Alyssa Slotkin (2:26)

You can refuse illegal orders.

Jim Himes (2:28)

You must refuse illegal orders.

Alyssa Slotkin (2:31)

No one has to carry out orders.

Jocelyn Benson (2:32)

That violate the law or our Constitution.

Rick Stengel (2:35)

We know this is hard and that.

Jim Himes (2:36)

It'S a difficult time to be a public servant.

Alyssa Slotkin (2:38)

But whether you're serving in the CIA.

Alicia Menendez (2:40)

The army, or Navy, the Air Force.

Jim Himes (2:42)

Your vigilance is critical.

Alyssa Slotkin (2:44)

And know that we have your back.

Alicia Menendez (2:46)

Because now more than ever, the American people need you.

Alyssa Slotkin (2:50)

We need you to stand up for.

Jim Himes (2:51)

Our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.

Alicia Menendez (2:54)

Don't give up.

Jim Himes (2:56)

Don't give up. Don't give up.

Alyssa Slotkin (2:57)

Don't give up the ship.

Alicia Menendez (3:00)

Okay, so there's that video. And shortly after that video, when public Republicans, even Trump himself, erupted in alarm. And then an aggression in one social among many, Trump called it seditious behavior, punishable by death. And he reposted someone who suggested, quote, hang them. George Washington would. In response, those six lawmakers issued a joint statement which said in part, quote, what's most telling is that the president considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law. Our service members should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty. That is where we start this hour with Democratic Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut. He is the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, first, your response to the president's threats to what your Democratic colleagues had to say.

Jim Himes (3:57)

Yeah, thanks, Alicia. Let's deal with the facts first. Even though the facts matter, not one I owe to the President, United States, or any of the Republicans who are disgustingly supporting this evil behavior. Here's the facts. Under the Uniform Code of Military justice, which determines what is right and wrong for our officers, for our military, it is a legal and ethical obligation to refuse unlawful orders. Okay?

Gene Sperling (4:24)

So that's the fact.

Jim Himes (4:24)

And this goes back to Nuremberg, when the Nuremberg Tribunal hanged German commanders, Nazi commanders who tried to defend themselves by saying, I was just following orders. So the facts here are 100% clear. My six colleagues were simply saying what was. What is the law? Right? So what you really have here is shock, shock that a bunch of members of Congress and senators of courage and character, and I know every single one of them very, very well, would deign to get in front of the President. It is completely incomprehensible to my Republican colleagues in this building that anybody would de the President of the United States, irrespective of the fact that that is our job here in the Article one authority in the United States Congress. So, look, it's important for people to remember that what those six people were saying was simply a restatement of what is the law of the land and has been again since the Nuremberg tribunals. And secondly, then they need to evaluate the President Basically using language that is going to cause a number of people, I can't tell you whether it's 2 or 200 or 2000 in the United States to think that they now have a warrant to think about killing these individuals. Right. That is the state of the country. And the person that we have as Commander in chief and President, United States today.

Alicia Menendez (5:37)

You referenced your Republican colleagues. I want you to take a listen to what House Speaker Mike Johnson had to say about the situation just today.

Mike Johnson (5:45)

What I read was he was defining the crime of sedition.

Lindsay Toslosky (5:48)

Okay.

David Noriega (5:48)

I don't.

Mike Johnson (5:49)

That is, that is a, that is a factual statement. But obviously attorneys have to parse the language and determine all that. What I'm saying, what I will say unequivocally is that was a wildly inappropriate thing for so called leaders in Congress to do to encourage young troops to disobey orders. I mean, think of what the threat that is to our national security and what it means to our institutions. I just, we have got to raise the bar in Congress. This is out of control and is wildly inappropriate. And for a senator like Mark Kelly or any member of Congress in the House or Senate to be engaged in that kind of talk is to me just so beyond the pale.

Alicia Menendez (6:26)

You know, first of all, it is notable, Congressman, because ordinarily when the speaker is asked about anything the President has said or done, he has not seen it, he has not heard about it. It's very hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. So the fact that he was willing to acknowledge this already a change of pace, the fact that on top of that you get the word salad and then he pivots so fast to your Democratic colleagues who are standing up from the Constitution seems to be in and of itself a tell.

