Loading summary

Transcript82 lines

[00:00]
Nicole Wallace
New lancome Absolu Longevity MD. Backed by 20 years of research and five patents, the formulas combine Mitopure, the number one selling longevity supplement, with Lancome's exclusive skin care compounds. It's designed and clinically measured to work on two the visible signs of aging, like elasticity and the look of fine lines, and the invisible ones, like the rate of surface cell renewal happening within the skin. Start your visible biological age reversal@lancome.com longevitymdash
[00:30]
Rachel Maddow
join Ms. Now Live in Texas for our biggest event yet with Rachel Maddow, Jen Psaki, Michael Steele and more. Ms. NOW live Together in Texas September 26th. Get tickets today at Ms. NOW Together.
[00:52]
Alicia Menendez
Hi everyone, it is 4 o' clock here in New York. I'm Alicia Menendez in for Nicole Wallace. Alarming new details are emerging about Donald Trump's Air Force One bait and switch on a return flight from Turkey where Trump used his own staff as well as the journalists who cover him as decoys while he flew out on an unmarked plane due to threats from Iran. We are now learning more about who the staff members Trump used as decoys were and who was allowed to fly with him, making the cut for the secret flight. Ms. Now is reporting on the decoy flight leaving Turkey with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who helped to plan the operation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant both knew that Trump was on a secret plane. Other White House staffers on the decoy plane included Stephen Miller, Stephen Cheung, Mike Needham, Ross Worthington, Monica Crowley and Will Scharf. By contrast, the staffers who joined Trump in his catering truck plane switch were relatively low level aides. The Washington Post reports the passengers on the truck included Dan Scavino, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Natalie Harp, the President's executive assistant and Walt Nauta, the Director of Oval Office operations. Also on the smaller jet was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who boarded the C32A using external stairs in a manner that made him look like the senior most official on the flight. Nada may be most familiar as Donald Trump's Diet Coke valet who was charged as Trump's co conspirator in the Mar A Lago classified documents case. Donald Trump was pressed about the ruse yesterday amid growing calls for a congressional investigation Watch. Why was it too dangerous for you to fly on Air Force One but not too much?
[02:37]
Donald Trump
I think actually the plane that I flew on was at greater risk. I think it was at greater risk because that would be the plane. I think that they would be more likely athlete to go for Are you
[02:49]
Nicole Wallace
worried about a shoulder fired missile?
[02:52]
Donald Trump
I don't worry about anything to be honest. Whatever it is, you know my attitude, whatever. President. Are you surprised, Mr. President, that the big observer is telling you to take that non plane? No, not surprised. I have a lot of threats. I have a lot of threats that you don't know about. Any consequential president has a lot of threats. Non consequential presidents don't get threatened. And I think that I may be the most consequent.
[03:21]
Alicia Menendez
The Trump administration continuing to stonewall after using staff and journalists as decoys is where we begin today. Senior investigative reporter Carol Lennig, plus managing editor for the Bulwark contributor Sam Stein. And we're also joined by a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Democratic Congressman Andre Carson of Indiana. Congressman, I want to start with you. When did you find out about the plane swap?
[03:42]
Congressman Andre Carson
Well, I found out like, like everyone else, you know, look, this is a very concerning security threat. The administration made a decision to protect the President as they should. DOD made a decision as well as Secret Service and I commend them for it. I think this is just another reminder of really the broader costs of this war in Iran. First and foremost, as a member of the House Intel Committee, I'm deeply concerned over this reported threat. The idea that Iran could threaten to fire a missile at Air Force One after takeoff is very concerning, very concerning for the President, very concerning for staffers and certainly for the Fourth estate, the press. I'm very relieved that this reported plot did not succeed. But I think the entire episode raises very serious questions about how the administration handled the threat and the risks it was willing to take with other Americans.
[04:43]
Alicia Menendez
So Congressman, to that point, what would you want to learn in a congressional inquiry?
[04:48]
Congressman Andre Carson
Well, you know, look, protecting the President obviously is paramount in these kinds of situations. We also want to make sure when we use a ruse such as this one that passengers are still safe on other aircraft as well. And I trust the military to do so as well as the Secret Service. I think that if the threat were dangerous enough for the President to be secretly moved to another aircraft, which was a wise decision, we still want to make sure that members of the press are protected as well. But at the very same time, we don't want to cause the kinds of concerns that would have reports leak that would alert our enemies or our adversaries during this kind of exchange to make sure that the principal is protected, but also that the fourth estate and staffers are protected as well.
[05:44]
Alicia Menendez
Caroline, when you are talking to folks, Secret Service, current Former. How usual or unusual do they say this were? Was protocol followed here?
[05:58]
Carol Lennig
I like the way you're asking the question, Alicia, but let me flip it a little bit and just say, you know, when I first started to learn about this jaw dropping reporting by my old news organization, the Washington Post, I was impressed by this. Absolutely impressed by what they figured out. Kudos to them. And initially I had concerns and questions about whether or not this threat was legit and how much certainty, essentially, or how much probability the Secret Service placed in this threat. But in the last several hours, as I've talked to more sources inside the government and also those who are conferring directly with the Secret Service, I'm learning that the probability of this threat was fairly high. And indeed, the Secret Service was willing to add a new risk, moving the President from the safest plane on the planet to a different one to avoid him being potentially targeted. However, I want to emphasize something that I think is important to share that is news to me, which is that these sources tell me the Secret Service concluded that everybody on Old Air, what we are jokingly calling old Air Force One, was exceptionally safe. The cabinet members that were aboard, the press that were aboard, the fact that they weren't read into this, I have some questions about as well. But I'm told that of all the aircraft in the planet, this one was exceptionally safe. But the goal of the Secret Service in this setting was to shake up whether or not those planning to target the President had room and certainty to actually achieve their mission. This changed the trajectory a little, in their view, enough that they would take the President off the safest plane in the world.
[08:03]
Alicia Menendez
Congressman, you talk with the sort of reverence earlier about the decision that the Secret Service and DoD made in the service of protecting the President. Do you really feel you have visibility into how they came to their decision and how it was executed?
[08:20]
Congressman Andre Carson
I don't. But I can say as someone who has worked in counterterrorism, counterintelligence, I sit on the Intel Committee and I travel on some of these aircraft. There is technology that is available that protects passengers. Again, the press was protected. The kinds of transparency that is critically important should not be overlooked. It should not be minimized. At the same time, there are very serious security risks and threats targeting not only our President, but members of Congress each and every day. And I think in order to avert many of these threats to the best of our ability, these kinds of tactics have to be employed, whether we like them or not, whether we have political agreements or not, ideological alignment or not. We have to be read into a degree. But I think whenever you have tens of people read into a situation, you increase the risk of for a leak to inevitably happen.
[09:27]
Alicia Menendez
Sam, I want to just play you a little bit more of what we heard from the President in that press gaggle last night. Take a listen.
[09:35]
Donald Trump
The country's doing well. Iran is going fine. Going just absolutely fine. We totally control the Strait of hormones. We have control over it. Nobody else. Only us. Our navy is unbelievable and things are going great for our country.
[09:50]
Alicia Menendez
I mean, the only true statement there, Sam, is that the Navy is unbelievable. Everything else, Iran is not going great. The Strait of Hormuz is not going great. And nothing is, as the president described, being smuggled in a catering truck with your Diet Coke valet. Is that supposed to express confidence to the American people from an administration that purports to be the most transparent administration in American history?
[10:19]
Sam Stein
Well, this is kind of the underlying thread that ties all this together, which is dishonesty. I mean, I couldn't agree more with the congressman or Carol. Like, obviously it was a serious enough threat. That president should have been moved that a decoy flight was totally acceptable. The Secret Service made a determination. No one should begrudge the president for getting on the catering truck, as silly as that is, and going to this other military aircraft. You can even make the case that a bit of sort of deception was probably necessary in order to make sure that nothing leaked, as the congressman said. But there is a widespread lack of honesty and transparency and outright lying that is accompanying this administration throughout this. And Carol's too kind to say it because she's a good person. But when she initially reported that they had to switch from the Qatari jet to the Air Force One, which then Trump, you know, bolted anyway because of security threats, the White House was very public in saying that she was a liar. They did. They went out there and they said she's a liar. And it turns out she was right and they were wrong. And that's just the M.O. for this administration. And you saw with President Trump last night where he's saying, oh, we, we control the state of Strait of Hormuz. We do not. There's nothing going through the straight of horror. Eight ships when there used to be 130 things in Iran are fine. They are not. We are what, a couple days before the 60 day target for the MOU when we're supposed to have a negotiated settlement? No one's acting like that's going to happen. Things are not going well, but they're asking you to believe that the sky is green, that two plus two is five, and that there was no security threat to Air Force One.
[11:46]
Alicia Menendez
Congressman, in all of this, there's also just the reality that key figures did not know where the president of the United States was for a pretty extended period of time. I wonder, always you don't hear from Republicans out on the streets, but you hear from them behind closed doors. Any of your colleagues have any concerns about the fact that the president of the United States folks didn't know where he was for a few hours?
[12:10]
Congressman Andre Carson
Well, that's always a concern. The nail was hit on the head just a few minutes ago. But look, this episode is another reminder of really the broader costs of the war with Iran. The threat against the president was very serious, without question. And 18American service members have already been killed in this war. Honestly, American taxpayers have had to spend billions on the war and take a real hit to their wallets. The conflict has required very real sacrifices. And, you know, I think the president should present a very real plan, a serious plan before Congress in order for this war to ultimately end.
[12:52]
Alicia Menendez
I wonder, Carol, as you are reporting on this, if you have the sense that that is the lens through which the administration is thinking about this, are they thinking about it in terms of security and the presence? I mean, are they thinking about it in terms of the various directions the story has taken and what is their sort of chief concern inside the administration, with both materially what transpired and the way that the narrative has been relayed publicly?
[13:23]
Carol Lennig
I know from sources, Alicia, that the White House is really beside itself about how this has leaked out. And eventually more and more of the truth has become clear. Not because they have been honest with us, as Sam so meticulously describes, and generous to me as well, but not because they've been honest or transparent, but because people who want the truth to be known are willing to take the risk to share that information. And the only communication strategy that is happening at the White House is driven by how good it makes Donald Trump look. And he is the communicator in chief here. He is the person making those decisions literally on a minute by minute basis. And his conclusion is we just keep repeating over and over again through that megaphone that Iran is going fine, even though we all know that we've had an 8% inflation increase, largely driven in the last several months by what's been going on with this war. People are paying at the pump and everywhere else for the increase in cost as a result. And we don't have an end in sight, and the President doesn't have an end plan in his briefcase. The most important thing to Donald Trump, though, is the PR that he is dictating.
[14:57]
Alicia Menendez
I mean, Congressman, you have the vice President of the United States saying, we're in the middle of this thing. It does not feel like it is the middle. And you would think five and a half months in, we would be somewhere closer to the end. These new revelations, do you think they have any bearing, any impact on the ongoing negotiations over the war in Iran?
[15:17]
Congressman Andre Carson
