← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“Big beautiful regret”
01:26:26
Nicolle Wallace on Trump’s attempted attack on the rule of law by launching investigations into former intelligence officials, a ruling blocking the administration’s order restricting birthright citizenship, and how the White House continues to weaponize tariffs to rebalance global influence. Joined by: Shane Harris, Andrew Weissmann, Cody Wofsy, Claire McCaskill, Cornell Belcher, Michael Crowley, Justin Wolfers, Angelo Carusone, Harry Litman and Kristy Greenberg.
Loading summary
Transcript89 lines
- [00:00]
Nicole Wallace
Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of its national red tag sales event going on right now through July 20th. Stop by any of its participating communities and find select red tag homes at Incredible Pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the red tag sales event going on right now. Discover the Dr. Horton Difference at DrHorton.com Dr. Horton America's Builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder Deadline White House is brought to you by Progressive, where drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average. Plus auto customers qualify for an average of 7 discounts. Quote now@progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who save with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations.
- [01:05]
Andrew Weissmann
Hi there everyone. It's four o' clock in the East. As one house of cards collapsed rather spectacularly, Team Trump went about building another. First, there was the sudden implosion of the Epstein conspiracy theory by the Trump Justice Department by some of the very same people who helped fuel the first fervor around the conspiracy theory that Jeffrey Epstein did not commit suicide and that he kept a list of high profile clients. Now, DOJ says none of that is true. On Tuesday, we showed you just how upset and furious some on the right are, including Alex Jones, practically bursting into tears. It turns out what we showed you was just the tip of the iceberg.
- [01:49]
Nicole Wallace
The current DOJ under Pam Bondi is covering up crimes, very serious crimes.
- [01:54]
Andrew Weissmann
However, Pam Bondi has definitely made multiple inconsistent statements. And I'm sorry, but she does not deserve the benefit of my good opinion and I'm not prepared to give it to her. She either told a lie then or she's telling a lie now. That's a big problem. A big, big problem.
- [02:17]
Nicole Wallace
Pam Bondi needs to be fired.
- [02:21]
Andrew Weissmann
Wow. Referring to Bondi as, quote, Blondie, right wing super influencer Laura Loomer tweeted this. Please call me and joining for Blondie to resign. And as the countless national security staffers and officials fired after being singled out by Laura Limmer can attest, we once you've lost Laura Loomer, you were on very, very thin ice in Donald Trump's eyes. So in the midst of that firestorm comes a sudden revelation, first reported by Fox News that former CIA Director John Brennan and former director of the FBI Jim Comey are under criminal investigation. Here's how the White House reacted to that news.
- [03:01]
Nicole Wallace
It looks like there has been an investigation opened up into James Comey and John Brennan possibly lying to Congress in a conspiracy over the Russia hoax. What can you tell us about that?
- [03:15]
Andrew Weissmann
Well, I just heard that news at the top of your show and I'm glad to hear it because both of these disgraceful individuals turned against our Constitution and our country. And I'm sure they did in fact lie to Congress. And it's up to the Department of Justice to investigate that and to prosecute them if they did. Can you imagine any other press secretary for any other President Biden or Obama or Bush 1 or Bush 2 saying that or commenting on any active investigation and accusing the supposed targets, a former director of the FBI and a former director of the CIA of quote, turning against our Constitution, end quote. Hours after that, the Justice Department went ahead and confirmed to journalists the existence of an investigation. Washington Post reporting this quote. In a highly unusual statement, a department spokesperson referenced a criminal investigation into the two men, but said the department does not comment on ongoing investigations. Again, a highly unusual confirmation about a highly unusual investigation, one that was news to John Brennan himself. Here's what he said when he appeared on our show yesterday.
- [04:30]
Nicole Wallace
First of all, I should say I know nothing about this reported investigation or referral to the DOJ other than what I've read in these press reports, these leaks, which are not really supposed to happen if there is an investigation going on. Secondly, nobody from the FBI or Department of justice or CIA has reached out to me at all. So I am just waiting to hear more about what this might be.
- [04:53]
Andrew Weissmann
So what we know right now about this deflection masquerading as a criminal investigation, according to news reports, is that a criminal referral was made by CIA Director John Ratcliffe just a week after the release of a so called note. It's like a report. It details grievances with how the CIA came to conclude that Russia sought to assist Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. The Atlantic reports this quote, the notes authors, whom Ratcliffe says are career CIA officers, take pain to credit the overall integrity of the assessment while dutifully nitpicking procedural issues that did nothing to compromise the conclusions. This may be in the spirit of improving analysis, but at times the note feels like the written version of a hostage video, end quote. Now, neither Brennan, who we should note is a national security and intelligence analyst right here at msnbc, nor Jim Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence at the time that the assessment was made, were interviewed as part of the review that led to Ratcliffe's note. But they did speak to lots of other people, including the special counsel who spent $7.6 million in several years investigating the Russia probe. As we said yesterday, that special counsel named John Durham did not find any criminal wrongdoing on the part of John Brennan or Jim Comey or anyone other than an FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to perjury. Here's what John Brennan told us about the Durham investigation.
- [06:26]
Nicole Wallace
I was interviewed by John Durham himself, along with his investigators for, I think, close to eight hours. And, you know, they were able to look at all of the documents, all of my, you know, emails and other types of things, and they reviewed it, you know, extensively. And I think Bill Barr, you know, said that it appeared as though CIA stayed in its lane. And so, again, you know, it's. It was very surprising that, you know, this is happening. I don't think there's any new evidence that's been uncovered at all. I have tried to answer every question I have been asked, whether it be by Senate or House members or John Durham or others, fully because I want to make sure that people understand exactly what the Russians were doing to try to interfere in our very, very solemn domestic election system.
- [07:15]
Andrew Weissmann
An attack on the rule of law in the form of the Trump Justice Department, what looks, at least from the outside, to be a flimsy pretext to open investigations into former government officials and critics. That's where we start today with staff writer for the Atlantic, Shane Harris, whose piece we read from yesterday and today, and former top official at the Department of Justice, MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissman's here. Shane, your reporting shaped a lot of our coverage of this story yesterday when we got to talk to John Brennan himself. And we were excited to have a chance to talk to you about it today. But just fill in a lot of what you report here about how this note came to be.
- [07:58]
Nicole Wallace
Well, the note came to be, and you described it accurately, kind of as a report of some issues that analysts found with the earlier Russia election assessment, because John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, ordered analysts to write it back in May, essentially saying to them, all right, I'm tasking you to go look at this assessment and pay particular ATT to a key judgment that was made back in 2016, which was that the Russian government aspired, that was the word, to help Donald Trump get elected, which is an issue that John Ratcliffe has been asked about many times in the past, whether he agrees with that assessment and has Notably never said whether he does or doesn't. So the context in which this tradecraft assessment is created is because the director, this politically appointed official, is telling the career analysts to go write about it. And we've, we should also note, and I noticed in my story yesterday from a statement from Jim Clapper, it's highly unusual to order a review like this for a document that by now is 8 going on 9 years old. So it's not entirely clear what Ratcliffe said to these analysts, like why he wanted it done, but the clear direction from him came in May, and the analysts then dutifully wrote the report.
- [09:16]
Andrew Weissmann
So he asks for a review of the intel assessment from 2016. And what the analysts give back to Mr. Ratcliffe is more confirmation about the integrity of the intelligence itself. But then they. Is that correct?
- [09:36]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, that's right. The document essentially validates all the original findings. It takes issue with some of the process, but it does not overturn the earlier assessment.
- [09:45]
Andrew Weissmann
So this is year nine. This is, I think, the third person to run the CIA. I read from Danielle Sassoon, the former prosecutor from SDNY's deputy, who when he resigned, said, you may find someone foolish enough or cowardly enough to do the things you want me to do. He was speaking about ML Bobay. But is it your sense that what Ratcliffe got these folks to do was to reassess the assessment and they affirmed the actual intelligence? We'll deal with the process in a second. I just want to make sure I understand that even this, I don't know, fourth CIA director coming in in terms second term, making these folks do something that you describe reads like the written version of a hostage video. Also affirmed the assessment about Russia.