Jim Himes (6:54)

Absolutely. What you heard there in the Speaker's quote was two things. At the very end there you heard a lie, which is that these six members urged the disobeying of lawful orders. You can watch it. That's not at all what they did. So you heard a lie. And in the seconds before that, you heard what we live with in this building, which is that I would rather promote a dangerous falsehood from our saint and dictator Donald Trump, then I would actually want to do my constitutional duty to stand up against, to provide a check and a balance against the executive. Right. Especially when that executive is not involved in a policy disagreement, but when that executive is saying something that is both untrue and very, very dangerous. Look, you just saw the demonstration of Republican leadership. A lie and lick spittle word Salad designed to pledge once again, allegiance to Donald Trump.

Alicia Menendez (7:45)

Here's the thing. None of this is amorphous. We're talking about all of this because of the strikes that the President has ordered off the coast of Venezuela. Alissa Slotkin told the New York Times that active troops told her they were concerned about the legality of those strikes. Now you have NBC News reporting this. The senior military lawyer for the Combatant Command overseeing lethal strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats near Venezuela disagreed with the Trump administration's position that the operations are lawful and his views were sidelined. That's according to six sources with knowledge of the legal advice. The JAG at Southern Command specifically expressed concern that strikes against people on boats in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean, whom administration officials call narco terrorists, could amount to extrajudicial killings, the six sources said, and therefore legally exposed service members involved in the operations. I know there's also been reporting that there is a memo floating around the White House that says, don't worry. These service members won't have legal liability. The fact that they are in a position where the White House does not have a cohesive legal argument for what they are doing, it seems to me it is inarguably putting our service members at risk. Your take.

Jim Himes (9:01)

Yeah, yeah. And what you just, what you just asked me about, of course, is critical context to what we were just talking about. Right. Some of my more sane Republican colleagues here are saying, oh, is the implications of the statement made by those six. It was the context. Here's the context. Every day, the president proposes that the military be used in any legal way. Right. It was a couple of weeks ago when he suggested that maybe the military should use American cities as training grounds. And now, as you point out, we have what is absolutely an illegal war being fought in the Caribbean. So, again, back to my six colleagues, right? You know, them suggesting that you ought to be on the lookout for illegal orders and that you don't have to follow them is in the context of. Of a daily stream of illegal ideas and misuse of the military that we get out of the White House. But, no, look, I've had the opportunity to review the Office of Legal Counsel opinion here, and basically, what they're arguing, what the White House is arguing, is that these cartels are like ISIS or like Al Qaeda. They want to end the United States. They want to replace us with a caliphate. What they're, you know, and that requires us to suspend disbelief that what the cartels are is what we all know them to be, which is a very, very ugly business that is selling a product to Americans that Americans willingly buy. And as a result, we're going to use the military to attack these people. But, and here's the kicker, here's the kicker, if you're a member of Congress, we're going to get into involved in what looks like a war, but it's not really a war that would require us to seek congressional approval. And you know, that was illustrated when they captured two of these people. And apparently they had enough evidence on these two narco terrorists to kill them. But did we bring them to interrogate them or to try them under our system of justice? No, we didn't. So, you know, you see, you see what? You see what's going on here.

Alicia Menendez (10:42)

They repatriated those two folks so fast. All right, Congressman, real quickly, you and your colleagues in the House Intelligence Committee, you're warning about concerns with intelligence sharing. Can you explain where this story weaves together with what we've been talking about?

Jim Himes (10:57)

Yeah, there have been press reports and of course, we saw the president of Colombia say that we're ceasing cooperation on counter narcotics. Maybe the British are, maybe the Dutch are. You can read the story. The point is this. The attacks that are happening on these boats are performative. Right? That cocaine will find its way into the United States either through aircraft or overland. So it's purely performative. What is not performative is when the president of Columbia says, we're going to eliminate the the of part partnership. We work very closely with the Colombians on stopping the flow of narcotics. That's a real thing. That's not a performative thing. And we just took that off the table for a bunch of Hollywood reality show performative violence that makes, you know, Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump happy. That is a terrible, terrible trade to have made.

Alicia Menendez (11:40)

Congressman Jim Himes, thank you so much for joining us today. Appreciate you making the time. Joining us at the table, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is here. She is running for governor in that state's Democratic primary. Former Undersecretary of State for Public diplomacy and Public affairs during the Obama administration. Former Time magazine editor and Ms. Now political analyst Rick Stengel is here. Jocelyn, you're no stranger to political violence. When the President of the United States is retweeting about hanging members of Congress, it tells you just how far down the rabbit hole we are.