I'd like for this war to end. I think that the relationships that we've had with our P5 Plus One partners has been frayed. The relationship that we've had with the Arab League has been frayed. As Carol mentioned, we are in an affordability crisis, and it's a direct result of Donald Trump and this administration. Trump's tariffs have caused the price of groceries and everyday goods to skyrocket. In Indiana alone, the average family is paying $3,300 more a year for basic living expenses under this administration. And so we want to undo the damage that this administration has caused. We have an affordability agenda that deals with this. So hopefully in November, we can get to business.
[16:01]
Alicia Menendez
Sam, I want to ask you one more question about the press, and I want to be clear that the press is not about the press itself. It is about the press as the eyes and ears of the American people. The president of the White House Correspondents Association, Jackie Heinrich, sent a memo to members of the news, members of the press, after the news broke, and it reads, this afternoon I had a candid and productive meeting with senior administration officials to convey concerns directly. Heinrich said that she had advocated strongly for the importance of maintaining independent press coverage of the president and an accurate historical record of this moment. Do you think that is sufficient, what we're hearing?
[16:41]
Sam Stein
I would like to know more about how the conversations went. That's probably the diplomatic, or I hope the diplomatic readout of what transpired, because it's very clear that there is a role for the press to document extraordinary circumstances and threats against the President and extraordinary steps the President has to make because of those threats. Now, am I going to sit here and say this is there is a clear playbook that they should have followed for a moment like this? No, it's very difficult to probably think on your feet about how to make sure that the press has access to the President when he's being shuttled away in a catering cartoon. Right. Like that's that you don't really encounter that every day. And yet I would like to at least live in a world in which the White House and the president recognizes that they should try to at least get one reporter on that plane with the president because there is a value and in fact a need for someone with independent perspective to be there to document what's happening in case something does happen. Right. Like that's the whole point. And so the other thing of course is that the fact that the White House press corps was left on Air Force One, which was the target of the threats, is disconcerting as well. But so was Marco Rubio. Right. So you know, it's a very weird circumstance and very hard to understand how to move forward through it. But ultimately you want the president, the White House to be thinking about the importance of having reported with them at all times.
[18:01]
Carol Lennig
Right.
[18:01]
Alicia Menendez
And to your point, there's precedent for this. In the aftermath of 9 11, there was a way for a scale down set of reporters to be with President Bush. Carol Lennig, as always, thank you so much for joining us and bringing your reporting. Congressman Andre Carson than you San is going back a little later in the hour when we all come back after U.S. attorney Jeanine Pirro skulked away from the White House with what looked like a box of evidence about the non vandalism vandalism at the Reflecting Pool. Could she now be trying to save her job? What she's pitching now over at the Justice Department. Plus surprise, surprise, an election denier denying an election he lost. The Trump backed pillow guy losing his own party's primary by 11 points but still won't concede. We're going to try and wrap our heads around that and look at Trump's waning endorsement power. And later in the show, the cost of ripping up the White House costing more and more every day new reporting on who's paying for it. We'll get to all of that and more when Deadline White House continues after this.
[19:04]
Carol Lennig
Hey everybody, it's Rachel Maddow here. I wanted to tell you that more than a dozen of us from Ms. Now are going to be in Texas on Saturday, September 26th. I'm gonna be there. Lawrence O' Donnell will be there. So will Jen Psaki. A whole bunch of us are all gonna be there. In Texas. Tickets start at just over 30 bucks each and if you buy a ticket you will get access to our new MSNow membership free for a year. Tickets for Texas are on sale now. You can learn more @ms. Now together. Hope to see you in Texas
[19:36]
Alicia Menendez
less than two days into Todd Blanche's tenure as Attorney general. Alarming new details are emerging about what the department look like under his watch as Trump and Blanche look to dramatically expand their own power. The Washington Post reports that, quote, the Justice Department has convened a special grand jury in Washington, a rare legal body that officials say could pave the way for federal prosecutor in the nation's capital to investigate some of its biggest and most controversial cases. Unlike a typical grand jury, a special grand jury can release a potentially critical report about the subject of an investigation even if prosecutors do not find enough evidence to bring the person to trial. It is unclear what the new special grand jury will be tasked with probing, but those interviewed said it is a notable move, especially given President Donald Trump's interest in prosecuting his adversaries. It comes amid brand new analysis by MSNOW's Lisa Rubin about the urgency of Blanche's DOJ working overtime to radically expand the concept of executive privilege as the DOJ tries to prevent the law firm suing over Trump's pressure campaign from obtaining testimony from Trump's longtime consigliere Boris Epstein. Joining me now at the table, Ms. Now senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin and national security and intelligence analyst Chris o'. Learious. Here. He is a former special agent with the FBI. This is just an extraordinary piece of analysis, Lisa, talk us through it.
[21:01]
Nicole Wallace
So Lisa, when Todd Blanche was confirmed at 4:30 in the morning over the weekend, lots of people were asking me now that he's been Senate confirmed, how should we expect that he will up the ante? And we really got our answer on Monday afternoon in the form of this 21 page memo from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. For our viewers that don't know what the Office of Legal Counsel shorthanded as OLC does, they are essentially the in house law firm for the executive branch. They tell them what is permissible, what is not. Oftentimes in response to requests from the White House and here the White House asked a question of olc to what extent can we treat outside advisors as encompassed within executive privilege? They got a 21 page analysis that says the White House can treat the President's communications with people outside the White House as privileged, provided that three conditions are met and I'll read them to you. They have to relate to official presidential decision making. They have to involve or reflect communications with the President or or the President's direct advisors and they have to be confidential. And those are the only three prerequisites. What's even scarier about that, however, are two things One is the definition of the term private advisor, which literally encompasses almost everyone who is not themselves an executive branch employee. But the second thing that's scary is remember the first condition that they say is it has to relate to official presidential decision making. Then they drop another footnote and remind us that the line between what is official and what is personal gets blurred very easily because the President's powers are not just what we consider to be the President's constitutional duties, their statutory duties, but, for example, when the President uses the bully pulpit, that's not something that is found in either the Constitution or statute, but that is what they consider to be an official duty. All of this to say that the President, according to the Department of Justice, can have conversations, according to this Department of Justice, according to this Department of Justice, can have conversations with virtually any private citizen and claim privilege over it. Now, I've seen analysis from a number of people in the media saying, well, this is the Trump administration preparing itself for the inevitable takeover of Congress, one or both houses by Democrats and all of the investigations that that ensues. And I would submit to you, this is much closer to home. This is about an ongoing lawsuit between the American Bar association and the administration about its war on law firms, and specifically executive orders targeting four law firms that between and among them have multiple enemies of the Trump administration that do work or have worked there, as well as a number of settlements cut with lots of law firms that didn't want to find themselves the target of an executive order. Those are deals that reportedly, according to the New York Times and many other publications, were negotiated by Boris Epstein. And the ABA issued subpoenas to Mr. Epstein both for his testimony and for records. The Department of Justice then served a motion to quash, meaning they said, as a matter of governmental policy, Mr. Epstein shouldn't answer those subpoenas, shouldn't have to, because his communications with the President are privileged. Ordinarily, in any other administration, you would say, how are they privileged? The guy doesn't work for the government. He doesn't even work formally for some apparatus operated by, like the Trump administration, outside the government. But according to this Department of Justice, not only in its briefs, but now, According to this 21 page memo, Boris Epstein's communications with the President, to the extent they've existed, because they won't even acknowledge that they've had conversations about those things. If Boris is communicating either with the President or senior White House staff about this war on law firms, they say that's wholly off limits to the ABA and anybody else.
[24:54]
Alicia Menendez
That type of protection, what alarms you most?
[24:57]
Chris O'Leary
I think it's, you know, taken with everything else that we're seeing is they're essentially trying to grant themselves some level of immunity and protection. And who does that? People who are engaged in unethical or potential criminal activity. They're looking for that protection. Then that taken with. Lisa and I have had this conversation. If you look at the Epstein files, they claim privilege or they claim in that case, work product. They weren't releasing work product. Things like FD302s I point back to. In any normal case file, say there were 1,000 serials, we call them in the FBI, in a case file, there would probably be dozens of FD302s which are commonly introduced into court. They're not work product. They're actually investigative summaries, inherently unclassified. They're claiming these are sensitive work products. In a file that reportedly has up to 6 million documents, how many actually FD302s are there? Hundreds, Thousands that you should be releasing to the American public. That's transparency, not trying to claim you have all this additional privilege. You need all these additional protections. And why? Because you're trying to objectively hide something or protect yourself from. You know, if Congress changes over and there'll be investigations looking back into you. And then the broader question is, what other powers of the government are they planning to weaponize to protect themselves moving forward?
[26:27]
Alicia Menendez
Help me understand Jeanine Pirro's decision about a special grand jury in the context of that broader goal.
[26:33]
Nicole Wallace
Well, so let me think, let me put my wannabe ordinary prosecutor hat on. We can talk about this Department of Justice maybe separately, because as Nicole often says, there's Earth 1 and Earth 2.
[26:43]
Carol Lennig
Okay.
[26:44]
Nicole Wallace
On Earth 1, the reason to convene a special grand jury is twofold. One, because you either have such complex evidence that you can't expect to present your entire case to someone over the context of six months. So you need 18 months and you need a special grand jury, or you need a dedicated pool of people who's not going to hear anything but that case. The other reason to do it is because you want the report. And oftentimes a prosecutor may want that report because it bolsters their case. It shows that the grand jurors themselves heard a complex body of evidence and reached the same conclusions that prosecutors did. I'm thinking about Fani Willis, for example. When Fani Willis charged all those people in her federal election interference case, she had a special grand jury convened and they released a 35 page report that we, the public, ultimately saw. Now, we all know that that case was dismissed for unrelated reasons. But at the time, that special grand jury report was really important to our understanding how an ordinary body of 23 grand jurors reached the decision to indict as many people as they did. That's how an ordinary prosecutor would think. Now, let me think about how this Department of Justice might be thinking about it. Ordinarily, a prosecutor is not supposed to charge someone unless they have a reasonable belief that when they take the case to trial, they can convince a jury of the person's peers beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. You are supposed to reach that threshold in your own thinking before you charge. But here, the benefit of a special grand jury report is that you can dirty a person up. You can have a report that says this person has done something less than a crime, and yet you can besmirch their reputation. You can call them unethical. You can say they've done something wrongful that falls short of criminal activity.
[28:26]
Alicia Menendez
Is that what you did when you were inside the FBI? No.
[28:28]
Chris O'Leary
And you know what special grand juries would be called for? A widespread political corruption, you know, complex corporate or financial crimes. Enron, Enron, perfect example. Organized crime, political misconduct, Watergate. These are the things that would be used for. They're not even giving ample justification of what the purpose of this is. It's very vague. And it leads you to believe that, well, for all the failed attempts that they've had to go against the six Democrats who spoke out about following the rule of law and all the other ones, that now you have a secret opportunity to go after them and something that a federal judge or another grand jury is not going to kick back on you.