- [10:31]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, that's right. They said essentially this is a quality assessment and it did not come in and overturn the findings. And notably, it did not do the things that John Ratcliffe then publicly claimed that it did. He said in a tweet, John Brennan, Jim Clapper and James Comey, the former FBI director, had his words manipulated intelligence in order to get Trump. The document doesn't say anything like that. It doesn't talk about silencing career professionals, as the CIA director claimed. I mean, I don't think you can even say that he's exaggerating or giving a tendentious reading of the document. It just literally doesn't say any of those things, which is, you know, a very surprising thing that he would claim that it does. When anyone can go read these eight pages for themselves, it'll take you 10 minutes and see that it doesn't say what he's saying. So, you know, I think we're left to presume, you know, did the assessment come back and not make the director happy? Did he think he would find something else? Because he's not accurately portraying what his own analysts at his direction told him.
- [11:38]
Andrew Weissmann
So let's stop right here. I mean, Andrew Weissman, if there's a theme this week, it's all of the eggs that have been sacrificed to soak the faces of the Trump cabinet. This is at the core, at the substance, Egon Ratcliffe's face, which is why he sends out a tweet, misrepresenting, distorting. I will use the word lying about what his own CIA note assesses. What are your thoughts about that? As just a basic, fundamental fact about what gets sent over to DOJ and puts other things in motion.
- [12:14]
Nicole Wallace
I think if you step back for a moment and you connect what you're talking about with John Radcliffe and your discussion and the clips you played with Pam Bondi, you really have here the confrontation of people publicly saying things that are not true and the fact that people who are sort of career people, or if you were to bring a case, you actually have to have facts. And that's why Pam Bondi may publicly say all sorts of things about Jeffrey Epstein or anybody. Then you could have the president saying that, you could have the press secretary saying it. But, you know, in a court of law, or if you have career people, they're actually looking at actual facts. And that's why Shane is saying if you actually look at the hard evidence, it just doesn't support what is being just spouted, but with no repercussions, just publicly said. And I just can't help but saying this is such a surreal conversation because, yes, this is what the CIA report says, but it's not just in black and white in the CIA report. It was in black and white in the Mueller investigation. It's in black and white in two indictments. You can read the emails and text exchanges and the hard evidence from the St. Petersburg Russia Internet Research Group plotting to help Donald Trump win the election. That doesn't mean Donald Trump was complicit in it, but there is just no question that that's what's going on. And as you noted, Nicole, yesterday, one of the key pieces of evidence here is a Senate report that Marco Rubio is a signatory on finding the exact same thing. So this is not an open question. This isn't where you say, Lee Gee, the two People could have different views. There is only one set of facts, unless you are just publicly going on air and saying something that isn't true.
- [14:27]
Andrew Weissmann
Shane, your reporting takes the reader through what Andrew's talking about. The exhaustive, bipartisan work product of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which I actually think, no disrespect to Andrew Weissman and the Mueller probe, but is the most scathing and the most brutal takedown of the Trump campaign's shared mission with Russia. I wonder if you could take us through that, where the findings are refuted by the Marco Rubio led Senate Intelligence Committee and the Durham led probe into the Russia investigation itself.
- [15:05]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, I mean, the Senate Intelligence Committee spent about two years investigating Russia's interference in the election and then really had a lot more time, frankly, to digest the intelligence and the information than the intelligence community had when they were trying to assess practically in real time what Russia was doing. Their report is 1300 pages long. They interviewed Director Brennan, Director Comey, Director Clapper, others. They interviewed all the analysts who wrote the assessment that John Ratcliffe has now ordered this review of. And it absolutely confirms, just as Andrew said, what the bottom line assessment was. Back in 2016, the Russians interfered in the election. They did it through placing divisive social media, through hacking Democratic emails and leaking them through intermediaries. They intended to denigrate Hillary Clinton in order to help Donald Trump. And you know, it's important to note to the Senate Intelligence Committee had access to the highly classified information that some of these findings, really all of these findings were based on, that the CIA had, that the NSA also had. And the FBI, they reviewed all the work and they came to the same conclusion. And you can go read it for yourself. I mean, this report is public and you can go find the sections that are of interest to you and walk through it chapter and verse. You know, the Durham report is also notable. And in my story, I have a letter that Clapper and Brennan's lawyer sent to John Durham after they'd given their long interviews, essentially laying out for the record, right, here's everything my clients told you about their role in crafting the assessment, what they did do, what they did not do, importantly. And there was a lot of expectation at the time that John Durham was reviewing how the FBI had conducted its investigation into the Russia probe, that he was going to come up with some evidence that intelligence officials had somehow skewed this or maybe cooked things up or were framing it to make it look worse for Donald Trump or allege associations that weren't there. And he didn't find that. He just didn't come up with anything like that. And he ultimately did not dispute in any way the original election interference assessment. So I think, you know, the Durham report is notable for everything he did reviewed. And to be clear, he took a lot of issue with the way the FBI conducted their investigation. But it's notable for what he did not find. He did not find the kind of malfeasance by intelligence leaders that the current CIA director, John Ratcliffe is now alleging and claimed that claims that this tradecraft review shows when it very obviously does not.
- [17:46]
Andrew Weissmann
So how do we arrive at this point? I guess I'll let you try to answer this, Andrew Weissman, where a criminal investigation has been confirmed to be underway into John Brennan and Jim Comey over the Russia probe.
- [18:03]
Nicole Wallace
Well, John Brennan said something in the clip you played where he said it's not usual to have this sort of leak happen. That's an understatement. And I think that view take from that, what is going on here, obviously that leak is not coming from Jim Comey or John Brennan. And so you have to ask yourself why would they be doing that? You know, when you're in the Department of Justice, it is the rule is sort of put up or shut up. It is like you either, you know, indict somebody or you're not supposed to have them subjected to the public opprobrium of a criminal investigation. So this to me is sort of reeks of a distraction, a sort of like look over here at the birdie and don't look at other things. It's also notable if you're thinking about sort of what's going on, there is normally a five year statute of limitations to bring a criminal case. You know, my first reaction to this was, excuse me. I mean, not only is there nothing I know that would suggest there should be a criminal investigation, but of course, as you noted, we don't obviously know everything that would be within the department. So giving them the benefit of the doubt, I don't think they deserve it. But let's say we do that. It's still totally unclear how they're going to have a criminal investigation. If what they're looking at is something that happened in 2016 that is not something within a five year statute of limitations. I don't do math publicly, but even I can do that math.
- [19:42]
Andrew Weissmann
It's an incredible moment, Shane. Your story is really important and really thoughtful and really careful and we covered it yesterday. But it's great to get to talk to you about it today. So thank you for joining us and starting us off today.
- [19:56]
Nicole Wallace
Thanks, Nicole.
- [19:57]
Andrew Weissmann
Andrew, we're going to ask you to stick around a little bit longer. When we come back. After the Supreme Court last month tried to limit how lower courts could halt presidential executive orders, a class action suit tried to challenge just that before. Tell you about it. We'll talk to one of the attorneys who has successfully argued to have one of Trump's most controversial orders blocked. Plus, a Republican starting to show some big, beautiful regrets the morning after when it comes to the president's mega bill that was rammed through Congress last week. We'll show you what that looks like as new polls confirmed that nobody, nobody wanted this bill at all. And later in the broadcast, the president's tariff threats being used to undermine the rule of law. And back an ex leader currently sitting on trial for plotting a coup against his own government. Sound familiar? All those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [20:58]
Nicole Wallace
Hey everybody, it's Rob Lowe here. If you haven't heard, I have a podcast that's called Literally with Rob Lowe. And basically it's conversations I've had that really make you feel like you're pulling up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire, like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J. Fox. There are new episodes out every Thursday, so subscribe please and listen wherever you get your podcasts. Coverage varies by plan. View contracts and exclusions@endurancewarranty.com if your car is out of warranty, one major repair bill could wipe you out. Just ask. Ludicrous car breakdowns can wreck your wallet.
- [21:42]
Andrew Weissmann
Without Endurance, a worn out timing belt.
- [21:44]
Nicole Wallace
Could cost you $1,700.
- [21:46]
Andrew Weissmann
A busted transmission, that's 4,000 easy. An engine meltdown, 7,000.
- [21:51]
Nicole Wallace
But if you've got Endurance, you could never pay out of pocket for a car repair again.
- [21:55]
Andrew Weissmann
With Endurance, your car's most expensive parts are covered. Plus you pick the mechanic you trust.
