needs.
- [21:50]
Rachel Maddow
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.
- [21:58]
Mary McCord
Julia Boorstin hosts, CNBC Changemakers and Power Players. New episodes every Tuesday. Wherever you get your podcasts.
- [22:09]
Rachel Maddow
We'Re tracking this breaking news story that Donald Trump told us about the oil tanker that Donald Trump says the United States has seized off the coast of Venezuela. In the Oval Office, Donald Trump was asked for details about that, and he claimed that it was, quote, seized for a very good reason, end quote, but wouldn't reveal what that very good reason is or was. As for the oil on the tanker, Donald Trump said this, quote, well, we keep it, I guess, end quote.
- [22:38]
I don't even know what my question is, where to begin, what happens next?
- [22:44]
Paul Rykoff
It's either sloppy or incompetent or it's criminal. And I think it's gut check time again for America. And I think there's another important part of this that's happening is Trump is doing what he always does. He's stress testing the entire system. There's only, I think, six days left for Congress to be in session. So if they're going to have a War Powers act vote on Venezuela, that has to happen in the next week, they're going to have a defense bill they have to pass, and he may be ramming Venezuela down their throat. Whether we're going to get questions for someone like Hegseth is also in the mix.
- [23:15]
Rachel Maddow
But what's the predicate for seizing the tanker?
- [23:18]
Paul Rykoff
I don't know. I mean, I never know what his predicate is. I mean, the thing I said to you a few weeks ago is he wants to attack Venezuela. He's made that clear, and he's building a narrative around it sloppily, inconsistently, badly, in a lot of different ways. But the pieces continue to be put in place and the pedal is to the metal. And I think we have to continue to underscore Congress hasn't authorized it. Most of the country is against it. Most of our allies are against it. But F18s were miles off the coast of Venezuela and he could start striking any minute. And the question is, will Congress do anything? Will they stop him? Will they slow him down? Admiral Halsey actually retires on Friday. Will we hear from him in the public now that he's not in uniform anymore? I think he will be a critical voice, but we need total transparency, and it's maybe the biggest test we've seen of the Senate and Congress in years.
- [24:01]
Rachel Maddow
Mary, let me show you what Senator Jackie Rosen said about Pete Hegseth's interest in all of this.
- [24:10]
Mary McCord
This is about respect for our country, respect for the rules, engagement, Respect for our veterans and especially for our active duty military. It's about respect and convention. And we need to be sure that we are doing what we need to do to be sure that America is still that trusted and respected country around the world. Secretary Hegseth doesn't have the character or demeanor. He just likes to. I'm just going to say it this way. He just likes to show pictures of blowing up. I got a bunch of video games. If that's what he wants to do, to do that, that don't put any active duty men or women in harm's way. He wants to blow up and put pictures of it up, God bless him. But don't you dare put anybody in harm's way. For your visual.
- [24:57]
Rachel Maddow
And I guess this is the most important part of the story.
- [25:01]
It's not about why he did or didn't seize the tanker. It's not even about what secret classified memo does or does not in their minds justify the second strike. Killing two people who they, the administration themselves describes as, quote, distressed mariners, which meets the law of war definition of where the line is, where one doesn't strike.
- [25:30]
What about the men and women in the military who for a million different reasons have no voice in these debates? Is it legal? Is there any mechanism to have any oversight over what Donald Trump is doing in the region?
- [25:46]
Mary McCord
Well, I'm glad you focused on those men and women, because it's not Pete Hegseth himself, so far as we know, who's actually the operator who's releasing these missiles that are killing these people and blowing these boats out of the water. It, it are, it is the people underneath him, the people who are in our military who are serving their duty. And this is not what they signed up for. I feel pretty confident that this is not what they expected that they would be doing when they entered the military at whatever rank they're in. And I think not only do these kind of operations which cause the rest of the world to lose some respect for our military and feel distrust, trust, distrustful of our military, not only could that have reverberations other places where our military are operating and are relying on sort of the goodwill of the people who live there to, you know, work together with them and not essentially attack them, it not only could have that kind of, like, possibility of physical harm, but there's also the possibility of exposure to liability. Now, I know the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice apparently has some, some legal memo out there that purports to make this all lawful, but that is not necessarily a, you know, complete abdication, any responsibility, particularly for things that are blatantly illegal. So, you know, there's a lot that you can do to, when you are a government employee or a member of the military, to rely on a legal opinion from the Department of Justice. And for good reason.