[29:12]
Alicia Menendez
Chris o', Leary, Lisa Rubin, thank you both so much for being with us today. Up next, the MyPillow guy, the close ally of Donald Trump telling the media there's no way he could have lost his primary race last night despite getting far fewer votes. We're going to look at the big primary races from last night after quick break.
[29:33]
Rachel Maddow
Join Ms. NOW LIVE in Texas for our biggest event yet with Rachel Maddow, Jen Psaki, Michael Steele and more. Mississippi now live together in Texas September 26th. Get tickets today at Ms. Now Together,
[29:50]
Alicia Menendez
a top election denier and key Trump ally suffered an embarrassing election defeat in Minnesota. Mike Lindell, the former MyPillow CEO who gained national prominence and became a darling of the fringe hard right for being a leader of 2020 election denialism along with the big lie was defeated in his bid to be the Republican nominee for governor. Lisa DeMuth, who currently serves as the Minnesota speaker of the House, defeated Lindell by nearly 11 points. Donald Trump endorsed Lindell, posting multiple times on Truth Social in support of Lindell, despite the Minnesota Republican Party urging Trump not to intervene in the race. If you thought the former MyPillow guy would gracefully concede, well, think again.
[30:34]
Carol Lennig
If the AP calls the race, what
[30:36]
Alicia Menendez
does the AP, if the voters.
[30:38]
Donald Trump
What the EP?
[30:39]
Alicia Menendez
Why would I listen to the AP?
[30:40]
Rachel Maddow
There's 265,000 votes left to count. I'm down by 18,000 now.
[30:46]
Alicia Menendez
We just gained 5,000. I will call. I will.
[30:49]
Rachel Maddow
I'm not going to give it. To give up this race, I want
[30:53]
Alicia Menendez
to bring in Charlie Sykes. He is the author of to the Contrary newsletter. And Sam Stein, managing editor of the Bulwark. All right, Charlie. Mike Lindell. Can't believe he lost, can you?
[31:04]
Charlie Sykes
Well, it's very much on brand, isn't it? It's interesting. You know, Donald Trump went all in for him. And apparently Republican voters are willing to vote for loyalists and extremists, but they're going to draw the line at the genuinely certifiable. So there's Mike Lindell doing what Mike Lindell does, and it's going to turn out the way all of these Mike Lindell conspiracy theories turn out. You know, I, I think, you know, last night was obviously a bad night for the crazies. But just to think about the political moment that we're even talking about Mike Lindell as a candidate for governor of any state in the United States, given his track record. But again, this seems rather significantly consistent with everything he's done over the last several years.
[31:56]
Alicia Menendez
It does seem, Sam, like a test of the Trump endorsement power because in addition to his endorsement of Lindell, he also clearly has put all of his weight behind Darlene Graham in her race in South Carolina. She was forced into a runoff. I think in a different period of time, a Trump endorsed candidate would run away with a primary like that. Not the case here.
[32:22]
Sam Stein
Yeah, there's been a few cases here where Trump's endorsement has not actually moved the needle. I will, let's be, let's be, you know, frank about it. More often than not, it does. Right. I mean, this party tends to take its guidance from Donald Trump. But Lindell, as Charlie said, was obviously just a bridge too far, maybe a pillow too far, if you want to extend the metaphor. And trying here. Okay, I'm trying. But what I'm curious About is, will Trump come to Mike Lindell's defense and insisting that this election was fraudulent to the degree that Lindell did to Trump? I mean, Lindell burnt any reputation. He had spent copious amounts of money, got himself in broad and amazing legal dramas and trouble. I think he was served papers while on being interviewed on TV once. Like, this man has given it all for Trump and his crazy conspiracies. Will Trump return the favor? I don't know. And that would be the ultimate letdown for Lindell, but it also would kind of be on brand for Trump, because if he has to. Because the thing that Trump doesn't want to do here is he does not want to acknowledge that his preferred candidate lost the primary. He can't do it because it saps his power within the Republican Party. So Trump's in kind of this weird bind, and I'm very curious to see what he does.
[33:40]
Alicia Menendez
Well, I mean, to the point that Sam is making, Charlie, when the president was asked about his support of Darling Graham, he's like, well, let's be clear, like, everybody in this race is maga, and I like everybody who's running in this race. He wanted to distance. It seemed he wanted to put some distance between himself. He didn't want this to be a test of his own power. And, yeah, I think it's hard to read it as anything but that.
[34:06]
Charlie Sykes
Well, it is. And, you know, to Sam's point, I mean, we need to acknowledge that he generally gets his way, but I also think we're finding some limits to that. Andy Ogles. Was that how you pronounce his name? Andy Ogles was defeated in the primary despite, you know, being a Trumpist. What happened in South Carolina? What is interesting, going back to your question about what Donald Trump will do, we've seen that Donald Trump is willing to push the crazy all the way to the limit and beyond. In Minnesota, he would really have to go to war. War with Minnesota Republicans. Right. He has to make the case that those dastardly Minnesota Republicans rigged the election and find a way to overturn the Republican primary. And that's kind of a new wrinkle on Donald Trump's election. Denialism. A lot to see.
[34:55]
Alicia Menendez
All right, Sam Stein, I know you have to go. Thank you so much for starting off with us. We appreciate you. Charlie Sykes, I'm gonna ask you to stick around a little bit longer. Coming up, the Republican congressman, facing real allegations of domestic abuse, has donated money to many of his colleagues, but so far, not many of his colleagues have said whether they plan to return that money. We got that story. Next, Politico has new reporting that is putting a spotlight on Congressman Max Miller's Republican colleagues who have accepted campaign contributions from their colleagues. Who's accused of domestic abuse of his ex wife and 2 year old daughter, allegations that Miller denies. According to records filed with the Federal Elections Commission, Miller's dependable conservative leadership PAC has made contributions to 16 GOP incumbents struggling to hold onto their seats in Congress. Of these, 16 Republicans received money from Miller this cycle. Contacted this week by Politico, only the campaign for Rep. Brad Finstead of Minnesota said it had already returned its $5,000 contribution. We are back with Charl. Charlie. Mike Johnson is punted on this issue, refusing to call on Miller to resign, instead saying he's going to wait until the ethics investigation is complete. Can this be an anchor for his fellow House Republicans?
[36:16]
Charlie Sykes
Absolutely. And it already is. I mean, you know, this is, it's worth noting that the Republican Party is having a hard time taking out the trash. And this comes back to Donald Trump. Donald Trump himself intervened to keep Max Miller in this race because in Trump's world, sexual abuse is not disqualifying, spousal abuse is not disqualifying. And that is a tell. You know, what you're highlighting now is the fact that this story is now infecting not just, you know, Max Miller, you know, and his seat, which is now in jeopardy, but it is really a cancer at the heart of congressional Republican campaigns because you have more than a dozen Republicans who are going to have to answer the question, why did you take money from Max Miller? And now that you have heard these allegations, which have been spread, supported by his wife's father, who is a sitting Republican senator, why have you not returned the contribution? So in a year in which Republicans face headwinds because Donald Trump has decided to double down on Max Miller and have this standard. It's a real problem for Republicans. And again, what an indication of the weakness of Speaker Johnson who is not able to push back against this or handle this problem.
[37:31]
Alicia Menendez
Right, right, right. Many, many of the House Republicans have accepted contributions are, of course, in battleground districts, including Derek Van Order, who, according to Politico, was asked Tuesday about the $2,500 contribution he received from Miller during an interview about the results of his state's primary elections. He refused to discuss the matter, calling the accusations against Miller accusation, allegations he had heard about the day before yesterday. I don't know. I just, I wonder sort of how you see this all playing out.
[38:02]
Charlie Sykes
Well, it's interesting that you, you highlighted Derek Van Orden, who is a very vulnerable Republican here in my state of Wisconsin. You know, if one seats flips, it's likely to be his. A very strong opponent won the Democratic primary last night, somebody who has run against him before. And so the last thing that Derek Van Orden needs is yet another weight on his back going into this, this election. So in Wisconsin, you know, once again because of the, this is going to be a referendum on Trump, it's going to be a referendum on the Republican record. And Derek Van Orden is joined at the hip with Donald Trump and apparently he's joined at the hip with Max Miller. It's not going to help.
[38:44]
Alicia Menendez
There were a lot of eyes on Wisconsin last night, as you well know. Your thoughts on, on where this general election is headed towards in your home state?
[38:55]
Charlie Sykes
Well, you know, as I wrote in my newsletter, Democrats in Wisconsin sort of stared into the electoral abyss and decided that on second thought they would actually rather win election than experiment with a candidate who was a bit out there. Democrats pressed the panic button. They decided that the front runner in this particular case, Francesca Hong, was just a bridge too far for many of the voters and would really put Wisconsin at risk of handing the governorship to a MAGA aligned election denier, Tom Tiffany, who's a member of Congress now that race is reset and Democrats are well positioned, they've been winning elections here. The electorate is clearly engaged, it is enthusiastic. And with Donald Trump's poll numbers in a state like Wisconsin, the Democrats ought to have the wind at the back. Now what we don't know, of course, is that David Crowley, who is the Milwaukee County Executive, is somewhat untested on the state stage. He's gonna have to, he will have to introduce himself to the electorate. He would be the first African American governor in the state of Wisconsin history. But certainly Democrats feel that they've dodged a bullet and are feeling rather jiggy this morning. I have to say, jiggy is one
[40:14]
Alicia Menendez
word you could use. I just want to say the asterisk I would put on that was that the margin I think was closer than a lot of folks thought. It was very close. Which still shows sort of that there is an appetite for a more radical form of change, which I think is interesting and worth noting. And also I'm not sure if you saw Crowley earlier today was taking questions and his ability to pivot so quickly to affordability and the economy showed a message discipline that will serve him well. Charlie Sykes, thank you so much for joining us.
[40:46]
Charlie Sykes
Today, Good start.
[40:47]
Alicia Menendez
Up next, the former ambassador to Panama is talking. He's describing what it was like to meet Donald Trump and what led him to eventually resign. We're going to bring that to you next. A former U.S. ambassador to Panama under Donald Trump in his first term is speaking out about just how basic you've got to be with the President of the United States. Take a listen to what John Feeley, who was nominated to the post by Obama in 2015, told the Guardian in his first and only meeting with Trump in 2017.
[41:22]
Rachel Maddow
The first and only time that I ever met President Trump, I walked into the Oval Office and I had briefed presidents before, and I knew what the sort of standard routine was. And he looks up at me and the very first thing he says to me is, so you are my ambassador in Panama. What do we get from Panama? That's what he asked me. I immediately slipped into New York cabbies thinking that he didn't want to hear State Department palaver. And I said, what do we get, Mr. President? Let me tell you what we get. If you bought an iPhone or a widescreen TV on the east coast of the United States and you got it at the lowest price possible, because where it was made to the time it was delivered to a port on the east coast of the US Came at the lowest possible cost because it went through the Panama Canal. That's what we get from Panama. So I'm pitching this guy pretty hard and he looks at me and he goes, huh?
[42:17]
Alicia Menendez
Who knew?
[42:20]
Rachel Maddow
I kid you not, man, that's what he said. Who knew?
[42:26]
Alicia Menendez
What do we get? Healey announced his resignation in December 2017, just months after that meeting. After a break, the price tag for Trump's massive ballroom, it is much bigger than what's been reported. We've got new reporting on the efforts the White House has taken to keep it all under wraps. The next hour of deadline White House starts right after this quick break. Can I just quickly say hello to you?
[42:51]
Carol Lennig
For me, being a part of this
[42:53]
Alicia Menendez
place has always been about the people,
[42:55]
Charlie Sykes
not about the politics.
[42:57]
Sam Stein
Why are you holding this sign?
[42:58]
Alicia Menendez
You ever been to a protest before?
[42:59]
Chris O'Leary
Be safe.
[43:00]
Alicia Menendez
People that we cover who allow us to enter their lives.
[43:03]
Chris O'Leary
How's everybody doing?
[43:04]
Alicia Menendez
Everybody doing okay?
[43:05]
Charlie Sykes
How long has been in line?
[43:06]
Alicia Menendez
I love human beings, beings.
[43:07]
Charlie Sykes
To spend time connecting with them is
[43:09]
Alicia Menendez
the biggest blessing that I could ask for.
[43:10]
Rachel Maddow
From the field to the studio, Jacob is finding the heart of the story. Connect with Jacob soff weekends at 10am Eastern on Ms. Now.