- [22:01]
Nicole Wallace
To do the work. With Endurance, your rate stays the same no matter how many claims you file. If your car is under 20 years old, Endurance has you covered with unlimited miles. Plus your plan includes 24. 7 roadside assistance anywhere in the country. So who's going to pay for your next breakdown, you or Endurance? Choose the name Ludacris Trusts Endurance. Right now, get $300 off any plan plus a year of elite benefits, a $2,000 value free, all backed by a 30 day money back guarantee. Get your free quote@endurancewarranty.com that's endurancewarranty.com hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.
- [22:55]
Andrew Weissmann
Of $45 for a three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com A major ruling today blocking Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship, a constitutional right in this country since 1868. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the order from going into effect throughout the country with a seven day stay, allowing the Trump administration time to appeal. U.S. district Judge Joseph LaPlante also granted class action status protecting the citizenship rights of babies who would have been affected by the order's restrictions, saying in today's court hearing that depriving a person of the long standing right to of birthright citizenship would, quote, cause irreparable harm, adding that it is, quote, the greatest privilege that exists in the world now. The ruling stems from a nationwide class action lawsuit filed last month after the U.S. supreme Court limited the ability of judges to block Donald Trump's order through other means. And the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit who argued for class action status in court this morning, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants Rights Project, Cody Wobsee joins us now. Andrew is back with us as well. Cody, take us through the successful argument that you made and what happens next.
- [24:26]
Nicole Wallace
Thanks so much for having me today. This is a huge win for immigrants rights and for communities across the country that include these children whose citizenship is threatened. What we saw after the Supreme Court's decision was that the door was open to stripping citizenship away from these infants whose parents are neither permanent residents nor citizens. And this order slams that door back shut and makes extremely clear that no baby in this country can be denied their constitutional right to citizenship under this executive order.
- [25:04]
Andrew Weissmann
What happens to, I mean, is there any limbo? Now just take me through what happens to the actual parents or pregnant women who are now among the plaintiffs impacted.
- [25:17]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, absolutely. So everybody is now protected by this country. There's been an outpouring of fear, of anxiety, of confusion. We've been getting dozens and dozens of emails and calls from folks wondering, you know, do I need to move states in order to give birth and be protected? Do I need to leave my family behind? Is this order going to cause my child to be arrested, deported? Is my family going to be separated? And so families across the country can now rest assured they are protected by this nationwide injunction. They are part of this class action. They do not need to file their own lawsuits. For example, obviously, this is not the end of the case or the end of the story. The Trump administration may take this issue up. It may seek some emergency relief either from the Court of Appeals or from the Supreme Court. If they do, we will fight them every step of the way, and we have every expectation that will prevail and this injunction will remain in place.
- [26:19]
Andrew Weissmann
Andrew Weissman, just take me through what this means legally. I mean, do you think that the Trump White House will appeal? Will they be successful? And do you think the actual substance of birthright citizenship will end up before the Supreme Court? I think Pam Bondi suggested it would in place the first fall.
- [26:40]
Nicole Wallace
Yes, I think this will end up before the Supreme Court. It is possible, since I think every court going up to the Supreme Court well, as they have already, every court that's heard this on the merits has agreed with the ACLU position that is doing God's work here, the busiest sort of law firm there is, in light of what is going on. So I do think this is going to end up in the Supreme Court. But I just want to make sure people understand that the judges who have been finding that the Trump actions here are unconstitutional are not exclusively judges appointed by Democrats. The judge who issued this class action and this order was appointed by a Republican president and said this was not a close call. And that is sort of representative of what all the judges have done here. And you really do have to step back and ask yourself, not the legal question, but why? Why is the administration doing something that, as you noted, has not been the position of the United States in not just decades, but, you know, scores and scores of years. Why would they be doing this? Why would they be causing this level of anxiety and cruelty? And the only answer I really can come up with is, unfortunately, has to do with race, that you see Afrikaners, white Afrikaners being brought into this country, but the people who they are largely going to be seeking to remove are going to be black and brown members of our community. And, I mean, it's really hard to see sort of the policy rationale for this that is legitimate. And I Just think people need to focus on not just the legality here. And I know it's odd for me to say this, usually I stayed in my lane, Nicole, but it's hard not to think about, why would you possibly want to do this? What would be the legitimate reason? Why should Americans actually be thinking this is a good idea? Let's leave aside that it's also one that every single judge, every single judge that's heard this on the merits has said it's unconstitutional.
- [28:58]
Andrew Weissmann
I mean, Cody, speak to that. The broader climate in which you are waging a heroic legal effort is this moment in this country. Most of what Trump is doing is deeply unpopular politically. Majorities oppose deporting people born in this country, deporting people with jobs in this country, deporting people who've been here for a long time. Majorities opposed deporting people who've been denied due process, and they're doing all of it. What is it like to be arguing the law in that kind of political climate?
- [29:33]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, I think that we're seeing really, an incredible and unprecedented assault on immigrant communities across the board, as you say. And it does all come down to efforts to change the demographics of this country. That's what so many of these policies are about, whether it's birthright citizenship, whether it's denial of due process, trying to shuffle people out of the country without even giving them a fair hearing, or an ability to get in front of a judge. So much of it is just about trying to alter this country and turn it into a wider place. And so, you know, we see this as part of that broader fight. And this is an issue on which the Constitution and The laws are 100% behind us. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, everybody understood it was going to be universal birthright citizenship. And that's been so critical to creating the America that we have and all love today. So many of our parents, grandparents, great grandparents came as immigrants. And it's the fabric of the United States. And so we really see this executive order as an assault on something that is really fundamental to what America means. And that's why it's so important that we see the courts pushing back again and again in, as Andrew said, every single one of these cases.
- [31:04]
Andrew Weissmann
It's so important. I'm so glad, Andrew, you took it to the race piece and that you could. You took it to the demographics. I mean, everybody has an immigration story in their background. It's about everybody. And so the idea that this is about anything other than what you both say it is farcical Cody, congratulations on the legal victory and please keep coming back on the broader fight. It's great to have you here today. Andrew Weissman, thank you for joining us. Very happy to see you today, my friend. When we come back, Republicans on the Hill are just starting to come back from a long July 4th holiday only to realize they have a little bit of big, beautiful bill hangover that they voted for. And Donald Trump's very large, very unpopular mega spending bill is a political catastrophe for them. We'll show you what regret looks like next. We've seen health care, though, hurt both parties in the past 2014, it hurt Democrats. 2018, it hurt Republicans. Do you think this will hurt Republicans in 2026?
- [32:12]
Nicole Wallace
Well, I think that if Republicans don't come out strong and say we're going to protect rural hospitals, then yeah, I think voters aren't going to like that. The provider cuts that are now not going to affect Missouri until the 2030s, my goal is to make sure those never take effect. I'll be honest, by legislation, I mean, listen, they don't, they don't affect Missouri until 2030. And between now and then, Missouri gets $1 billion in increased rural hospital funds. That's great for our state, but the.
- [32:33]
Andrew Weissmann
Truth of the matter is we shouldn't.
- [32:34]
Nicole Wallace
Be cutting rural hospitals. I'm completely opposed to cutting rural hospitals, period. I haven't changed my view on that one iota.
- [32:42]
Andrew Weissmann
Except when you did. My position is to write a law to reverse the law I just signed. What did the opposite of what he said in that interview. He just voted to cut rural hospital funding, including in his own state of Missouri. That was Missouri Senator Josh Hawley. With an audacious degree of spin there. Hawley supported Donald Trump's cuts to rural health care, his disastrous and deeply unpopular mega bill, which among many other things will cut Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion. It puts at risk more than 300 rural hospitals at risk of completely shuttering, shutting down because of this bill's passage, which passed again with Josh Hawley's vote. The bill which needed a tie breaking vote from VP JD Vance because it was so unpopular, could have been stopped by that one senator, by him, Josh Hawley, if he'd wanted to stop it. But he didn't. Joining us now, former Democratic senator, MSNBC political analyst Claire McCaskill and president of Brilliant Coroner's Research, MSNBC political analyst Cornell Belcher. Cornell, just take me through, I mean, everything I see about how unpopular this bill is, it changes so quickly. We check before every broadcast because the more it's in the news and the more people hear about it, the more they hate it.