Jocelyn Benson (12:13)

It is breathtakingly horrific. And when you peel it back and realize the reason he's doing that is because you have leaders with moral courage to speak out against him in defense of the Constitution and our brave men and women who serve up, who sign up for the military to serve our country. It becomes even more terrifying that the leader of our nation is calling for these horrific acts to act to happen to leaders who are simply just doing their jobs and fulfilling the oath they took. And it also underscores in this moment how we all have to have that moral courage. I'm from Michigan, running to lead that state, currently Secretary, as you said. And I know Alyssa Slotkin well. She is a leader with true, authentic moral courage in every bone of her body, just like so many other members of our military today, like my husband who served in the Army. So for me, it really strikes at the heart of who we are as a nation when you have the leader calling for the deaths of people who have the moral courage to stand up to him, speak the truth, tell the law, and call on others to do the same. But it also underscores how we also have to have that moral courage in this moment, all of us citizens across the nation, to stand up for what's right as well, even when the President is threatening those who do.

Alicia Menendez (13:26)

Part of what the Secretary is teasing out is something we've watched over and over again, which is the fact that there is just power in numbers, courage in numbers. You saw that with the four Republicans who chose to put their names on the Epstein discharge petition. You see it with the fact that you had these members of Congress standing together, and what they were saying was so powerful. They were saying to service members, if you feel vulnerable because you want to follow the law and what you were being asked to do is in violation of the law, know that we have your backs. We will protect you. The fact that they are trying to be on their side and offer that level of Article 1 protection to only then have the President of the United States make them the target tells you who is actually on the side of the everyman.

Rick Stengel (14:15)

But more than that, more than them just having their backs, the Constitution has their backs. It is manifestly illegal to obey an unconstitutional order. That's in the law of war manual, that's in the criminal code of the military. They're just stating the facts. What's so awful about this, and we've Talked about it 10,000 times, is that you have members of Congress, you have the speaker of the House that don't know the law, that don't know the Constitution, that this has been the case since 1950, that you cannot obey an unconstitutional law. That's the oath that everyone of the military takes. That's the oath that they take as well. That's the oath that civil servants take. That's part of our system. That's quarter our system. I agree it takes moral courage to say that, but it shouldn't have to because it is just following the law.

Jocelyn Benson (15:05)

Right.

Alicia Menendez (15:05)

I actually think there is something messaging wise here, which is perhaps that they need to put out videos once a week that remind us what the Constitution actually says. In this case, the stakes are extraordinarily high and there was a news hook. But I think that the reminder to your point about civics, education and a reset on what is normal has value. I want you, Secretary, to listen to this exchange. It's between Senator Slotkin and Defense Secretary Pete Higset. That's from back in June.

Alyssa Slotkin (15:32)

Have you given the order for to be able to shoot at unarmed protesters in any way? Have you given the order that they can use lethal force against honor? I want the answer to be no. Please tell me it's no. Have you given the order, Senator?

Jim Himes (15:47)

I'd be careful what you read in books and believing it.

David Noriega (15:50)

Except for the Bible.

Alicia Menendez (15:51)

Oh my God. It's very Gaston from Beauty and the Beast. Like books.

Jim Himes (15:58)

Who reads those?

Alicia Menendez (15:59)

Like, not I, sir. You went to Princeton. You read at least one book like. It is a reminder though, that the use of force that we're talking about in this case, people who are extraordinarily powerful. We're talking about US Senators, members of Congress. But there is a through line from them to ordinary Americans who this administration believes they have the power to use their forces against.

Jocelyn Benson (16:24)

Yes, exactly. And that's what's so terrifying about it. And then also the through line, the message that all of this sends to others who are watching the threats, watching the potential for threats, watching the President call for these threats, is that it connects to other residents or citizens who are seeing these calls for violence and potentially going to take it into their own hands to exert violence against these elected officials who are simply trying to hold our elected officials accountable, who are simply trying to call into account these members of the administration who are doing illegal things and calling on others to do illegal things. So to me, the metastasization of all of this as well is quite terrifying for those leaders who are standing up and simply asking the important questions and demanding those answers.

Alicia Menendez (17:12)

Especially because this is not theoretical. Right. At this point, you have January six rioters who are pardoned by this president who upon their release have threatened to kill sitting members of Congress. So, I mean, I think sometimes they act like this is all fantasy land and words and retweets don't have value. Armenia, you are the President of the United States of America. You have the largest of bully pulpit on the globe, and this is how you're choosing to use it. And I know, I know that at this point, we shouldn't be surprised. And we've seen it a million times, and yet every time it should be as shocking as the first time that he does not understand the power of his office.