- [27:19]
Paul Rykoff
Right.
- [27:19]
Mary McCord
People ought to be able to rely on that when they take official actions to insulate them from some culpability. But when what you see is so blatantly illegal, like the idea of killing people who are clearly in distress, who are hanging onto the side of wrecking wreckage in a boat, that, that undermines this notion that you can just rely on a legal opinion. And so this whole series of events is putting our military in jeopardy also when it comes to their own potential liability for, for these killings, these really murders, in my opinion. And, and, you know, it's also, it damages military civilian relations here at home. It impacts their families, you know, military families who live throughout the United States and elsewhere, kids that go right, the, the, the public here and abroad is, is absorbing everything that they're seeing, and that really impacts all of these families ability to feel like they're parts of the community and not be ostracized. And so the impacts are really enormous. And, and beyond, I mean, central here is we are killing people without any due process and people who are not, we are not in an armed conflict, conflict with. But the reverberations go well beyond that.
- [28:35]
Rachel Maddow
Dan, you get the last word.
- [28:38]
Dan Maurer
100% agree with Mary. As a former service member, 22 years combat veteran, I needed to be sure, I needed to be confident that what I was being asked to do, being told to do by lawful order, was, in fact, lawful. We need to instill that kind of confidence in our service members when they are asked to do incredibly dangerous things, putting their own lives in harm's way. And, you know, when they're not confident, morale sinks, esprit de corps sinks. I mean, no pun intended, given the context. But just having, for example, let's say Congress does authorize the use of military force against Venezuela, that still doesn't make it legal overall because it still violate international law. And they have to be confident that what they're doing is not just yes because Congress says we can or yes because the president says we can, but it's yes because international law says we can, too, and it's the morally correct thing to do.
- [29:36]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah. Lieutenant Colonel Dan Maurer, Paul Rykoff, Mary McCord, thank you so much for starting us off on this today. Up next for us. Our colleague Jacob Sobroff will be here. He has an exclusive interview today with New York City Mayor Alex or Mamdani on standing up to the Trump administration and its agenda of mass deportations.
- [30:02]
Dan Maurer
The US Military deployed on the streets of America, whole communities targeted for removal.
- [30:08]
Mary McCord
There was tremendous anxiety as they saw neighbors and friends being taken.
- [30:13]
Dan Maurer
And when accountability finally came knocking, the burn order to cover it all up.
- [30:19]
Mary McCord
I never believed that America would be doing this.
- [30:22]
Dan Maurer
A stain on this country, one that we said we would never repeat.
- [30:26]
Paul Rykoff
Rachel Maddow presents Burn Order. Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [30:34]
Rachel Maddow
Feels like it was about 12 hours ago when I sat at this table and watched along with colleagues and friends stunned as Donald Trump seemed to fall madly in love with New York's mayor. Alex or on Mamdani on live TV before our eyes, covering for him with reporters, going from calling him a communist and saying his election was not good for anybody to I'll show you this.
- [30:59]
Jacob Soboroff
I think you're going to have, hopefully a really great mayor.
- [31:02]
Mary McCord
The better he does, the happier I am.
- [31:04]
Jacob Soboroff
You've threatened to send federal troops to New York City. You both have differences with when it.
- [31:09]
Mayor-elect Eric Adams
Comes to ICE agents in New York City.
- [31:12]
Jacob Soboroff
Mr. Mamdani, you've called ICE a rogue government entity.
- [31:15]
Paul Rykoff
I wonder how you reconcile your differences on both of those issues.