- [34:10]
Nicole Wallace
Well, that becomes a big challenge. I mean, I don't have to tell either two of you this, that the job now is to sell and both sides are going to be trying to tell their story and he or she who defines the debate and wins the debate. And as you clearly see, you know, Senator Hawley is trying to define the debate in a way that he thinks beneficial to him. And if you look at the polling data around this, those who, you know, it is unpopular is underwater right now. But you still have a majority of Americans who have not heard a lot Right. About the bill. And I think what you're going to see from members of Congress over the next several months, and LeClaire McCaskill knows as well, is they've got to go out there in their districts and in their states and tell their stories and try to sell it. I think it's a particularly tough position that senators like Holly are in where they voted for something to put something in place that they're now trying to fix or change. And it speaks directly to so much of the frustration that I hear in focus groups around voters, especially in the middle of the road, voters who say they just play politics all the time and I can't keep up with the politics. So why would he vote for something that he's not for? Right. It's politics as usual and it's part of what makes so many Americans frustrated at Washington.
- [35:27]
Andrew Weissmann
Claire, I don't even want to imagine a world where the Democrats fail to just tell the truth about what happened here. Republicans know how bad this bill is for their own voters and they voted for it anyway because they gave up their, I don't know, pick your body parts, fines will do for TV friendly purposes. How do you, how do you, how do you not tell that story in a way that is compelling? Yeah, I'm going to try to stay calm here and not go into full blown rant. Obviously, Holly is particularly offensive to me for a number of reasons. You know, he has pretended to be something he isn't from the day he appeared on a ballot in Missouri. He's incredibly ambitious, a politician through and through, changes his stripes whenever it's convenient. And the irony here is he is actually saying with a straight face, well, you know, I'm really against this. And all he had to do was vote no and the bill went down and then he would have had an opportunity to negotiate, to do something different than what he signed up for. But if he thinks people are going to give him a pass when he is the vote that passed this thing, I mean, it's crazy. And you know, Nicole, I want a journalist to ask these guys, everybody who goes to a town hall, anytime you have a chance to ask a Republican what they voted for, ask them this simple question. Why are the tax breaks for rich people permanent? And the little bit of money you spent helping people with tax on tips only lasts three years. And if these Medicaid cuts are not painful, if they're not going to hurt anybody, why are you waiting until after the next presidential election for the full brunt of them to be felt by mostly Republican voters in rural areas? It is just nuts to me that this is so obvious what they've done. They don't care about the deficit. They certainly don't care about working families. What they cared about was making wealthy people richer permanently, while all the stuff they're going to talk about that they want to try to save themselves with, they put in place for a mere three years. It's going to go away almost as soon as it shows up. I know both of you are always super candid about the Democratic Party's sort of strengths and weaknesses, but I do want to press both of you on what the conversation with the country looks like when you have so many Republicans. I mean, you've got Elon Musk killing this bill from a deficit perspective. You've got Hawley saying he's going to change the law. He just cast a deciding vote to pass. And you've got the polls as a snapshot in time show this bill deeply unpopular. You've also got Karl Rove, who can't stop political operating to save his life, saying sell, sell, sell. I mean, all the pieces are one, they know this hurts people. Two, they know this hurts them politically. And three, to the degree that people do know anything about the bill, they know it's bad for working people. They know it's bad for working Americans. We'll have that conversation on the other side of a break. Don't go anywhere. We're back with Claire and Cornell. Cornell, let me read you a little bit of what Karl Rove writes in the Wall Street Journal. Republicans must sell the new law to a deeply skeptical public. The GOP will be tempted to ignore Democratic attacks and focus on other issues. That is not an option. Like it or not, the One Big Beautiful Bill act will be the central issue in the midterm election. Do you agree? And how do you make sure that the Democratic party doesn't let the Republicans who voted for this stink bomb off the mat.
- [39:35]
Nicole Wallace
No, I do agree. But again, if he or she defines debates, going to win the debate. Look, I also watched this. Their bill in 2017 that they passed wasn't very popular either. They talked about selling that early on. And I remember working on congressional races then and watching how the bill, even their 2017 tax cut bills, were so unpopular that he stopped trying to sell it and they turned their advertising, their national advertising in a different direction and lo and behold, it became the regular hits. Right. It's immigration and it's crime and it's scary, scary people on the left who are trying to undermine your culture. Right. I suspect at some point, Nicole, that they will again pivot to the tried and true fear mongering and stop trying to sell this. But I think Karl Rove is right. I think there is, this will be the central point that the campaign pivots from. Now, can Democrats take advantage of, will Democrats take advantage of it? Will they stay stay focused on it? And again, you know this as well as anyone is that if we're talking about 14 different things, we're not talking about nothing. And I think what we're seeing now is Democrats trying to find that one thematic overarching thread that ties all the bad things in this bill together and makes it have meaningful working Americans. Right. And a lot of that has to do with affordability that this bill does not make. It will not make your life, does not help your affordability, does not help you get ahead and in fact hurts you economically and sort of tell that that economic and affordability story, that thematic story underneath all the really bad things in this bill, I think is what is going to be the challenge before Democrats. And not to get off track, but I assure you Republicans are going to turn to the tried and true boogeyman tactics before this is over.
- [41:29]
Andrew Weissmann
Claire, I'm sure that Cornell is right. It will be interesting how they sell that message after two years of Marines on the streets of American cities. I mean, I don't know, it sounds like it'll be an indictment of their own two years of full single party control of this country. But I want to ask you to follow up on what Cornell's saying about how you talk about one thing, which is that Donald Trump's promises to make things less expensive was the biggest political betrayal in any of our lifetimes. He backed out of that during the transition. He said, well, actually because of my tariffs, things are going to go up and now you have prices for everything going up, you've got Walmart and Target confirming that it's happening in anticipation of or as a result of the chaos of his tariff war. And you have 11 to 16 million people losing health insurance at a time when everything is getting more expensive. How do you tell that story without distractions to the American people? This is where the Democrats get into a little bit of trouble. And it's not because they're not well meaning. It's because they want to help on so many different fronts. They want to talk about climate change. They want to talk about, you know, the fact that women no longer have full autonomy over their own bodies. There's a lot of things Democrats want to talk about. I plead with Democrats to have discipline and embrace repetitiveness. If you look and Nicole, you know this. Cornell knows this. You know, successful campaigns are built around repetition and discipline. And the Democrats have to have a discipline they typically don't have. It's not complicated. They did a trillion dollars worth of transferring wealth to very rich people and took a trillion dollars away from America's health care. That was the bargain they struck. Now, all the other stuff about affordability is going to be in the mix. You know, if prices are going up because of tariffs, which we all believe they will, that will certainly aid that. But they need to really stay focused because they did this and the American people know they did it. This isn't like, well, you can't really blame them. This is leftover from COVID Or you can't really blame Trump. He was just getting rid of the swamp. Trump did this. He's proud of it. He took care of billionaires and hurt average folks, hurt the people who put him in office. And they did it with this bill that he celebrated with fireworks and jets flying over and in the process put more money into going after people who've never committed a crime, who want to work hard and play by the rules and find the American dream than we currently spend on catching criminals in the FBI. So this bill should be what it's all about. And if they don't make it about that, they don't deserve to win back the House or the Senate. I can always count on the two of you to just drop truth bombs. Thank you, Claire McCaskill and Cornell Belcher. To be continued. Thank you both so much today. Just ahead for us freed from ICE detention, Columbia grad student and activist Mahmoud Khalil is asking the Trump administration to make things right. We'll bring you that reporting next weeks. After being freed from ICE custody and reunited with his family. Columbia University graduate and activist Mahmoud Khalil is seeking restitution, filing a claim against the Trump administration for $20 million and alleging that he was falsely arrested and imprisoned for more than three months. Kahlil tells the Associated Press in an interview this quote, they are abusing their power because they think they are untouchable. Unless they feel there is some sort of accountability, it will continue to go unchecked. In lieu of a settlement, Kahlil says he would also accept an official apology and changes to the Trump administration's deportation policies. We'll stay on top of that story for you. Up next for us, get ready to pay a lot more for your cup of coffee because Donald Trump seems to care more about a former president accused of trying to overturn his election loss than he does about the American consumer. That story when the next hour of Deadline Whitehouse starts after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [45:57]
Nicole Wallace
Hi there, it's Andy Richter and I'm here to tell you about my podcast, the three Questions with Andy Richter Week. I invite friends, comedians, actors and musicians to discuss these three where do you come from, where are you going, and what have you learned? New episodes are out every Tuesday with guests like Julie Bowe and Ted Danson, Tig Notaro, Will Arnett, Phoebe Bridgers and more. You can also tune in for my weekly Andy Richter Call in Show episodes, where me and a special guest invite callers to weigh in on topics like dating, disasters, bad teeth, features and lots more. Listen to the three Questions with Andy Richter wherever you get your podcasts. Coverage varies by plan. View contracts and exclusions@EnduranceWarranty.com this announcement is to all United States vehicle owners who own a 2003 or newer vehicle with a manufacturer's warranty about to expire or no warranty coverage. With a struggling economy and the cost of living on the rise, Endurance is offering an affordable low cost vehicle coverage plan to the general public. You could be one of millions of drivers who may qualify to have your vehicle protected under this coverage and have all future covered auto repairs paid directly to the repair shop for you. You pick your plan, your deductible and the repair shop. Roadside service, towing and rental coverage is included. United States vehicle owners who own a 2003 or newer vehicle with a manufacturer's warranty about to expire, protect your vehicle now and save your wallet from costly vehicle repairs. For your free 5 minute quote and to see if you qualify, visit endurancewarranty.com Endurancewarranty.com.