Rick Stengel (17:56)

Absolutely. And the irony, although that's too mild a word, is that he is the one doing something unconstitutional by suggesting the extrajudicial killing of members of Congress. I mean, the language of our country has been so corroded by the fact that he's ignorant, that he's emotional, that he can't govern his own speech. And then people echo it. And of course, you know, the law, the First Amendment does protect that kind of thing. But there's no doubt that violent language in some cases induces violent behavior. And that's the thing that we have to be very, very cautious about now.

Alicia Menendez (18:32)

Okay, all the secretaries are staying with me. No one's going anywhere. When we return, a stunning policy change at the United States Coast Guard. We're starting next month. Get ready for this. Swastikas will no longer be considered symbols of hate. How that new policy is outraging people in and out of the military. That's next. Also had Donald Trump is in a political crisis of his own making. New polling shows voters have turned on his handling of the economy. His response? Call it a hoax and mock the issue of affordability. His tone deaf response later in the hour also had Brandon reporting into the chaos and haphazard nature of Trump's deportation agenda. And what happened when one immigrant from L A seemingly vanished after being taken into ice custody. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Stay with us. What made you confident that you could do something that hadn't been done before? I have no fear of failure. Trailblazing women, changing the game. One of my favorite pieces of advice, think about what your boss's boss needs. Leadership can look in many, many different forms. It really does come down to just trusting yourself.

Jocelyn Benson (19:39)

Life is short and you just gotta think big to accomplish big things.

Alicia Menendez (19:42)

Julia Boorstin hosts CNBC changemakers and power players. New episodes every Tuesday. Wherever you get your podcasts. It is the sort of headline that makes you pause when you read it from the Washington Post. U.S. coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas nooses as hate. Symbols quote, the U.S. coast Guard will no longer classify the swastika, an emblem of fascism and white supremacy, inextricably linked to the murder of millions of Jews and the deaths of more than 400,000 U.S. troops who died fighting in World War II, as a hate symbol, according to a new policy that takes effect next month. Instead, the Coast Guard will classify the Nazi era insignia as potentially divisive under its new guidelines. The new policy, set to take effect December 15, similarly downgrades the definition of nooses and the Confederate flag, though display of the latter remains banned, according to documents reviewed by the Washington Post. The Post goes on to make clear the new guidance says that if a potentially divisive symbol is reported, supervisors should inquire about it after consulting their legal office. They may order the symbol's removal, but there's no further guidance requiring that it be taken down. We are back with Secretary Benson and with Rick. 80 years to the day since the Nuremberg trials began, and now swastika not a hate symbol in the U.S. coast Guard. How do I make sense of that?

Rick Stengel (21:07)

I have to say, and again, we've talked about this a thousand times, but that headline today, that story really hit me. It just struck me that this is something that you could never imagine in America. Anybody who of the post war generation, like me, the idea of a swastika being something that was acceptable or a noose for that matter, or the Confederate flag was just something that was absolutely unthinkable. And it goes to what we were talking about in the last segment, the kind of corrosion of public dialogue, of public discourse in the country, that something that is so hateful, that is the definition of a hate symbol is something that's downgraded to something else because there are people who must be sympathetic to it and feel like they will be offended if a swastika is considered a hate symbol. That's just, again, unthinkable.

Alicia Menendez (21:58)

Jocelyn, you've started your career at the Southern Poverty Law Center. These are questions you've spent a lot of time thinking about. How do we get to the point where not only is this codified, but it's even a question worth revisiting?

Jocelyn Benson (22:11)

Yeah, I mean, we need to be unequivocal about this as a country. And yeah, I started my career investigating extremists and extremist organizations. Those symbols are hate symbols. They generate hate. They communicate hate. They're not potentially divisive. They are hatefully divisive. And for ourfor any element of our official policies to equivocate about that is un American. But then secondly, my other reaction, in addition, as being a military spouse, being afraid for the troops that will be put in harm's way within battalions where they need to be unified because of this. The other thing that I was struck by was how, you know, when I travel around Michigan, this is not what they're talking about. People are talking about the fact that health care premiums are about to go skyrocketing. Right. Too many mothers have to choose between childcare and medicine and putting food on the table. And that's what our administration, our presidential administration should be talking about. And instead, they're ordering decisions like this that are going to make our troops less safe. It's really infuriating. And again, in my view, speaks to the need why other leaders, frankly, Republican leaders and Democrats, seem to be calling this out as clearly. Clear hate speech is clear hate symbols. And remind the president and every other leader that what we should be doing is making life more affordable for Americans across this country.