- [31:19]
Mary McCord
Well, I think we're going to work them out.
- [31:23]
Rachel Maddow
We're going to work them out. Our own Jacob Soborough asked how that would happen in an interview today with the mayor elect. It was an exclusive interview about what happens once the dust settles and come January when the mayor is faced with the reality of working with the Trump administration, which has repeatedly attacked the immigrant communities he's fought to protect. Take a listen.
- [31:45]
Jacob Soboroff
Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary, said this week that in response to that video you put out about knowing your rights, what to do if ICE comes knocking on your door. If you were mayor, you could have been violating the Constitution of the United States and that she intimated that the Department of Justice might be looking into it.
- [32:00]
Mayor-elect Eric Adams
What's your response to I'm proud to inform people of their rights and I can't think of a more American thing to do than to speak about the protections that we all have under the law.
- [32:12]
Rachel Maddow
I want to bring in Ms. Now senior political and national correspondent. My friend Jacob Severoff.
- [32:19]
How was the interview? I think you're the first person to really probe him on some of these issues since that Oval Office meeting.
- [32:25]
Jacob Soboroff
It was pretty extraordinary to spend that amount of time with him talking about this in depth because we got such a short snippet coming out of the Oval Office meeting that. And in fact, the mayor elect said that they were going to cooperate on these 170 different crimes. And the federal government in New York City government, I mean, it was sort of a smile and Odd Couple, weird buddy film in the Oval Office, which is why I think we were all so glued to it. And the president said, we're going to work it out. But then this week, Kristi Noem said, when Zoran Mandami puts out a video saying, we're going to know your rights here in New York City, and if ICE comes knocking on your door, you can stand up against them. She says he might be violating the Constitution of the United States and essentially says the Department of Justice is going to look into it. And so this goes back to what they've been saying about all these mayors in these big cities. Tom Holman said that Karen Bass and Gavin Newsom should be prepared potentially, if they were standing in the way, to get arrested. JB Pritzker said to me, come and get me to Donald Trump when I was in Chicago. So that's one of the things that I wanted to know first and foremost is if this all falls apart, is he prepared to sort of stand in the line of fire in between the federal government and the citizens of New York and himself get arrested? So I want to show you a little bit more of what the mayor elect and I talked about. Let's watch.
- [33:38]
Rachel Maddow
Sure.
- [33:40]
Jacob Soboroff
Are you prepared? Gavin Newsom told me he was prepared to be arrested. Tom Homan threatened. Anybody that stands in the way could be arrested. You've been arrested before, standing up for people's rights. J.D. pritzker told me that Donald Trump should come and get me. You prepared to be arrested by. By the federal government if you stand up to their immigration enforcement?
- [33:57]
Mayor-elect Eric Adams
I'm prepared for any consequence that comes for standing up for New Yorkers, because that's my job. That's what I ran to do. And I think that it's time that New Yorkers look at City hall that's right here and see a reflection of their struggles as opposed to a reflection of the scandal that has engulfed so much of our politics.
- [34:11]
Jacob Soboroff
I've also heard you say that no one is above the law and anyone can be held accountable. And that goes for the President of the United States, and it also goes for ICE agents. I don't want to put words in your. But is there a scenario in which the NYPD under you, could arrest ICE agents on the streets of New York for their behavior towards immigrants.
- [34:26]
Mayor-elect Eric Adams
My focus is for the NYPD to not be assisting ICE in their immigration enforcement and to actually be following the policies of sanctuary city law. And I do believe, however, that for the law to have meaning, there has to be accountability for all of us. And that is something that is necessary to speak about, to talk about, to act on, no matter who we're referring to. Because so many are losing faith in politics in this moment because they're seeing inconsistency take place in every different facet of our society.
- [34:55]
Jacob Soboroff
So, in other words, there is a circumstance in which if an ICE agent violates someone's rights here in New York City, they could be arrested by the police department.
- [35:02]
Mayor-elect Eric Adams
I think if an ICE agent is breaking the law, then that is a law that they should be held accountable to.