- [47:39]
Andrew Weissmann
I'm not switching my team to some fancy work platform that somehow knows exactly how we work, and its AI features are literally saving us hours every day. We're big fans. And just like that, teams all around the world are falling for Monday.com with intuitive design, seamless AI capabilities, and custom workflows, it's the work platform your team will instantly click with. Head to Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use. Do you expect any of the countries here to face tariffs as well? I haven't thought of it, but I maybe.
- [48:19]
Nicole Wallace
I don't know. Let's say I like him, him, him, him, and him. No, I don't. I don't think so. Not too much. He's very good. He's a friends of mine now.
- [48:28]
Andrew Weissmann
Hi again everyone. It's five o' clock in the East. Donald Trump yesterday giving away the game, openly admitting or at least making a joke out of the fact that his tariff scheme was never really about trying to do anything for the American economy or the American consumer. It's always been a power grab, a favor to dole out, trying to help his friends and hurt those who stand up to him. Case in point, yesterday Trump imposed an eye popping 50% tariff rate on Brazil, a country where America has a trade surplus, because Brazil had the nerve to prosecute their former President Bolsonaro after he staged a coup to try to stay in office. Or as Senator Elizabeth Warren puts it, quote, trump supports a right wing coup plotter so now you'll have to pay more for beef and coffee. We can understand why Trump would hate the mere idea or whiff of any sort of accountability for someone trying to overthrow his government. In the letter posted to his social media site Truth Social, attempting to justify the 50% tariff and likely increase in the price of coffee and beef, Trump writes this quote, I knew and dealt with former President Bolsonaro and respected him greatly, as did most other leaders of countries. The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a highly respected leader, inexplicably capitalized throughout the world during his term, also capitalized, including by the US Is an international disgrace. This trial should not be taking place. It is a witch hunt that should end immediately. All caps. He added that it was, quote, necessary to have this to rectify the grave injustices of the current regime. Okay, Senator Elizabeth Warren notes, if these tariffs go into effect, the people who will pay the the price that Trump is trying to exact against Brazil will actually be us, the American coffee drinker, the American consumer, all Americans, not just the people who didn't vote for Trump on that. Reuters reports this quote, around a third of the coffee consumed in the United States comes from Brazil, and more than half of the orange juice sold in the US Comes from Brazil. In his letter, Donald Trump also claimed that Brazil is censoring American social media platforms, including his. He ordered a trade investigation for, quote, continued attacks on the digital trade activities of American companies. In a statement, Brazil's current president, Lula da Silva, slammed Trump's attempts to undermine Brazil's independence and warned that retaliatory tariffs were coming potentially threatening American businesses. It remains to be seen if Donald Trump's attempts to get Brazil's institutions to submit to his brand of right wing authoritarianism will be undercut by the growing understanding that, as Wall street puts it, Trump always chickens out. But the message to the rest of the world is now being heard loud and clear. New York Times reports it like this quote, what has been dizzying for other foreign nations is clear to Mr. Trump. Tariffs are a weapon he has at his disposal, and he sees them as a way to rebalance global influence. It is where we start the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. New York Times diplomatic correspondent Michael Crowley is here. Also joining us, professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan, Justin Wolfers is here. And the President of Media Matters for America, Angelo Caracson is here. Let me start with you, Michael Crowley, and this access of insurrectionists, which Trump for some reason seems intent on highlighting as opposed to, to brushing under the rug. Explain.
- [52:11]
Nicole Wallace
Well, Nicole, thank you for having me. You know, obviously this is so fundamental to Trump's worldview. I mean, so much about his presidency so far, as we've seen, is a kind of victory lap, slash, retribution campaign that is tied to his sense or at least his claim. It's never been clear how much he genuinely believes, believes it, that the 2020 election was stolen from him and that the system was rigged against him, that everyone was out to get him, that he was unfairly persecuted. So, you know, you're now seeing him claiming a kind of vindication by saying, here I was reelected in what I call a fair election, and now going after people who he feels, you know, tried to keep him out of office, persecuted him, giving pardons to January 6th rioters and saying that what they were doing was noble. And the point is that this is so core to his sense of self and his presidency that he's now essentially projecting it or linking it to other countries. And we know that he had a tight relationship With Bolsonaro. I'll always remember Bolsonaro coming to Mar A Lago. I think they had kind of like a big dinner party when. When Covid was really raging and people were not supposed to be doing that sort of thing, and they were sort of comrades in Covid denialism, if you want to call it that. And now he sees in his eyes, Bolsonaro going through something similar, and I guess he just can't resist getting involved. And either it's genuine outrage where he's channeling his own grievance, or he somehow sees a benefit in just. Just keeping this narrative alive of supposed democratic systems that are unfairly persecuting people because of conspiracies that involve censoring social media and things like that that are totally unsubstantiated. But again, that's how he sees his narrative right now. So it's not entirely shocking, even if it really has no precedent that I can think of.
- [54:20]
Andrew Weissmann
It's such a good. It's such a good way into this conversation. Michael Crowley. I mean, it's. He sees himself in Bolsonaro, I guess. The difference, though, between this bromance, this association, this wanting to do for Bolsonaro what wasn't done for him until the voters reelected him, the difference between this friendship and the friendship he has with Orban of Hungary or until the last 72 hours with Vladimir Putin, is that Bolsonaro is more of a loser. He doesn't have anything to offer Trump. And if Trump sticks this, I don't know, olive branch out to a fellow accused coup plotter, the people left holding the bag are the American consumers. I mean, the 50% tariff on Brazil, you roll your cart down the aisles and you pay that. And I wonder what you think it says about his own assessment of his political strength. Thanks.
- [55:18]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, I think he's feeling very strong right now. Nicole. It's not. It's never been totally clear to me the degree to which he fully grasps the impact of his tariffs and the effects that they have. And he seems to dismiss, you know, solid economic data when he talks about this. I would add that one possible factor here is to stick it to the current Brazilian leader, Lula, who is a sharp Trump critic. And so while you make an excellent point that Trump often doesn't come to the rescue of people he perceives as losers or who are down and out, it' syou know, bucking up Bolsonaro and showing Brazilians that he has a friend in President Trump is probably not super helpful. Helpful for Lula. Who is a leftist, who does not like President Trump and I suppose could cause political problems for Lula and help to resuscitate Bolsonaro in some way. I mean, it feels like a long shot, but I don't think we can rule that out.
- [56:25]
Andrew Weissmann
I mean, I guess the problem, Justin, is that Trump doesn't have the attention span to see through a 3D chess move like that. But we'll see. I could be proven wrong. Maybe he remains more engaged in Brazilian domestic, domestic politics than our own. Take us through what a 50% tariff with Brazil looks like for the American consumer.
- [56:48]
Nicole Wallace
Well, the first thing it's going to do is put the coup in Cupertino. We all drink a lot of Brazilian coffee. And now next time you go to Starbucks, don't forget to add the insurrection infusion fee. So the most important part of this. Yes, he's meddling in Brazilian politics by imposing a tax on Americans. You and I are going to be paying higher taxes at Starbucks on juice, on all the things that we import from Brazil. And Brazil is a very important trading partner in order to help the leader of a failed coup get off the hook. Remember, this really highlights the absurdity in so many dimensions, actually, Nicole, but one, John, the legal authority under which Trump is imposing these tariffs is a national emergency. The national emergency right now must be that the leader of a failed coup in another country might go to jail. Another country might exercise its sovereign rights. This is utterly absurd. The idea that the courts haven't intervened and shut all this down is crazy. Let me show the absurdity in another way. The key argument for tariffs is so that we can make stuff at home. Good luck growing coffee in the United States. I mean, my friends in Hawaii tell me there's seven and a half plants and there's six people and a goat who are farming coffee. But we cannot grow 40% of the world's coffee, which is what Brazil produces.