Alicia Menendez (23:24)

Jocelyn spoke to sort of the safety of servicemembers and the way in which this makes service members less safe. There's also the question of the way in which then service members relate to the general public. A Coast Guard speaking to the Post anonymously said, we don't deserve the trust of the nation if we're unclear about the divisiveness of swastikas. I mean, there is just a pattern of degrading institutions and a question for all of us of, in a post Trump era, what the rebuilding of that faith in these institutions will require of all of us.

Rick Stengel (24:04)

Yes, it'll take a very long time. I mean, I was thinking while you were talking that, I mean, the military and the service branches was something that was unifying in America. It took kids, young men and women from all over the country who had never seen anyone before. My dad served in World War II. He grew up in Brooklyn. He was suddenly based in the south and in Hawaii. And his had made friends from all over the country. All of those divisions melted away with the devotion to the country and to the Constitution.

Alicia Menendez (24:34)

The great equalizer.

Rick Stengel (24:35)

Yes. And that seems to have gone. I mean, how you build that back up, I mean, that takes decades and decades. I don't even really to think about it. But it's just this kind of corrosive public dialogue that we have that's undermining the values that really the country was built on.

Jocelyn Benson (24:49)

I'll say, I think we build it back up by not allowing these actions and these statements to define who we are. That we have to remember that even in a moment like this, the power of the people to define who we are as Americans will always exceed the power of the president to define that for us. So we cannot allow these statements, these decisions, these equivocation about hateful symbols to define who we are. And this is a moment when we as American citizens, as voters, as leaders, need to stand firm in defense of that and not allow this rhetoric and these, these bizarre changes in policies that help no one and divide many to define us in the future.

Alicia Menendez (25:22)

I want to go back, though, to the point that you made, which is, I think part of the argument that Republicans made during the last presidential election was look at these Democrats. They are so focused on all of these social issues and they are not focused on the economy. They have taken their eye off the prize because we're this newest news. It comes on the heel of Trump's first day when he fired the Coast Guard commandment, the first woman to lead a branch of the US Military for what the administration described as diversity initiatives in her handling of sexual assault investigations. They are the ones who have been hyper focused on everything except the economy. And it does seem to me that voters are starting to pay attention.

Jocelyn Benson (25:59)

They are. I've seen it in Michigan. I mean, people are recognizing that they voted for someone for Trump who promised them that he would drive down the cost of living. And the cost of living is skyrocketing while wages are stagnant. That's what the president needs to be focusing on. That's what governors are focusing on. But at the same time, that's what citizens need to start being loud and demanding truth and accountability for those who claim they're going to do one thing but then run off and do something else, particularly other things that are so divisive and hurtful to members of our military who are signing up to guard and protect all of us.

Alicia Menendez (26:28)

I'm glad that you got us on this topic because we're going to continue talking about this a little bit. Jocelyn Benson, thank you so much for being with us. Rick, you're sticking with me when we return. We've been talking about it. Voters are increasingly rejecting Donald Trump's handling of the economy. It is no wonder, as he continues to dismiss and mock the real concerns of American families. What he said, how voters are responding, that's all next.

Progressive/Advertisement Announcer (26:52)

Start your day with the MSNow Daily Newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust, standout moments from your favorite shows, and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up at Ms. Now.

Alicia Menendez (27:08)

As Donald Trump comes down from his gilded billionaire studded dinner to Fet, the man his own CIA says ordered the murder and dismemberment of an American journalist. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman appears to be having some difficulty relating to the people who elected him because of their concerns about, you know, being able to pay their bills. Take a look.

Jim Himes (27:30)

We're also making incredible strides to make America affordable again. That's a new word that they're using, affordability. But they came up with a new word, affordability, and they look at the. We are all about affordability.