Summary5 min read

Podcast Summary: "Donald Trump's Air Force One Bait and Switch"

Podcast: Deadline: White House
Host: Nicolle Wallace (Alicia Menendez guest-hosting)
Date: August 12, 2026

Overview

This episode examines the revelations about Donald Trump’s clandestine switch from Air Force One to a covert, unmarked plane on his return from Turkey, amid threats from Iran. The discussion spans the ethics, security, and transparency of the ruse, highlighting the administration's ongoing issues with honesty and public accountability. Further segments cover Trump-endorsed failures in GOP primaries, emerging legal maneuvers under Attorney General Todd Blanche, and the Republican Party’s struggles with scandal and candidate viability.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Air Force One Bait and Switch Operation

[00:51 – 15:17]

Summary of Events:
Trump, facing credible threats from Iran, used a decoy flight filled with senior staff and press, while he and a small group of aides secretly switched to an unmarked plane disguised as a catering truck operation.
- Decoy Plane: Included major officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant, as well as prominent staff and press.
- Secret Flight: Trump was joined by more junior aides (Dan Scavino, Natalie Harp, Walt Nauta) and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Administration Reaction & Security Rationale:
- Trump and officials defend the move as necessary for his safety.
- Secret Service assessed a “fairly high” probability of the threat and decided to alter the President’s travel to throw off adversaries.
Concerns Raised:
- Congressman Andre Carson (D-Indiana): Supported the Secret Service’s action but questioned the risks imposed on others and the lack of press protection and transparency.
  
  “The idea that Iran could threaten to fire a missile at Air Force One after takeoff is very concerning ... raises very serious questions about how the administration handled the threat and the risks it was willing to take with other Americans.” – [04:01]
- Carol Lennig (Reporter): Noted the Secret Service's confidence in the decoy plane’s security, but underscored concerns about honesty with press and staff.
  
  “The only communication strategy ... is driven by how good it makes Donald Trump look." – [13:44]
Lack of Transparency and Honesty:
Sam Stein and others emphasize a broader pattern of deception, not just about the Iran threat, but in painting a misleadingly rosy picture about the administration’s record and the state of the conflict.

“There is a widespread lack of honesty and transparency and outright lying that is accompanying this administration throughout this.” – Sam Stein [10:18]
Press and Public Accountability:
The need for independent documentation—especially during security crises—was highlighted. The White House's exclusion of the press from the President's secret flight was strongly criticized as undermining the role of the press and public recordkeeping.

2. Justice Department Legal Maneuvers Under AG Todd Blanche

[19:35 – 29:12]

Special Grand Jury Empowerment:
The DOJ, under new AG Todd Blanche, convenes a special grand jury with potential to investigate controversial cases and release reports even absent indictments, viewed as a tool for potentially targeting political enemies or protecting allies.
Dramatic Expansion of Executive Privilege:
OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) issues a 21-page memo granting the President broad ability to shield communications—including with non-official advisors—under executive privilege, blurring the lines between public duty and private interests:

“The President… can have conversations with virtually any private citizen and claim privilege over it.” – Lisa Rubin [22:31]
Concerns About Transparency:
- Chris O’Leary (Ex-FBI): Criticizes the DOJ’s claims of privilege over otherwise public information, casting it as part of a pattern to hide misconduct or prepare for investigations under potential Democratic control of Congress.
  