- [58:19]
Andrew Weissmann
Angela, let me come to you on where Trump goes from here, because Trump doesn't like to walk back a political association like the one that he's. I mean, it's ridiculous for all the reasons that Justin explains. And it's a questionable legality. It has nothing to do with the economy, which is what sets this one apart, even from the China tariffs. I mean, this is squarely about aiding an accused insurrectionist, an accused coup plotter. This has nothing to do with. With trade or the economy. Do you think he's accurately reading how far he can take the American people in terms of paying more for things that everyone uses to not do anything related to trade or the economy here.
- [59:15]
Nicole Wallace
The American people, probably not, but a part of his base. Yeah, he's accurately reading that. You know, and I think it's worth considering this in a broader context of the story that they're being told, why this matters to a part of Trump's base. And I think this is one of the interesting points where, you know, he has pulled together a coalition of people like Bannon.
- [59:36]
Andrew Weissmann
Right.
- [59:36]
Nicole Wallace
That are nationalists, but then all these sort of like, you know, techno futurists that are focusing on transhumanism and, you know, everything in between. In a way, Trump is an instrument for all of these other agendas. And they hope that. That Trump is going to do enough. Enough disruption to the status quo that whoever else, you know, can go in and fill the void, that they can implement what their future looks like. And one of the futures, one of the stories that's part of this, and Steve Bannon have been and Tucker have really grabbed a hold of this for the past few years, is sort of this revived version of the Monroe Doctrine. And, you know, even though they're nationalists, they believe that the Western Hemisphere is America. So think about the Panama Canal and Greenland, all the things that Trump sort of sprinkled out there. They're actually all offshoots of this story that is very appealing to a part of Trump's nationalistic base, which is that, yes, America first, but America's. That we get to have control and dominance over the Western Hemisphere. And obviously Brazil being a part of that. Brazil being a part of that. As has been noted so far, the current administration and government, there is an opposition to Trump. So this is about sort of of filling in that part of the narrative. And then the second thing is, and this goes, the Bolsonaro stuff goes all the way back to 2022. I mean, the same people that Trump leaned on to push the narrative about the 2020 election being stolen. Yeah, you know, Mike Lindell, Tucker, Ben and that whole cast of characters, they have been all over the story that, you know, the election was stolen from Bolsonaro as well. So Trump has a, you know, a real deep connection to this. Do I think that Trump is thinking about, you know, a Monroe Doctrine 2.0? Of course not that, but I think he's thinking about the story. And the story is about a projection of American power and control. And you take a few short term actions, most of which are stunts, but it doesn't matter. Some of those things actually lead to responses in the opposition. Most of them Don't. And then you just keep playing and soft rolling and you do something to get some change and eventually you declare a win or that perceived power becomes actual power. And I think that's a big part of what's playing out here, is that you're actually seeing a piece of Trump's base, the Bannon Wing, really driving a significant portion of our foreign policy through the instrument of these tariffs. And the last thing I'll just say on this is that this exact action was teed up by Charlie Kirk a few months ago, saying, this is what Donald Trump should do in Brazil. So I think when you start to pull it all together, yes, ridiculous. But it makes sense from the perspective of the story that a big piece of his base has been telling themselves have been fed. And it also then signals where we're going in the future, which is that right now it's actually Bannon that has his hand on the wheel of just how far they're willing to push in pressure to begin to drive this transformation, not just in America, but in sort of global affairs as well.
- [62:27]
Andrew Weissmann
Bannon a distant second for Trump's affections after Elon Musk flamed out. I think I have that Charlie Kirk sound. Let's listen to that.
- [62:38]
Nicole Wallace
Bolsonaro is going to be put on trial for supposedly plotting a coup. This is in a country of Brazil that we allegedly call an ally. If Russia were to do this, we would sanction them. If Brazil does it, why are we putting up with it? And the answer is we shouldn't. Is the U.S. state Department, Marco Rubio and President Trump should issue tariffs and, if necessary, sanctions on Brazil for this kind of reckless, immoral behavior.
- [63:11]
Andrew Weissmann
Michael Crowley, I want to come back to you with the absolute perversion of the country's standing in the world. I mean, you go through Clinton foreign policy, Bush 1, foreign policy, Bush 2 foreign policy, and I can hear Angela wheel spinning. That's exactly what they've rejected in the MAGA base. And I understand that. But in terms of what veterans of World War I and 2 fought and died for, they fought for America's standing in the world. They fought against Nazi Germany, they fought against fascism. Those cemeteries in Normandy and all over Europe are where American men, largely men lay next to our closest allies because they fought to protect something that has been a deeply held value. It feels like that is what is being turned upside down by the second Trump presidency.
- [64:07]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah. Well, Nicole, right at the heart of this is the question of democracy as a governing system and a model for the world. And you know, that had been a wholly unchallenged concept in American politics for pretty much since the founding of the country. And what you're seeing is this embrace of authoritarians around the world. In this case, the embrace of someone who the embrace by someone who tried to overturn a democratic election of another foreign former leader who tried to overturn a democratic election. And it just leaves the question, who is standing up to promote and defend democracy? President Biden would say frequently that the world was at an inflection point in history and that the defining cause of his time was democracy versus authoritarian and other forms of government. And you really have to ask yourself, was Biden right? And are we seeing that that inflection point has gone not in the direction that Bide wanted it to, but, but in another direction? And, and the more that, and so it's a very powerful moment.
- [65:26]
Andrew Weissmann
Yeah. Thank you all for helping us freeze frame on it. We're going to ask all of you to stick around when we all come back. Moving the goalposts on Trump's failed promise of 90 trade deals in 90 days. Also ahead for us, newly released evidence is corroborating a whistleblower's claim that top Trump DOJ official Emil Beauvais openly discussed defying court orders with Justice Department prosecutors. It comes as Bobby awaits confirmation to be an appeals court judge, part of Donald Trump's all out assault on the rule of law. We'll have that conversation later in the hour. Deadline Whitehouse continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [66:11]
Nicole Wallace
So we're going to run 90 deals in 90 days is possible. 90 days and 90 days. I'm very happy. I'm very happy. I am very happy with where we're at.
- [66:23]
Andrew Weissmann
Many of you in the media clearly missed the art of the deal. You clearly failed to see what President Trump is doing here. The entire world is calling the United States of America. We've seen a lot of positive developments in the right direction. But the administration, the president and his trade team want to cut the best deals for the American people and the American worker.
- [66:43]
Nicole Wallace
It has brought more than 75 countries forward to negotiate.
- [66:48]
Andrew Weissmann
Why haven't we seen the kind of deals that he promised in the last 90 days?
- [66:53]
Nicole Wallace
Again, he didn't promise this. Many of these countries, Many of these countries never even contacted us.
- [67:02]
Andrew Weissmann
Nobody even called us. We're waiting. Justin, what is going on here? I mean, and I guess I'll let Angela weigh in on the story they're told. I mean, the truth is that he's making fools of his supporters making fools of his base of voters. And again, it's the biggest political betrayal in my lifetime that he ran. He stood in front of groceries in the heat at Bedminster and said he'd make all the food items behind him cheaper. Nothing will be cheaper if he carries on with the tariffs and, or the economic instability.
- [67:36]
Nicole Wallace
Nicole, I just think you're too harsh on this bloke.
- [67:39]
Andrew Weissmann
Go ahead, Justin, you go first.
- [67:41]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, sorry mate, I just think you're being too harsh on this bloke. I was a 17 year old boy once and prom was coming up and I told all my mates that the phone was ringing off the hook and it's only you. And because I trust you, I feel safe saying this, Nicole. But the truth was I was huddled all alone in my room next to the phone, hoping it would eventually ring and no one really liked me. And, you know, I think it's probably because of my personality. I fear there might be some parallels with the current moment. So look, he promised 90 deals in 90 days. We got two frameworks and an extension out to 114 days. People don't seem so worried right now. They're betting on Taco. Trump always chickens out. And Nicole, I know you love the acronyms. I worry instead that it's the opposite. This is a bloke who loves tariffs and he got talked out of it last time. And this time, like the 17 year old me who eventually did pick up the phone and ask someone to prom, this time he might actually have the courage of his convictions. And so I think we're looking instead at the Taquito that Trump's aggressive commerce quest will unleash intense tariff orders. And so look, we've seen this movie before, Liberation Day, it caused everyone to fear a recession was just around the corner. So given that it failed once, now in summer reruns, we're coming back and we're trying it again.