Alicia Menendez (27:47)

Trump seems almost as unfamiliar with that word as he is with groceries, plural. His view of affordability as a quote, new word may explain his most recent poll numbers. With 76% of voters, 76% saying they view Trump's economy negatively, an increase of nearly 10 points from just four months ago. And 46% of Americans saying Trump's economic policies have hurt them, compared to just 15% who say they have helped. I want to bring in former senior adviser to President Biden and former national economic adviser to Presidents Obama and Clinton, Gene Sperling. Rick is still with me. Gene, how, how affordable to use a new word is Donald Trump's America right now?

Gene Sperling (28:31)

You know, his response to this is just so stunning. Just from kind of a political self interest point. I mean, let's remember the criticism of President Biden was not that he was not focused on affordability. He had an entire agenda of lowering energy prices, prescription drugs, childcare, health care. The argument was simply that he wanted to boast about the fact that they had record job growth and historically low on inflation. And it was seen that even talking about the positive things might have felt out of touch. So that's the criticism here. Now you have a president who comes in who does not have a particularly strong economy, who was inheriting an economy where it was projected widely. This isn't just me saying this. This is Goldman Sachs, IMF, OECD Inflation was on the way down to 2%. Everybody projected that he comes in and then puts in a policy that explicitly raises cost on average people. And it's striking how many Americans understand what tariffs are and that they are raising your prices. So it's kind of stunning is he didn't learn any lesson. He actually flaunted affordability. And now at a time when he has an economy that is very iffy, very iffy, job numbers not particularly strong, he's not just de emphasizing affordability, he's mocking it. And people know, I mean, if you ask what's the one thing they've done to that might actually help. On affordability, it is admitting that their tariffs on things like coffee and bananas made no sense at all. We can't even grow them there. So their only one affordability measure that might work at all is an admission that tariffs were raising prices, that they didn't make sense, and that now they're pulling it back. So just on pure political self interest, it's just stunning that he has, in a sense, mocked the affordability issue the entire term and now he's literally mocking it as a punchline.

Alicia Menendez (30:56)

I think that's exactly right. I think part of what's interesting is I understand that Donald Trump is not known for his message discipline, but he seems especially undisciplined on this question. I thought it was interesting the night where he sort of flipped and turned the page and said, all right, let's release the Epstein files. I'm done with all of this. At the end of that message, he says, because we need to turn our focus to the economy. And we. So, like, it was as though someone had gotten in his ear ever briefly. And he did understand that he was losing voters over this. But now he can't actually stay on the message. Let's just look at some of the polling, the survey. When asked, do you think Donald Trump cares about people like you? Only 35% said yes. A whopping 63% said no. That is the fundamental question, Rick. Do you care about people like me? Do you understand my life?

Rick Stengel (31:44)

That is the fundamental question. And, and it's obvious to people who he's telling them, don't believe what the cash register says. Don't believe how much money is in your wallet. Take my word for it that things are being better. But people are buying coffee, they're buying eggs. They realize that he's not telling the truth. It's always the economy, stupid. And, you know, the affordability thing, I mean, there's nothing like when someone, not a person who doesn't know very much and learns a new word, they want to say that word all the time. It's like, like suddenly it's a new thing. But affordability basically has been the policy of the Democratic Party for decades. I mean, real wages have been stagnant for 25 or 30 years. I mean, every political party needs to be able to say, look, I'm going to make your life more affordable. And that's what happened in New York City with Mr. Mamdani becoming mayor. That really is the core value of the Democratic Party. And hopefully it will be seen as.

Alicia Menendez (32:41)

Such, I want you to take a listen. Jean, the vice president was asked about all of this. This is earlier today, and this is the plea that he made to the American public. Take a look.

Jim Himes (32:55)

Even though we've made incredible progress, we.

Alicia Menendez (32:58)

Understand that there's a lot more work to do. And the thing that I'd ask for the American people is a little bit of patience.

Jim Himes (33:03)

This economy was not harmed in 10 months.

Alicia Menendez (33:09)

So first of all, it's not. That's just not true that the economy was not harmed. I also think it is precious for him to be asking patients because it is an admission that they have not been effective in actually executing on what it is they promised the American people.