  “Who does that? People who are engaged in unethical or potential criminal activity.” – [24:56]

3. GOP Primary Results & Waning Trump Endorsement Power

[29:49 – 34:55]

Mike Lindell’s Defeat:
Election denier and Trump ally Mike Lindell loses Minnesota’s GOP gubernatorial primary despite intense Trump backing.
- Lindell refuses to concede, echoing the “stolen election” motif.
- Trump endorsements showing diminished power: “Republican voters are willing to vote for loyalists and extremists, but they're going to draw the line at the genuinely certifiable.” – Charlie Sykes [31:03];
- Trump’s reluctance to publicly back losers highlighted as self-preservation.
Other Cases:
Similar difficulties for Trump-endorsed Darlene Graham in South Carolina and Andy Ogles, indicating the limits of “MAGA” influence in some races.

4. Republican Scandals & Political Fallout

[35:00 – 40:46]

Congressman Max Miller Abuse Allegations:
- Details of Miller’s alleged domestic abuse and the GOP’s difficulty in addressing the issue, amplified by Trump’s refusal to disavow Miller.
  
  “The Republican Party is having a hard time taking out the trash... this story is now infecting... congressional Republican campaigns because you have more than a dozen Republicans who are going to have to answer the question, why did you take money from Max Miller?” – Charlie Sykes [36:15]
Potential Impact in Wisconsin:
Vulnerable Republicans like Derek Van Orden may struggle in battlegrounds as Democrats capitalize on Republican disarray and scandals.
Democratic Primary Outcome:
Francesca Hong’s defeat in Wisconsin resets the race with a stronger Democratic candidate against MAGA-aligned Tom Tiffany.

5. Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes

Trump on Personal Danger:

“I don’t worry about anything to be honest. Whatever it is, you know my attitude, whatever.” – Donald Trump [02:51]
Ambassador John Feeley on Meeting Trump:

“The very first thing he says to me is, so you are my ambassador in Panama. What do we get from Panama?... He looks at me and he goes, huh? Who knew?” – John Feeley, recounted by Rachel Maddow [41:22]
On Press Access:

“There is a value and in fact a need for someone with independent perspective to be there to document what’s happening … That’s the whole point.” – Sam Stein [16:40]

Notable Segments & Timestamps

Air Force One Bait and Switch News & Security Analysis – [00:51–15:17]
Legal Analysis of DOJ Moves & OLC Memo – [19:35–29:12]
Debrief on Mike Lindell’s Election Loss & Trump’s Endorsement Power – [29:49–34:55]
GOP Scandals: Max Miller Case and Political Risk – [35:00–40:46]
Amb. John Feeley’s Trump Anecdote – [41:22–42:25]

Conclusion

This episode exposes deep-seated fractures and credibility issues in Trump’s administration, from extraordinary measures taken for presidential security to sweeping secrecy and legal maneuvers by the DOJ, ongoing issues with election denial, and mounting political fallout from scandals and primary upsets. The panel underscores the critical importance of transparency, both for democracy and public trust, and the dangers posed when political power outpaces accountability.