- [69:02]
Andrew Weissmann
Yeah. Angela, what bet is he making that people won't notice that things are more expensive or there aren't any deals, or that he doesn't care about Scott Bessant's credibility?
- [69:14]
Nicole Wallace
He definitely doesn't care about Scott Besson's credibility.
- [69:17]
Andrew Weissmann
I think he's been.
- [69:18]
Nicole Wallace
He's banking, I mean, that's for sure, but he's banking on, on something that he has been a key part of his sort of public communications, whether it be in private life or in public life life for the longest time. Something he wrote in his book where he talks about the fact that the, the way that he markets, he Said my style of marketing is bravado. And then the next thing he says right after that is, I play to people's fantasies. And what he gets to in that section of the book is exactly what's playing out here. And it's exactly what is part of it over again, which is that you have this guy who's this deal maker who comes in as president, he's advocating for America. Yes, he's going to make all these deals, but he knows that nobody's going to count whether he makes 90 or not. What matters is that he performs. And, you know, yes, he's, he sent out a bunch of foreign letters, but, you know, that part of the story gets lost whether or not they material into deals. Well, Trump's trying, you see, that's the way that his audience will see it. And one of the other things, and this is part of the issue with him getting right to the edge and walking back, is that it's now been a few times where we're right to the edge of things really getting bad. We're really worried about, you know, Liberation Day and the potential for massive economic collapse and a huge recession. And, oh, look at that. It didn't. It worked out okay. Right there wasn't that catastrophe that everybody was warning about. And that's part of it is that you play to people's fantasies while at the same time muddying the waters so much that when it comes time for people to hold somebody accountable, it's not very clear who's actually at fault for the giant mess that we're now standing in. And because he tends to be the loudest voice in the room, he gets to be the one want to point the finger. So that's what he's banking on. He's banking on that he gets to ride people's fantasies, and when it all comes crashing down, he will be the loudest voice that then gets to decide who is blamed for the mess.
- [71:03]
Andrew Weissmann
I mean, Angela, you're nine of the Trump story. There's not a single example of where that dynamic has transferred onto anybody else. Right. It didn't apply to Mike Pence, whose political history. It doesn't apply to any Republicans. He has had calamitous midterms for Republicans while he was president the first time. I accept your argument about what his thinking is, but it does not set Republicans up. The combination of prices not coming, I mean, that was the fantasy in terms of what moved voters in the 2020 election, because all of the cultural and all of the other things and the story they hear every day. That is really insular at this point. And I, you know, you have to sort of peer in to see it. But in terms of people that pay attention every four years and try to make a decision, the best decision for their families, they were probably cognizant of that. I'm not letting them off the hook. But they were most animated by economic frustration, fear, anxiety and insecurity and malaise about stubborn inflation. He has betrayed them by pursuing this thing that you talk about, his fantasy over tariffs. What do you think happens to Republicans in the midterms?
- [72:19]
Nicole Wallace
I think that there may and I'm usually the pessimist and the naysayer here. But just watching what's played out at the right wing space, Trump is assuming that we're still operating at a talk radio and Fox News dominated landscape and he's forgotten his own lessons from the last cycle. There's a reason why he went on all those podcasts. He went on those podcasts during the the election, but he doesn't pay attention to them now. They're all starting to turn on him. Not because they're opposed to his politics. In fact, they like his politics. They're still part of his politics. But they feel exactly what you're feeling, that he's betrayed them in some way. He was betrayed them on the Epstein stuff. He's betrayed them on some of the foreign affairs stuff. They don't want to carry his water. And so to your question, you know, if you don't have the ground, that big part of the right wing media, that larger online landscape, willing to carry your water for these stories, the individuals that are going to suffer the consequences of this are the Republicans that are enabling Trump that don't have his political resilience or his megaphone. And I think that's going to be the real consequence because ultimately people just won't be there to defend them. And they're going to need that.
- [73:21]
Andrew Weissmann
Yeah. Angelo Carson, Justin Wolvers, Michael Crowley, thank you so much for starting us off this hour. It's great to see all of you. When we come back, newly released evidence is backing up a whistleblower's claim that top Trump DOJ official and appellate court nominee Emil Bove discussed ignoring and even defying judges in court orders. We'll bring you that story next. There is damning and clear cut new evidence today that reveals how top Justice Department official Emil Bobe spearheaded efforts to mislead and outright defy court orders. Former Justice Department lawyer Erez Roveni provided the Senate Judiciary Committee with a trove of documents bolstering his whistleblower complaint that Bove suggested that officials say f you to the courts if they tried to stop the Trump administration's mass deportation of migrants to the notorious Secot prison in El Salvador. According to the new documents, when Judge James Boasberg did tell the federal government to turn the planes around, alarm grew inside and among Justice Department lawyers. Raveni began furiously trying to alert Trump officials of Boasberg's order, writing in a series of emails this quote, the judge specifically ordered us not to remove anyone in the class and to return anyone in the air as we await the written order clarifying our understanding of the injunction. As clarified at the end, no one subject to the Alien Enemies act in our custody can be removed and anyone in the air should be returned unless they have a Title 8 final order. Please confirm receipt and let us know what, if anything, is happening. When he heard nothing, just crickets. In response, Raveni texted a colleague this quote, guess we are going to say f you to the court. Super. To which his colleague responded, quote, well, Pamela, Joe Bondi is not you. Almost 24 hours after Raveni tried to stop the defiance of this court order from Judge Boasberg, he received an email from the acting head of DOJ's civil rights division showing it was Bove who gave DHS the green light to continue these deportation flights. From that email, quote, I have been told by ODAG that the principal associate, Deputy Attorney General Emil Beauvais, advised DHS last night that the deplaning of the flights that had departed US Airspace prior to the court's minute order was permissible under the law. And the court's order, that's alarming conduct by someone who is supposed to be upholding the rule of law, made all the more concerning by the fact that Bove is now headed toward a potential lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary, the very judiciary he appears to have willingly ignored. Joining our conversation, former Criminal Division Deputy Chief at sdny, MSNBC legal analyst Christy Greenberg. Christy worked with Bove at SDNY. And joining us in a minute, former U.S. attorney, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litmus will be here. Christy, take me through. Actually, let me put up some of this evidence. This is the text exchange between Raveni, the whistleblower and his colleague before filing a brief asking to stay one of Boasberg's orders. He writes, at this point, why don't we just submit an emoji of a middle finger as our filing? The DOJ official said it's so stupid. What do you take from this look inside the Bondi Bove Justice Department? Well, you see a series of lawyers who are actually including this whistleblower were trying to do the right thing. They get a court order. Court order didn't come out the way that they wanted it to, but they got it. And he is trying to advise everybody what the court order is and confirm that they are understanding what it says and that they're complying with it. That is what you are supposed to do. And instead you also see that he's dealing with the fact that he's getting radio silence. Nobody's writing him back, nobody's saying anything to him. And ultimately, at one point, there's a message that says, look, you and your leadership don't agree. And it becomes quite clear the message that you had showed earlier, that it was actually Bobby, who's advising DHS that it's permissible deplane these individuals, when it was quite clear from the, the court's order that that was what we're not supposed to do. And I just, it is so clear from these emails, like when Chuck Grassley was saying in the hearing, this is a hit piece, that everything this whistleblower is saying is false. No, it's not. He is backing up what he is saying with documents that were contemporaneous to the timing of all of this. So this is exactly what Judge Bozeman wanted to probe when he found that there was criminal contempt here for blatantly flouting his order. The judge wanted to get into all of this. And unfortunately, the D.C. court of Appeals with two Trump appointed judges who had clerked for Justice Thomas, they both said, we're halting any criminal contempt proceedings here. And I mean, they're really, those judges are doing, are doing Trump's bidding here because by putting that on hold right now, over these last three months, we should have been hearing about contempt proceedings. We should have been getting declarations, potential testimony from Bobby and others who were responsible for flouting the judge's order. Instead, Trump has nominated him to be a judge. And now that's the hearing that we're having. Not the hearing about contempt, but the hearing about whether he gets promoted. And the message that this sends to those within doj, to his enablers, that you are immune from consequences for breaking the law. And not only are you immune, you will be rewarded. And that is a very dangerous message to send. Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, it has nothing to do with a person's personal politics. Roveni was not A partisan, not a political person. And the Times reports, I mean, he spent the first Trump presidency defending all of his immigration actions in court. Let me read. Let me read that from the New York Times. Quote. Mr. Raveni said he came forward for reasons larger than Mr. Bove's judicial nomination, concerned by what he described as a degradation of the principles of honesty to the courts that have long guided the Justice Department. He noted that he has never been a member of a political party and spent the first Trump administration zealously defending its immigration policies in court. But what the administration has sought to do in recent months was far different, he said, a deliberate strategy of deceiving and disregarding federal judges. That seems to put us on a totally different path than Trump 1.0. Talk about that, Krista. It does. I mean, in Trump 1.0, we may not have liked the policy, but there were guardrails in place, at least some where there were people willing to say no. And we're just not seeing that in this administration. This was a clear court order where the judge was very clear, hey, if these people are, I just certified a class. If they're on the plane, return them to the United States, turn the plane around, do whatever you have to do, but they should not be deplaning. There was an oral order to that effect, and then he followed it up half an hour later with a written order. And they're trying, Bovey and others are trying to kind of worm their way around and say that the order doesn't say what it plainly says, and that just, I think, in Trump 1.0 wasn't the case. People generally within the administration would tell Trump, hey, we've got to abide by these court orders. We may not like them, but we appeal them, we fight them. There's a way to do this. And now it just seems as though, yeah, we are openly saying, f you. The fact that during Bovey's confirmation hearing, when Senator Schiff said, did you suggest telling the courts f you in any manner? His response was, I do not recall. That's disqualifying. The answer is anything other than no? Of course not. Not only didn't I say it, but I would never say such a thing. You would never hear those words coming out of my mouth. If that's not the response, you have no business not only being a line prosecutor, you don't have any business being a supervisor, not any business being the number three of doj, a district court judge, much less an appellate judge, who may well be on the path to a Supreme Court spot if he is confirmed at the appellate level. And that again is dangerous because he is there for his loyalty, not for his qualifications. And it's not just folks looking from the outside. The Wall Street Journal editorial board reaches the same conclusion as you do. I want to do two things. I we have Harry's connection set up. We're going to bring Harry in. But we also are learning more from the whistleblower about what the State Department was trying to do when it came to Kilmar Brago Garcia. We'll tell you about that. We'll bring you that reporting. We have to sneak in a short break. Harry and Christina will be back on the other side. We're back with Harry and Christy. Harry and the gremlins kept you out of the last part of the conversation, but we'll bring you up to to speed. This is what the whistleblower Mr. Roveni has shared with Congress. He's shown evidence about how the State Department offered to begin negotiations with the Salvadorian government to get Abrego Garcia back, but DHS officials resisted. Some of that was reported by the New York Times at the time. But what do you make of the trove of current real time visibility the whistleblower gives us into not just in male bove but this Justice Department?
- [83:47]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, it really is very illuminating. So we know that the whistleblower is keeping his clients apprised and of what the demand from the judge, don't turn around the plane. So Christy was just discussing it, but I want to just reconfirm here that there are really a couple things that Bovet looks terrible with respect to the revelations. The first is the candor to Congress and the FU part and the it's not even the profanity that matters, it's the content of it. The FU was will have to consider saying FU to the court and all his subsequent emails show that that's exactly what they were referring to. But also Rouveni is keeping everyone informed and telling them don't take this plane off. You must turn it around. Communicating the oral order. And it's Beauvais who both inappropriately and with no legal basis, he's wrong. In fact makes the call that says no, they're in international airspace, forget it, they can't touch them anymore. Which they could that was mistaken and who had said the day before, no matter what, those planes are going to El Salvador. So at doj he's already laid the groundwork work for not listening to judges. He's the one who does it himself. And Then we also know that thereafter he basically has said this and he's the architect. I just want to say I have vetted hundreds of judges for positions in either the district courts of appeals when I was at doj. There's zero chance that someone as to who these revelations had been made, both as to the candor and the command and the conduct at DOJ and the plans to just violate orders would be anything but pulled from consideration. So that's a whole new kind of practice that they're redoubling with Bove.
- [85:52]
Andrew Weissmann
Harry, let me follow up with you. We're also learning from Mr. Raveni's interview with the New York Times the why, right, why this matters. He writes this quote, if they can do this sort of thing to abrego Garcia, to 238 people who nobody knows and send them to CCAP forever with no due process, then they can do that to anyone, said Mr. Raveni. It should be deeply, deeply worrisome to anyone who cares about their safety and their liberty that the government can, without showing evidence to anyone of anything, spirit you away on a plane to wherever forever. This feels like the nut of the whole issue. Right? I don't think anyone, certainly no Democrat, that's been on this show is saying that if there is an adjudicated criminal who's been in this country, who came to this country illegally, who serves his sentence, that they shouldn't be deported. That's exactly what President Obama did. But what the Trump administration has shown an appetite to do is to deprive people of their due process rights and send them away. And that's where you're seeing some of these crimes. Coalition Talk about the stakes of ignoring this warning from inside the Justice Department.
- [87:08]
Nicole Wallace
It's so important. And this does go to the nut of exactly what happened March 14, March 15. And the administration's not only doing it, but fighting tooth and nail to give any kind of detail about it. Remember, they've given shifting reasons as to Abrego Garcia himself and their they're thinking of deporting him in a way that would keep all of this from coming to light. I'll just add, I think the whistleblower says it very well. There's another element of it, which is if someone does come forward with credible information, they trash them. This is the disgruntled employee who knows nothing, et cetera. So it extends also to people. Whatever they say, they just deny, deny and disparage. It's really important for the country. This is why everyone's watching a brick and so closely to know just what happened then. Did they really lay these plans? Boasburg has been foiled just today in the Abrego hearing. They were supposed to bring someone forward with knowledge, and they didn't. There's a whole separate campaign to keep us in the dark about really important matters.
- [88:22]
Andrew Weissmann
Christy, you know Emil Bove, you know Todd Blanche as well. I'm not asking you to get inside their heads or reveal anything private or personal. But just as someone who has seen lawyers ascend the ranks, what do you think happened to them in terms of losing what is a North Star for most people who work at the Department of Justice? I think the best way to answer that, just focus on AIML for the moment, is to focus on what Cory Booker included in his letter to he essentially laid out an email from 2018 from a group of defense attorneys who had complaints about Emil Bovey when he was just a line prosecutor at sdny. Now, look, do defense attorneys sometimes have complaints about line prosecutors? Prosecutors, yes, all the time for any number of reasons. That's not something to be alarmed about. But this is 2018. So this is pre Trump. This is not a partisan attack. This is before he ever knew Trump. And the complaints from a group are voluminous. He was the they said he was the drunk driving version of a prosecutor on a power trip, needed adult supervision. I mean, those kinds of comments, that's not somebody who should have ever been promoted. I think, I think, you know, the groundwork was laid well before what we see now. Christy Grimberg, thank you for that. Harry Lippman, thank you for spending time with us today. We'll stay on this story. When we come back, some very good news to share with you about the New Orleans as she gardened in her own house in front of her house. We'll bring you that story next. There is some good news to tell you about today, about a story we first reported on on this program last month. After more than two weeks in detention, New Orleans resident Donna Kashanian has been released by US immigration officers. Kashanian, a 64 year old originally from Iran, came to the United States As a student 47 years ago, after which her asylum claim was denied. For decades, she has been permitted to stay in this country by attending immigration appointments, which her husband and daughter, who've appeared on this program and both are U.S. citizens, told us she did regularly. Those who witnessed her arrest say Kashanian was handcuffed and detained by plainclothes ICE agents while she was gardening outside of her house. Her release comes after outrage from the New Orleans community and after House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who is from New Orleans, shared letters of support from more than 100 of her neighbors and friends with the Trump administration to help ensure her release. We'll take one more break. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes. We are grateful. If you haven't had a chance to do it yet, please give a listen to my conversation with Sarah Jessica Parker on the Best People podcast. Just scan the QR code right there on your screen, or you can download it wherever you get your podcast. If you listen, shoot me a note and let me know what you think.
- [91:47]
Nicole Wallace
Hey, everybody, it's Rob Lowe here. If you haven't heard, I have a podcast that's called Literally with Rob Lowe. And basically it's conversations I've had that really make you feel like you're pulling up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire, like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J. Fox. There are new episodes out every Thursday, so subscribe, please, and listen wherever you get your podcasts.