Gene Sperling (33:29)

Let me bring some facts on this. This has been their line from the beginning. Give us a little time. So we own the economy. Well, they inherited an economy, as I said, that was at about 3% inflation and projected widely to get to 2%. And then when things weren't that great the first few months, they said just wait. Well, here's the facts. The facts are that inflation over the last six months have been 3.1% annualized and 3.6% over the last three months. So Vance and the Secretary of Treasury have all made this point. But what the facts show is that the longer they're in office, the worse things get. And not out of bad luck, out of explicit policies that raise prices on consumer goods. And, you know, you showed that Fox poll and other polls. Well, I'll be the economics person here and look at the University of Michigan consumer sentiment. This is a number that has become out for 47 years. The current condition in the last survey was the worst ever. I mean, worse than 9, 11, worse than the pandemic, worse than the financial crisis. So this is not just a bad poll. This is like widely, widely seen. And if you ask what is their one big win they would brag about, I guess it is that they prevented Democrats from explicitly lowering healthcare premiums and healthcare prices as part of a government shut. Now, I was part of the 95 government shutdown. And when you win a shutdown battle, it's supposed to be that it helped you politically after you left. And right now, their win is to show everybody that they stood firm and helped let health care prices rise and rise.

Alicia Menendez (35:33)

Gene Sperling, Rick Singel, thank you for helping me get acquainted with this new word in my vocabulary, affordability. Thank you both. When we return, it is a mystery that underscores how flawed Donald Trump's deportation agenda really is. A man picked up last month on an LA street corner who's basically disappeared after having a medical episode. While in custody, even his family cannot get answers about where he is or whether he's still alive. We're going to bring you that brand new reporting after a quick break. There is alarming new reporting just published about the extreme consequences of Donald Trump's hostile and violent and chaotic immigration crackdown. Ms. Now has learned from eyewitnesses that Vicente Ventura Aguilar, an undocumented immigrant from Southern Mexico who came to the United States 17 years ago, was arrested on October 7th in Los Angeles. Our colleague David Noriega reports what happened next. Quote, A day later, while in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ventura suffered a medical emergency, losing consciousness and falling to the floor with his limbs shaking, according to a man who says he was detained with him. Since then, Ventura has effectively disappeared. ICE told Ventura's family he was not in its custody. His loved ones and lawyers have been unable to locate or contact him. Quote, the whole family is worried, especially our mother in Mexico, said Ventura's brother Felipe. We're afraid that he's dead. I want to bring in Ms. Now reporter David Noriega and Immigrant Defenders Law Center President and CEO Lindsay Toslosky. She is here with us. She is working to locate Ventura. All right, walk us through your reporting, Alicia.

David Noriega (37:17)

I found out about this case, this person from the lawyers representing Vicente and his family. And it is an extreme and unusual but in some ways representative case because he was reportedly picked up on a street corner in South LA well over a month ago, more than six weeks ago, and has simply simply vanished off the face of the earth. Nobody knows where he is. His family and his lawyers haven't been able to find him. DHS told me that he is not in their system or someone by his name is not in their system. ICE has told the family and the lawyers that he's not in their system. So truly a mystery. I did, however, speak to a man who said that he was detained with him, who knew him personally, knew him by name, was detained with him. I spoke to him by phone from Mexico because he was deported to Mexico. And he told me the story about how they were picked up together on the street corner. And while they were in custody on the way to being deported to Mexico, Vicente suffered what appeared to be what you might describe as a seizure. I don't know if it was a seizure. We don't know exactly what happened, but he lost consciousness, fell to the ground, was shaking, was bleeding from the mouth and that was the last time that he saw him. They were sort of separated. So I needed, first of all, to be able to corroborate that he was actually in ICE custody. Right, because it's very chaotic, disorienting, confusing environment out there with these mass arrests that, you know, masked agents are conducting. You never really know what could be happening. So I went to the place where he was arrested, spoke to a number of eyewitnesses who said that they saw him getting arrested, saw some surveillance footage that showed him at the scene immediately prior to what appeared to be federal agents arriving on the location and rounding people up. So there was essentially, you know, what I concluded was enough evidence to be able to determine that Vicente was in fact detained by federal immigration authorities on that day. The family. And I suspect that he may have given the authorities a different name. That might be why he is not in the system under his real name and his real date of birth. But the story shouldn't stop there, right, because there are other ways for the federal government to determine whether this person was in their custody or not. They have biometric data, they have photographs. I asked repeatedly. I made repeated requests of DHS to please search for him in their system in various ways. The family has been trying very hard to get them to answer their questions about where B Sente might have gone. I was thinking, Alicia, about whether this kind of thing could have happened in a prior administration. Right? Like, could someone have disappeared in ICE custody under Biden, under Obama? I think the answer is potentially yes. It could happen. Right. Especially if it's someone who gave them a different name, et cetera. One of the things that's different. There are a number of things that are different now that we can talk about, but one of the things that is different is the degree of hostility that DHS and these other agencies have towards the public, towards the press, towards the families of people detained. When the family and their lawyers ask them, you know, please help us find him, the answer is nope, sorry. We ran a search by his name and date of birth. We can't help you. When I asked them, you know, When I asked DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Trisha McLaughlin, Help, you know, here's the information. Can you help us find this person? The response is a fairly hostile email saying, you know, these are quote, unquote, baseless smears, etc. Etc. Etc. So that's one of the reasons we find ourselves in the situation where we. We simply do not know what happened.