Loading summary

Transcript82 lines

[00:00]
Nicole Wallace
New lancome Absolu Longevity MD. Backed by 20 years of research and five patents, the formulas combine Mitopure, the number one selling longevity supplement, with Lancome's exclusive skin care compounds. It's designed and clinically measured to work on two the visible signs of aging, like elasticity and the look of fine lines, and the invisible ones, like the rate of surface cell renewal happening within the skin. Start your visible biological age reversal@lancome.com longevitymdash
[00:30]
Rachel Maddow
join Ms. Now Live in Texas for our biggest event yet with Rachel Maddow, Jen Psaki, Michael Steele and more. Ms. NOW live Together in Texas September 26th. Get tickets today at Ms. NOW Together.
[00:52]
Alicia Menendez
Hi everyone, it is 4 o' clock here in New York. I'm Alicia Menendez in for Nicole Wallace. Alarming new details are emerging about Donald Trump's Air Force One bait and switch on a return flight from Turkey where Trump used his own staff as well as the journalists who cover him as decoys while he flew out on an unmarked plane due to threats from Iran. We are now learning more about who the staff members Trump used as decoys were and who was allowed to fly with him, making the cut for the secret flight. Ms. Now is reporting on the decoy flight leaving Turkey with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who helped to plan the operation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant both knew that Trump was on a secret plane. Other White House staffers on the decoy plane included Stephen Miller, Stephen Cheung, Mike Needham, Ross Worthington, Monica Crowley and Will Scharf. By contrast, the staffers who joined Trump in his catering truck plane switch were relatively low level aides. The Washington Post reports the passengers on the truck included Dan Scavino, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Natalie Harp, the President's executive assistant and Walt Nauta, the Director of Oval Office operations. Also on the smaller jet was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who boarded the C32A using external stairs in a manner that made him look like the senior most official on the flight. Nada may be most familiar as Donald Trump's Diet Coke valet who was charged as Trump's co conspirator in the Mar A Lago classified documents case. Donald Trump was pressed about the ruse yesterday amid growing calls for a congressional investigation Watch. Why was it too dangerous for you to fly on Air Force One but not too much?
[02:37]
Donald Trump
I think actually the plane that I flew on was at greater risk. I think it was at greater risk because that would be the plane. I think that they would be more likely athlete to go for Are you
[02:49]
Nicole Wallace
worried about a shoulder fired missile?
[02:52]
Donald Trump
I don't worry about anything to be honest. Whatever it is, you know my attitude, whatever. President. Are you surprised, Mr. President, that the big observer is telling you to take that non plane? No, not surprised. I have a lot of threats. I have a lot of threats that you don't know about. Any consequential president has a lot of threats. Non consequential presidents don't get threatened. And I think that I may be the most consequent.
[03:21]
Alicia Menendez
The Trump administration continuing to stonewall after using staff and journalists as decoys is where we begin today. Senior investigative reporter Carol Lennig, plus managing editor for the Bulwark contributor Sam Stein. And we're also joined by a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Democratic Congressman Andre Carson of Indiana. Congressman, I want to start with you. When did you find out about the plane swap?
[03:42]
Congressman Andre Carson
Well, I found out like, like everyone else, you know, look, this is a very concerning security threat. The administration made a decision to protect the President as they should. DOD made a decision as well as Secret Service and I commend them for it. I think this is just another reminder of really the broader costs of this war in Iran. First and foremost, as a member of the House Intel Committee, I'm deeply concerned over this reported threat. The idea that Iran could threaten to fire a missile at Air Force One after takeoff is very concerning, very concerning for the President, very concerning for staffers and certainly for the Fourth estate, the press. I'm very relieved that this reported plot did not succeed. But I think the entire episode raises very serious questions about how the administration handled the threat and the risks it was willing to take with other Americans.
[04:43]
Alicia Menendez
So Congressman, to that point, what would you want to learn in a congressional inquiry?
[04:48]
Congressman Andre Carson
Well, you know, look, protecting the President obviously is paramount in these kinds of situations. We also want to make sure when we use a ruse such as this one that passengers are still safe on other aircraft as well. And I trust the military to do so as well as the Secret Service. I think that if the threat were dangerous enough for the President to be secretly moved to another aircraft, which was a wise decision, we still want to make sure that members of the press are protected as well. But at the very same time, we don't want to cause the kinds of concerns that would have reports leak that would alert our enemies or our adversaries during this kind of exchange to make sure that the principal is protected, but also that the fourth estate and staffers are protected as well.
[05:44]
Alicia Menendez
Caroline, when you are talking to folks, Secret Service, current Former. How usual or unusual do they say this were? Was protocol followed here?
[05:58]
Carol Lennig
I like the way you're asking the question, Alicia, but let me flip it a little bit and just say, you know, when I first started to learn about this jaw dropping reporting by my old news organization, the Washington Post, I was impressed by this. Absolutely impressed by what they figured out. Kudos to them. And initially I had concerns and questions about whether or not this threat was legit and how much certainty, essentially, or how much probability the Secret Service placed in this threat. But in the last several hours, as I've talked to more sources inside the government and also those who are conferring directly with the Secret Service, I'm learning that the probability of this threat was fairly high. And indeed, the Secret Service was willing to add a new risk, moving the President from the safest plane on the planet to a different one to avoid him being potentially targeted. However, I want to emphasize something that I think is important to share that is news to me, which is that these sources tell me the Secret Service concluded that everybody on Old Air, what we are jokingly calling old Air Force One, was exceptionally safe. The cabinet members that were aboard, the press that were aboard, the fact that they weren't read into this, I have some questions about as well. But I'm told that of all the aircraft in the planet, this one was exceptionally safe. But the goal of the Secret Service in this setting was to shake up whether or not those planning to target the President had room and certainty to actually achieve their mission. This changed the trajectory a little, in their view, enough that they would take the President off the safest plane in the world.
[08:03]
Alicia Menendez
Congressman, you talk with the sort of reverence earlier about the decision that the Secret Service and DoD made in the service of protecting the President. Do you really feel you have visibility into how they came to their decision and how it was executed?
[08:20]
Congressman Andre Carson
I don't. But I can say as someone who has worked in counterterrorism, counterintelligence, I sit on the Intel Committee and I travel on some of these aircraft. There is technology that is available that protects passengers. Again, the press was protected. The kinds of transparency that is critically important should not be overlooked. It should not be minimized. At the same time, there are very serious security risks and threats targeting not only our President, but members of Congress each and every day. And I think in order to avert many of these threats to the best of our ability, these kinds of tactics have to be employed, whether we like them or not, whether we have political agreements or not, ideological alignment or not. We have to be read into a degree. But I think whenever you have tens of people read into a situation, you increase the risk of for a leak to inevitably happen.
[09:27]
Alicia Menendez
Sam, I want to just play you a little bit more of what we heard from the President in that press gaggle last night. Take a listen.
[09:35]
Donald Trump
The country's doing well. Iran is going fine. Going just absolutely fine. We totally control the Strait of hormones. We have control over it. Nobody else. Only us. Our navy is unbelievable and things are going great for our country.
[09:50]
Alicia Menendez
I mean, the only true statement there, Sam, is that the Navy is unbelievable. Everything else, Iran is not going great. The Strait of Hormuz is not going great. And nothing is, as the president described, being smuggled in a catering truck with your Diet Coke valet. Is that supposed to express confidence to the American people from an administration that purports to be the most transparent administration in American history?
[10:19]
Sam Stein
Well, this is kind of the underlying thread that ties all this together, which is dishonesty. I mean, I couldn't agree more with the congressman or Carol. Like, obviously it was a serious enough threat. That president should have been moved that a decoy flight was totally acceptable. The Secret Service made a determination. No one should begrudge the president for getting on the catering truck, as silly as that is, and going to this other military aircraft. You can even make the case that a bit of sort of deception was probably necessary in order to make sure that nothing leaked, as the congressman said. But there is a widespread lack of honesty and transparency and outright lying that is accompanying this administration throughout this. And Carol's too kind to say it because she's a good person. But when she initially reported that they had to switch from the Qatari jet to the Air Force One, which then Trump, you know, bolted anyway because of security threats, the White House was very public in saying that she was a liar. They did. They went out there and they said she's a liar. And it turns out she was right and they were wrong. And that's just the M.O. for this administration. And you saw with President Trump last night where he's saying, oh, we, we control the state of Strait of Hormuz. We do not. There's nothing going through the straight of horror. Eight ships when there used to be 130 things in Iran are fine. They are not. We are what, a couple days before the 60 day target for the MOU when we're supposed to have a negotiated settlement? No one's acting like that's going to happen. Things are not going well, but they're asking you to believe that the sky is green, that two plus two is five, and that there was no security threat to Air Force One.
[11:46]
Alicia Menendez
Congressman, in all of this, there's also just the reality that key figures did not know where the president of the United States was for a pretty extended period of time. I wonder, always you don't hear from Republicans out on the streets, but you hear from them behind closed doors. Any of your colleagues have any concerns about the fact that the president of the United States folks didn't know where he was for a few hours?
[12:10]
Congressman Andre Carson
Well, that's always a concern. The nail was hit on the head just a few minutes ago. But look, this episode is another reminder of really the broader costs of the war with Iran. The threat against the president was very serious, without question. And 18American service members have already been killed in this war. Honestly, American taxpayers have had to spend billions on the war and take a real hit to their wallets. The conflict has required very real sacrifices. And, you know, I think the president should present a very real plan, a serious plan before Congress in order for this war to ultimately end.
[12:52]
Alicia Menendez
I wonder, Carol, as you are reporting on this, if you have the sense that that is the lens through which the administration is thinking about this, are they thinking about it in terms of security and the presence? I mean, are they thinking about it in terms of the various directions the story has taken and what is their sort of chief concern inside the administration, with both materially what transpired and the way that the narrative has been relayed publicly?
[13:23]
Carol Lennig
I know from sources, Alicia, that the White House is really beside itself about how this has leaked out. And eventually more and more of the truth has become clear. Not because they have been honest with us, as Sam so meticulously describes, and generous to me as well, but not because they've been honest or transparent, but because people who want the truth to be known are willing to take the risk to share that information. And the only communication strategy that is happening at the White House is driven by how good it makes Donald Trump look. And he is the communicator in chief here. He is the person making those decisions literally on a minute by minute basis. And his conclusion is we just keep repeating over and over again through that megaphone that Iran is going fine, even though we all know that we've had an 8% inflation increase, largely driven in the last several months by what's been going on with this war. People are paying at the pump and everywhere else for the increase in cost as a result. And we don't have an end in sight, and the President doesn't have an end plan in his briefcase. The most important thing to Donald Trump, though, is the PR that he is dictating.
[14:57]
Alicia Menendez
I mean, Congressman, you have the vice President of the United States saying, we're in the middle of this thing. It does not feel like it is the middle. And you would think five and a half months in, we would be somewhere closer to the end. These new revelations, do you think they have any bearing, any impact on the ongoing negotiations over the war in Iran?
[15:17]
Congressman Andre Carson
I'd like for this war to end. I think that the relationships that we've had with our P5 Plus One partners has been frayed. The relationship that we've had with the Arab League has been frayed. As Carol mentioned, we are in an affordability crisis, and it's a direct result of Donald Trump and this administration. Trump's tariffs have caused the price of groceries and everyday goods to skyrocket. In Indiana alone, the average family is paying $3,300 more a year for basic living expenses under this administration. And so we want to undo the damage that this administration has caused. We have an affordability agenda that deals with this. So hopefully in November, we can get to business.