- [35:06]
Jacob Soboroff
What are you going to do if Greg Bevino shows up with the Border Patrol agents and goes down into the subway? You know how important the subway is to all working class people in this city and the chill factor that it would send. What do you do in response to something like that?
- [35:18]
Mayor-elect Eric Adams
Well, my responsibility is to do the work necessary to ensure that that doesn't.
- [35:22]
Jacob Soboroff
Take place, that he doesn't even make it into the subways.
- [35:24]
Mayor-elect Eric Adams
Well, to have that hypothetical not come to bear here in New York City. And what I mean by that is by making the case to the Federal Administration that these kinds of actions do not serve the interests even the ones that they are actually putting forward. That what New Yorkers need from a federal administration is the kind of partnership that will actually keep New Yorkers safe in this city. And that what I also told the President is we have the NYPD here. We trust the NYPD to deliver that public safety. We do not need ICE and the National Guard to make that same case.
- [35:52]
Jacob Soboroff
So your message to the President, if he's considering sending in the National Guard troops to New York City or sending in those masked armed federal agents on a wide scale, like we saw in LA or in Chicago and Charlotte, is what?
- [36:02]
Mayor-elect Eric Adams
That we do not need them here. And what we have here is the NYPD that can provide that public safety. And that what we are looking to do is to build a city that is focused on the affordability crisis and understands that the cornerstone of that affordability agenda is the provision of public safety. And that was actually the core of the conversation I had with the President.
- [36:21]
Jacob Soboroff
That was actually the core of the conversation he had with the President about affordability and living in New York. But so Some of the things that I heard from Mayor Elect Mamdani today were things that I had not heard from him before. He is prepared for any consequence, he said, and that includes being arrested if he stands in between the federal government and ICE and the people who they're going after in New York. But even more interesting is that he said, and he has said some version of this before, but as a person who worked for Mayor Bloomberg and has been in New York City Hall, I know how consequential it is to talk in this way, especially when the federal government is your partner on so many issues in New York City. I think if an ICE agent is breaking the law, then that is a law that they should be held accountable to. J.B. pritzker sort of danced around this. He didn't want to talk about Illinois State Police clashing directly with federal law enforcement if he felt they were breaking the law. He may have said some version of this before the mayor elect, but to me, I think it's notable that he's setting this potential standup off.
- [37:19]
Rachel Maddow
Is this, is it your sense that he's aligned with Commissioner Tisch on that? That they plan to arrest ICE agents if they violate our laws?
- [37:27]
Jacob Soboroff
It's a good question. All he has said in relation to the NYPD and the Commissioner herself is that they're not going to participate in civil immigration enforcement. And that is a departure from the way Mayor Adams has talked about how NYPD could relate to the federal government. The idea that the NYPD is not going to be participating in any way, shape or form like we're seeing in Louisiana right now is what you would expect of a mayor of New York in a so called sanctuary city. And Mayor Adams was waffling on that. The mayor elect is not.
- [37:56]
Rachel Maddow
That's really interesting. I want to ask you more about this. We have to sneak in a quick break first. We'll be back with Jacob on the other side.
- [38:07]
Jacob Soboroff
President Trump has my back 100%. You want to know why?
- [38:10]
Dan Maurer
Because unlike you beta cucks, he's a.
- [38:13]
Jacob Soboroff
High energy alpha who trusts me and listen to me no matter what.
- [38:17]
Dan Maurer
Isn't that right, Mr. President?
- [38:29]
Jacob Soboroff
Stop.
- [38:29]
Mayor-elect Eric Adams
Mom.
- [38:29]
Rachel Maddow
Donnie.
- [38:33]
Mayor-elect Eric Adams
You can freeze my red anytime.
- [38:38]
Dan Maurer
I wasn't sleeping. I'm very much awake now.
- [38:42]
Rachel Maddow
Someone quickly tell me, where am I? Who am I and what year might it be?
- [38:49]
It's funny on so many levels, but obviously one of them is the fantasy.