Alicia Menendez (40:27)

To this man Lindsey. The same administration that in 1.0 separated children from their parents with no plan to reunite them. Should we be surprised that they are now disappearing folks in ICE custody? How representative is this case of a larger pattern?

Lindsay Toslosky (40:45)

Well, I think this case is definitely representative of a larger pattern, and frankly, it's representative of the moral rot that we're seeing in immigration enforcement. Vicente's case is one where he and his family are not being treated with the care that we would expect the government to treat human beings with. And that's something we saw during zero tolerance, when children went missing, when parents were deported without their children, when no one was tracking where they were. And frankly, it's something we've seen in this administration this time around, when our clients were disappeared from cells across the country and sent to El Salvador to be tortured. This case is a symptom of what we're seeing with immigration enforcement. It's representative of a lack of care, a lack of treating people like human beings. And it's been 44 days since his family has heard from him. If he were in government custody still, if he were in a hospital, if he had been deported, even under a different name, he would have made contact with his family. And the only people that can provide answers are, as David said, essentially stonewalling the family, the lawyers, and now media that are looking into what happened to Vicente. This family deserves answers. They deserve to know why he will not be at their Thanksgiving table next week. And frankly, the fact that the government is not providing any of those answers really shows the lack of care and the lack of due process that's being given to people who are caught up in ICE enforcement. At this time.

Alicia Menendez (42:24)

We have about a minute left. We have more questions than answers. What happens next in this case?

David Noriega (42:31)

I wish that I could tell you. You know, I think that the only people, as Lindsey said, who have answers about what happened to Vicente are the people in whose custody he, at some point was. Right. That's all we know. It depends on them whether we find out actually what happened to Vicente. It's entirely up to them. Whatever information is out there, they're the ones who have it. The last thing that I want to say is that someone that I spoke to for the story, to help put things in context, reminded me of the fact that back in April, the acting director of ice, Todd Lyons, said that he wanted ICE to work like Amazon prime, but for human beings. He wants the scale and speed of the operation to rival that of Amazon. Delivering, you know, commodities to people's homes, this kind of thing. And the response that we're getting to this is, I think, directly attributable to the way that the scale and the speed at which that agency is operating has changed in just the last few months.

Alicia Menendez (43:27)

When your model for how you treat people is how you treat things, you are already saying so much about your value set. You can read David Noriega's reporting on our website, Ms. Now. David, thank you so much for bringing us your reporting and this story. Lindsay Teslaski, as always, thank you for being with us. We're going to sneak in a quick break and then we'll be right back. Former presidents, vice presidents and other officials gathered to mourn former Vice President Dick Cheney at the Washington National Cathedral this morning. Neither Donald Trump nor J.D. vance attended. After all, last year, Cheney broke ranks with the GOP and said he would vote for Kamala Harris in the presidential race. His daughter, Liz Cheney, and his former governing partner, President George W. Bush, said this about the senior Cheney and their remarks. Take a listen.

Jim Himes (44:15)

His time produced an old breed of public servant defined by their substance and character. This was a vice president totally devoted to protecting the United States and its interests.

Jocelyn Benson (44:26)

He knew that bonds of party must always yield to the single bond we share as Americans. For him, a choice between defense of the Constitution and defense of your political party was no choice at all.

Alicia Menendez (44:45)

Another break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you for spending part of your Thursday with us. We are so grateful Nicole returns tomorrow. Be sure to catch our conversation with Heather Cox Richardson on this week's episode of the Best People. Wherever you get your podcasts. I'll be back in one hour from now alongside Michael Steele and Simone Sanders Townsend for the weeknight.

Progressive/Advertisement Announcer (45:07)

As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda. Follow along with the MSNow newsletter Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.

Alicia Menendez (45:24)

The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this.

Progressive/Advertisement Announcer (45:28)

Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at Ms. Now. Project 47.