[16:01]
Alicia Menendez
Sam, I want to ask you one more question about the press, and I want to be clear that the press is not about the press itself. It is about the press as the eyes and ears of the American people. The president of the White House Correspondents Association, Jackie Heinrich, sent a memo to members of the news, members of the press, after the news broke, and it reads, this afternoon I had a candid and productive meeting with senior administration officials to convey concerns directly. Heinrich said that she had advocated strongly for the importance of maintaining independent press coverage of the president and an accurate historical record of this moment. Do you think that is sufficient, what we're hearing?
[16:41]
Sam Stein
I would like to know more about how the conversations went. That's probably the diplomatic, or I hope the diplomatic readout of what transpired, because it's very clear that there is a role for the press to document extraordinary circumstances and threats against the President and extraordinary steps the President has to make because of those threats. Now, am I going to sit here and say this is there is a clear playbook that they should have followed for a moment like this? No, it's very difficult to probably think on your feet about how to make sure that the press has access to the President when he's being shuttled away in a catering cartoon. Right. Like that's that you don't really encounter that every day. And yet I would like to at least live in a world in which the White House and the president recognizes that they should try to at least get one reporter on that plane with the president because there is a value and in fact a need for someone with independent perspective to be there to document what's happening in case something does happen. Right. Like that's the whole point. And so the other thing of course is that the fact that the White House press corps was left on Air Force One, which was the target of the threats, is disconcerting as well. But so was Marco Rubio. Right. So you know, it's a very weird circumstance and very hard to understand how to move forward through it. But ultimately you want the president, the White House to be thinking about the importance of having reported with them at all times.
[18:01]
Carol Lennig
Right.
[18:01]
Alicia Menendez
And to your point, there's precedent for this. In the aftermath of 9 11, there was a way for a scale down set of reporters to be with President Bush. Carol Lennig, as always, thank you so much for joining us and bringing your reporting. Congressman Andre Carson than you San is going back a little later in the hour when we all come back after U.S. attorney Jeanine Pirro skulked away from the White House with what looked like a box of evidence about the non vandalism vandalism at the Reflecting Pool. Could she now be trying to save her job? What she's pitching now over at the Justice Department. Plus surprise, surprise, an election denier denying an election he lost. The Trump backed pillow guy losing his own party's primary by 11 points but still won't concede. We're going to try and wrap our heads around that and look at Trump's waning endorsement power. And later in the show, the cost of ripping up the White House costing more and more every day new reporting on who's paying for it. We'll get to all of that and more when Deadline White House continues after this.
[19:04]
Carol Lennig
Hey everybody, it's Rachel Maddow here. I wanted to tell you that more than a dozen of us from Ms. Now are going to be in Texas on Saturday, September 26th. I'm gonna be there. Lawrence O' Donnell will be there. So will Jen Psaki. A whole bunch of us are all gonna be there. In Texas. Tickets start at just over 30 bucks each and if you buy a ticket you will get access to our new MSNow membership free for a year. Tickets for Texas are on sale now. You can learn more @ms. Now together. Hope to see you in Texas
[19:36]
Alicia Menendez
less than two days into Todd Blanche's tenure as Attorney general. Alarming new details are emerging about what the department look like under his watch as Trump and Blanche look to dramatically expand their own power. The Washington Post reports that, quote, the Justice Department has convened a special grand jury in Washington, a rare legal body that officials say could pave the way for federal prosecutor in the nation's capital to investigate some of its biggest and most controversial cases. Unlike a typical grand jury, a special grand jury can release a potentially critical report about the subject of an investigation even if prosecutors do not find enough evidence to bring the person to trial. It is unclear what the new special grand jury will be tasked with probing, but those interviewed said it is a notable move, especially given President Donald Trump's interest in prosecuting his adversaries. It comes amid brand new analysis by MSNOW's Lisa Rubin about the urgency of Blanche's DOJ working overtime to radically expand the concept of executive privilege as the DOJ tries to prevent the law firm suing over Trump's pressure campaign from obtaining testimony from Trump's longtime consigliere Boris Epstein. Joining me now at the table, Ms. Now senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin and national security and intelligence analyst Chris o'. Learious. Here. He is a former special agent with the FBI. This is just an extraordinary piece of analysis, Lisa, talk us through it.
[21:01]
Nicole Wallace
So Lisa, when Todd Blanche was confirmed at 4:30 in the morning over the weekend, lots of people were asking me now that he's been Senate confirmed, how should we expect that he will up the ante? And we really got our answer on Monday afternoon in the form of this 21 page memo from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. For our viewers that don't know what the Office of Legal Counsel shorthanded as OLC does, they are essentially the in house law firm for the executive branch. They tell them what is permissible, what is not. Oftentimes in response to requests from the White House and here the White House asked a question of olc to what extent can we treat outside advisors as encompassed within executive privilege? They got a 21 page analysis that says the White House can treat the President's communications with people outside the White House as privileged, provided that three conditions are met and I'll read them to you. They have to relate to official presidential decision making. They have to involve or reflect communications with the President or or the President's direct advisors and they have to be confidential. And those are the only three prerequisites. What's even scarier about that, however, are two things One is the definition of the term private advisor, which literally encompasses almost everyone who is not themselves an executive branch employee. But the second thing that's scary is remember the first condition that they say is it has to relate to official presidential decision making. Then they drop another footnote and remind us that the line between what is official and what is personal gets blurred very easily because the President's powers are not just what we consider to be the President's constitutional duties, their statutory duties, but, for example, when the President uses the bully pulpit, that's not something that is found in either the Constitution or statute, but that is what they consider to be an official duty. All of this to say that the President, according to the Department of Justice, can have conversations, according to this Department of Justice, according to this Department of Justice, can have conversations with virtually any private citizen and claim privilege over it. Now, I've seen analysis from a number of people in the media saying, well, this is the Trump administration preparing itself for the inevitable takeover of Congress, one or both houses by Democrats and all of the investigations that that ensues. And I would submit to you, this is much closer to home. This is about an ongoing lawsuit between the American Bar association and the administration about its war on law firms, and specifically executive orders targeting four law firms that between and among them have multiple enemies of the Trump administration that do work or have worked there, as well as a number of settlements cut with lots of law firms that didn't want to find themselves the target of an executive order. Those are deals that reportedly, according to the New York Times and many other publications, were negotiated by Boris Epstein. And the ABA issued subpoenas to Mr. Epstein both for his testimony and for records. The Department of Justice then served a motion to quash, meaning they said, as a matter of governmental policy, Mr. Epstein shouldn't answer those subpoenas, shouldn't have to, because his communications with the President are privileged. Ordinarily, in any other administration, you would say, how are they privileged? The guy doesn't work for the government. He doesn't even work formally for some apparatus operated by, like the Trump administration, outside the government. But according to this Department of Justice, not only in its briefs, but now, According to this 21 page memo, Boris Epstein's communications with the President, to the extent they've existed, because they won't even acknowledge that they've had conversations about those things. If Boris is communicating either with the President or senior White House staff about this war on law firms, they say that's wholly off limits to the ABA and anybody else.
[24:54]
Alicia Menendez
That type of protection, what alarms you most?
[24:57]
Chris O'Leary
I think it's, you know, taken with everything else that we're seeing is they're essentially trying to grant themselves some level of immunity and protection. And who does that? People who are engaged in unethical or potential criminal activity. They're looking for that protection. Then that taken with. Lisa and I have had this conversation. If you look at the Epstein files, they claim privilege or they claim in that case, work product. They weren't releasing work product. Things like FD302s I point back to. In any normal case file, say there were 1,000 serials, we call them in the FBI, in a case file, there would probably be dozens of FD302s which are commonly introduced into court. They're not work product. They're actually investigative summaries, inherently unclassified. They're claiming these are sensitive work products. In a file that reportedly has up to 6 million documents, how many actually FD302s are there? Hundreds, Thousands that you should be releasing to the American public. That's transparency, not trying to claim you have all this additional privilege. You need all these additional protections. And why? Because you're trying to objectively hide something or protect yourself from. You know, if Congress changes over and there'll be investigations looking back into you. And then the broader question is, what other powers of the government are they planning to weaponize to protect themselves moving forward?
[26:27]
Alicia Menendez
Help me understand Jeanine Pirro's decision about a special grand jury in the context of that broader goal.
[26:33]
Nicole Wallace
Well, so let me think, let me put my wannabe ordinary prosecutor hat on. We can talk about this Department of Justice maybe separately, because as Nicole often says, there's Earth 1 and Earth 2.
[26:43]
Carol Lennig
Okay.
[26:44]
Nicole Wallace
On Earth 1, the reason to convene a special grand jury is twofold. One, because you either have such complex evidence that you can't expect to present your entire case to someone over the context of six months. So you need 18 months and you need a special grand jury, or you need a dedicated pool of people who's not going to hear anything but that case. The other reason to do it is because you want the report. And oftentimes a prosecutor may want that report because it bolsters their case. It shows that the grand jurors themselves heard a complex body of evidence and reached the same conclusions that prosecutors did. I'm thinking about Fani Willis, for example. When Fani Willis charged all those people in her federal election interference case, she had a special grand jury convened and they released a 35 page report that we, the public, ultimately saw. Now, we all know that that case was dismissed for unrelated reasons. But at the time, that special grand jury report was really important to our understanding how an ordinary body of 23 grand jurors reached the decision to indict as many people as they did. That's how an ordinary prosecutor would think. Now, let me think about how this Department of Justice might be thinking about it. Ordinarily, a prosecutor is not supposed to charge someone unless they have a reasonable belief that when they take the case to trial, they can convince a jury of the person's peers beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. You are supposed to reach that threshold in your own thinking before you charge. But here, the benefit of a special grand jury report is that you can dirty a person up. You can have a report that says this person has done something less than a crime, and yet you can besmirch their reputation. You can call them unethical. You can say they've done something wrongful that falls short of criminal activity.
[28:26]
Alicia Menendez
Is that what you did when you were inside the FBI? No.
[28:28]
Chris O'Leary
And you know what special grand juries would be called for? A widespread political corruption, you know, complex corporate or financial crimes. Enron, Enron, perfect example. Organized crime, political misconduct, Watergate. These are the things that would be used for. They're not even giving ample justification of what the purpose of this is. It's very vague. And it leads you to believe that, well, for all the failed attempts that they've had to go against the six Democrats who spoke out about following the rule of law and all the other ones, that now you have a secret opportunity to go after them and something that a federal judge or another grand jury is not going to kick back on you.
[29:12]
Alicia Menendez
Chris o', Leary, Lisa Rubin, thank you both so much for being with us today. Up next, the MyPillow guy, the close ally of Donald Trump telling the media there's no way he could have lost his primary race last night despite getting far fewer votes. We're going to look at the big primary races from last night after quick break.
[29:33]
Rachel Maddow