- [38:54]
Paul Rykoff
About.
- [38:56]
Rachel Maddow
Mamdani and I wonder. We've talked a lot about why Trump was so attracted to the mayor elect. It was the winning it was his charisma, it was his political power.
- [39:07]
Jacob Soboroff
His city.
- [39:07]
Rachel Maddow
His city. Why? How does the mayor elect deal with the affection from Trump?
- [39:14]
Jacob Soboroff
I think he understands what anybody who has been inside New York City hall understands. And when I was at intern and then an advanced person for Mayor Bloomberg and President Bush was in office, that relationship was central to the work that the mayor of New York City has to do. And so I think that the mayor elect is keenly aware of whether it is dollars and. Oh, absolutely. And finding a way to work with federal law enforcement that's going to come into the city. I think when he looks at what was playing out in Los Angeles and in Chicago and in Charlotte and even in his own city right now at 26 Federal Plaza, he said to me, a lot of this is already playing out in New York City. It's just been below the radar. And so I think what was clear to me is that while they want to have an open line of communication and discuss these issues, he seems to say in a civil way, he is willing and able to stand up to this administration if that relationship breaks down. And we'll know on January 1st when he stands either steps at City hall or wherever else he's going to get inaugurated and becomes the next mayor in New York City.
- [40:12]
Rachel Maddow
The attacks against him from Trump and Trump's inner circle, just vicious politically. They were racist and personal. Has he had any sense that Trump has reined any of that in?
- [40:25]
Jacob Soboroff
It's amazing. I don't think so. Because when you look at what's happening in New York City, we talked specifically about the case of that young boy, the six year old who came from China, the asylum seekers who are now separated, the father and son. And I think that the mayor elect has pretty clear moral clarity on what's going on here and who's being targeted and the way in which he was targeted by the President of the United States and people around him echoed some of the themes that we're seeing in the immigration enforcement in New York City. I don't think that there's any illusion that what the President and Stephen Miller are saying and doing is anything but what exactly what it looks like. I think once he gets into City hall, as anybody who steps in there has, it's going to be a rude awakening about what really it's going to take to run the biggest city in the country. In the center of the media universe, with the President looking at it every single day.
- [41:14]
Rachel Maddow
The President obsessed with the New York tabloids, the New York press and the.
- [41:19]
Jacob Soboroff
Mayor of New York City. And this issue, which is going to be central to what happens in New York City come 2026.
- [41:25]
Rachel Maddow
It's great to have you here in New York and here at the table. Thanks. Thank you for doing this interview. Congrats on it. After the break. A judge's ruling marks a big step toward the release of the Epstein files. We'll bring you that reporting next.
- [41:43]
A federal judge has ordered the release of grand jury materials involving the disgraced and deceased convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein related to the 2019 federal case which he was set to face before he died in custody awaiting trial. In his order, US District Judge Richard Berman cited the law that Congress passed last month that requires the Justice Department to release all of its records related to Epstein. The files related to the case from today's ruling must be released by December 19th. Today's ruling comes just a day after a separate ruling that grand jury materials from the Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution can also be unsealed. As the New York Times is reporting, the two rulings could lead to the most expansive and revealing look yet at the federal investigations into Epstein and Maxwell. The judge's orders cover not only grand jury transcripts, but also a large trove of other investigative materials which were provided to defense lawyers in the discovery process and kept confidential for years under court protective orders. We'll stay on top of that story for you. Coming up for us, a speech presumably.
- [42:50]
Intended to be about Donald Trump's biggest political problem, the economy and the cost of living, went wildly off the rails as Donald Trump told Americans to basically suck it and make do with less during the holidays. We'll bring you that story next.
- [43:10]
Paul Rykoff
As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda. Follow along with the MSNow newsletter Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.
- [43:27]
Rachel Maddow
The American people are basically telling the.
- [43:29]
Mary McCord
President that they are not okay with any of this.
- [43:32]
Paul Rykoff
Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at Ms. Now. Project 47.