Join Ms. NOW LIVE in Texas for our biggest event yet with Rachel Maddow, Jen Psaki, Michael Steele and more. Mississippi now live together in Texas September 26th. Get tickets today at Ms. Now Together,
[29:50]
Alicia Menendez
a top election denier and key Trump ally suffered an embarrassing election defeat in Minnesota. Mike Lindell, the former MyPillow CEO who gained national prominence and became a darling of the fringe hard right for being a leader of 2020 election denialism along with the big lie was defeated in his bid to be the Republican nominee for governor. Lisa DeMuth, who currently serves as the Minnesota speaker of the House, defeated Lindell by nearly 11 points. Donald Trump endorsed Lindell, posting multiple times on Truth Social in support of Lindell, despite the Minnesota Republican Party urging Trump not to intervene in the race. If you thought the former MyPillow guy would gracefully concede, well, think again.
[30:34]
Carol Lennig
If the AP calls the race, what
[30:36]
Alicia Menendez
does the AP, if the voters.
[30:38]
Donald Trump
What the EP?
[30:39]
Alicia Menendez
Why would I listen to the AP?
[30:40]
Rachel Maddow
There's 265,000 votes left to count. I'm down by 18,000 now.
[30:46]
Alicia Menendez
We just gained 5,000. I will call. I will.
[30:49]
Rachel Maddow
I'm not going to give it. To give up this race, I want
[30:53]
Alicia Menendez
to bring in Charlie Sykes. He is the author of to the Contrary newsletter. And Sam Stein, managing editor of the Bulwark. All right, Charlie. Mike Lindell. Can't believe he lost, can you?
[31:04]
Charlie Sykes
Well, it's very much on brand, isn't it? It's interesting. You know, Donald Trump went all in for him. And apparently Republican voters are willing to vote for loyalists and extremists, but they're going to draw the line at the genuinely certifiable. So there's Mike Lindell doing what Mike Lindell does, and it's going to turn out the way all of these Mike Lindell conspiracy theories turn out. You know, I, I think, you know, last night was obviously a bad night for the crazies. But just to think about the political moment that we're even talking about Mike Lindell as a candidate for governor of any state in the United States, given his track record. But again, this seems rather significantly consistent with everything he's done over the last several years.
[31:56]
Alicia Menendez
It does seem, Sam, like a test of the Trump endorsement power because in addition to his endorsement of Lindell, he also clearly has put all of his weight behind Darlene Graham in her race in South Carolina. She was forced into a runoff. I think in a different period of time, a Trump endorsed candidate would run away with a primary like that. Not the case here.
[32:22]
Sam Stein
Yeah, there's been a few cases here where Trump's endorsement has not actually moved the needle. I will, let's be, let's be, you know, frank about it. More often than not, it does. Right. I mean, this party tends to take its guidance from Donald Trump. But Lindell, as Charlie said, was obviously just a bridge too far, maybe a pillow too far, if you want to extend the metaphor. And trying here. Okay, I'm trying. But what I'm curious About is, will Trump come to Mike Lindell's defense and insisting that this election was fraudulent to the degree that Lindell did to Trump? I mean, Lindell burnt any reputation. He had spent copious amounts of money, got himself in broad and amazing legal dramas and trouble. I think he was served papers while on being interviewed on TV once. Like, this man has given it all for Trump and his crazy conspiracies. Will Trump return the favor? I don't know. And that would be the ultimate letdown for Lindell, but it also would kind of be on brand for Trump, because if he has to. Because the thing that Trump doesn't want to do here is he does not want to acknowledge that his preferred candidate lost the primary. He can't do it because it saps his power within the Republican Party. So Trump's in kind of this weird bind, and I'm very curious to see what he does.
[33:40]
Alicia Menendez
Well, I mean, to the point that Sam is making, Charlie, when the president was asked about his support of Darling Graham, he's like, well, let's be clear, like, everybody in this race is maga, and I like everybody who's running in this race. He wanted to distance. It seemed he wanted to put some distance between himself. He didn't want this to be a test of his own power. And, yeah, I think it's hard to read it as anything but that.
[34:06]
Charlie Sykes
Well, it is. And, you know, to Sam's point, I mean, we need to acknowledge that he generally gets his way, but I also think we're finding some limits to that. Andy Ogles. Was that how you pronounce his name? Andy Ogles was defeated in the primary despite, you know, being a Trumpist. What happened in South Carolina? What is interesting, going back to your question about what Donald Trump will do, we've seen that Donald Trump is willing to push the crazy all the way to the limit and beyond. In Minnesota, he would really have to go to war. War with Minnesota Republicans. Right. He has to make the case that those dastardly Minnesota Republicans rigged the election and find a way to overturn the Republican primary. And that's kind of a new wrinkle on Donald Trump's election. Denialism. A lot to see.
[34:55]
Alicia Menendez
All right, Sam Stein, I know you have to go. Thank you so much for starting off with us. We appreciate you. Charlie Sykes, I'm gonna ask you to stick around a little bit longer. Coming up, the Republican congressman, facing real allegations of domestic abuse, has donated money to many of his colleagues, but so far, not many of his colleagues have said whether they plan to return that money. We got that story. Next, Politico has new reporting that is putting a spotlight on Congressman Max Miller's Republican colleagues who have accepted campaign contributions from their colleagues. Who's accused of domestic abuse of his ex wife and 2 year old daughter, allegations that Miller denies. According to records filed with the Federal Elections Commission, Miller's dependable conservative leadership PAC has made contributions to 16 GOP incumbents struggling to hold onto their seats in Congress. Of these, 16 Republicans received money from Miller this cycle. Contacted this week by Politico, only the campaign for Rep. Brad Finstead of Minnesota said it had already returned its $5,000 contribution. We are back with Charl. Charlie. Mike Johnson is punted on this issue, refusing to call on Miller to resign, instead saying he's going to wait until the ethics investigation is complete. Can this be an anchor for his fellow House Republicans?
[36:16]
Charlie Sykes
Absolutely. And it already is. I mean, you know, this is, it's worth noting that the Republican Party is having a hard time taking out the trash. And this comes back to Donald Trump. Donald Trump himself intervened to keep Max Miller in this race because in Trump's world, sexual abuse is not disqualifying, spousal abuse is not disqualifying. And that is a tell. You know, what you're highlighting now is the fact that this story is now infecting not just, you know, Max Miller, you know, and his seat, which is now in jeopardy, but it is really a cancer at the heart of congressional Republican campaigns because you have more than a dozen Republicans who are going to have to answer the question, why did you take money from Max Miller? And now that you have heard these allegations, which have been spread, supported by his wife's father, who is a sitting Republican senator, why have you not returned the contribution? So in a year in which Republicans face headwinds because Donald Trump has decided to double down on Max Miller and have this standard. It's a real problem for Republicans. And again, what an indication of the weakness of Speaker Johnson who is not able to push back against this or handle this problem.
[37:31]
Alicia Menendez
Right, right, right. Many, many of the House Republicans have accepted contributions are, of course, in battleground districts, including Derek Van Order, who, according to Politico, was asked Tuesday about the $2,500 contribution he received from Miller during an interview about the results of his state's primary elections. He refused to discuss the matter, calling the accusations against Miller accusation, allegations he had heard about the day before yesterday. I don't know. I just, I wonder sort of how you see this all playing out.
[38:02]
Charlie Sykes
Well, it's interesting that you, you highlighted Derek Van Orden, who is a very vulnerable Republican here in my state of Wisconsin. You know, if one seats flips, it's likely to be his. A very strong opponent won the Democratic primary last night, somebody who has run against him before. And so the last thing that Derek Van Orden needs is yet another weight on his back going into this, this election. So in Wisconsin, you know, once again because of the, this is going to be a referendum on Trump, it's going to be a referendum on the Republican record. And Derek Van Orden is joined at the hip with Donald Trump and apparently he's joined at the hip with Max Miller. It's not going to help.
[38:44]
Alicia Menendez
There were a lot of eyes on Wisconsin last night, as you well know. Your thoughts on, on where this general election is headed towards in your home state?
[38:55]
Charlie Sykes
Well, you know, as I wrote in my newsletter, Democrats in Wisconsin sort of stared into the electoral abyss and decided that on second thought they would actually rather win election than experiment with a candidate who was a bit out there. Democrats pressed the panic button. They decided that the front runner in this particular case, Francesca Hong, was just a bridge too far for many of the voters and would really put Wisconsin at risk of handing the governorship to a MAGA aligned election denier, Tom Tiffany, who's a member of Congress now that race is reset and Democrats are well positioned, they've been winning elections here. The electorate is clearly engaged, it is enthusiastic. And with Donald Trump's poll numbers in a state like Wisconsin, the Democrats ought to have the wind at the back. Now what we don't know, of course, is that David Crowley, who is the Milwaukee County Executive, is somewhat untested on the state stage. He's gonna have to, he will have to introduce himself to the electorate. He would be the first African American governor in the state of Wisconsin history. But certainly Democrats feel that they've dodged a bullet and are feeling rather jiggy this morning. I have to say, jiggy is one
[40:14]
Alicia Menendez
word you could use. I just want to say the asterisk I would put on that was that the margin I think was closer than a lot of folks thought. It was very close. Which still shows sort of that there is an appetite for a more radical form of change, which I think is interesting and worth noting. And also I'm not sure if you saw Crowley earlier today was taking questions and his ability to pivot so quickly to affordability and the economy showed a message discipline that will serve him well. Charlie Sykes, thank you so much for joining us.
[40:46]
Charlie Sykes
Today, Good start.
[40:47]
Alicia Menendez
Up next, the former ambassador to Panama is talking. He's describing what it was like to meet Donald Trump and what led him to eventually resign. We're going to bring that to you next. A former U.S. ambassador to Panama under Donald Trump in his first term is speaking out about just how basic you've got to be with the President of the United States. Take a listen to what John Feeley, who was nominated to the post by Obama in 2015, told the Guardian in his first and only meeting with Trump in 2017.
[41:22]
Rachel Maddow
The first and only time that I ever met President Trump, I walked into the Oval Office and I had briefed presidents before, and I knew what the sort of standard routine was. And he looks up at me and the very first thing he says to me is, so you are my ambassador in Panama. What do we get from Panama? That's what he asked me. I immediately slipped into New York cabbies thinking that he didn't want to hear State Department palaver. And I said, what do we get, Mr. President? Let me tell you what we get. If you bought an iPhone or a widescreen TV on the east coast of the United States and you got it at the lowest price possible, because where it was made to the time it was delivered to a port on the east coast of the US Came at the lowest possible cost because it went through the Panama Canal. That's what we get from Panama. So I'm pitching this guy pretty hard and he looks at me and he goes, huh?
[42:17]
Alicia Menendez
Who knew?
[42:20]
Rachel Maddow
I kid you not, man, that's what he said. Who knew?
[42:26]
Alicia Menendez
What do we get? Healey announced his resignation in December 2017, just months after that meeting. After a break, the price tag for Trump's massive ballroom, it is much bigger than what's been reported. We've got new reporting on the efforts the White House has taken to keep it all under wraps. The next hour of deadline White House starts right after this quick break. Can I just quickly say hello to you?
[42:51]
Carol Lennig
For me, being a part of this
[42:53]
Alicia Menendez
place has always been about the people,
[42:55]
Charlie Sykes
not about the politics.
[42:57]
Sam Stein
Why are you holding this sign?
[42:58]
Alicia Menendez
You ever been to a protest before?
[42:59]
Chris O'Leary
Be safe.
[43:00]
Alicia Menendez
People that we cover who allow us to enter their lives.
[43:03]
Chris O'Leary
How's everybody doing?
[43:04]
Alicia Menendez
Everybody doing okay?
[43:05]
Charlie Sykes
How long has been in line?
[43:06]
Alicia Menendez
I love human beings, beings.
[43:07]
Charlie Sykes
To spend time connecting with them is
[43:09]
Alicia Menendez
the biggest blessing that I could ask for.
[43:10]
Rachel Maddow
From the field to the studio, Jacob is finding the heart of the story. Connect with Jacob soff weekends at 10am Eastern on Ms. Now.

"Donald Trump's Air Force One bait and switch"

"Donald Trump's Air Force One bait and switch"

Podcast Summary: "Donald Trump's Air Force One Bait and Switch"

Overview

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Air Force One Bait and Switch Operation

2. Justice Department Legal Maneuvers Under AG Todd Blanche

3. GOP Primary Results & Waning Trump Endorsement Power

4. Republican Scandals & Political Fallout

5. Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes

Notable Segments & Timestamps

Conclusion

Podcast Summary: "Donald Trump's Air Force One Bait and Switch"

Overview

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Air Force One Bait and Switch Operation

2. Justice Department Legal Maneuvers Under AG Todd Blanche

3. GOP Primary Results & Waning Trump Endorsement Power

4. Republican Scandals & Political Fallout

5. Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes

Notable Segments & Timestamps

Conclusion