Ian Bassin (3:10)

I vote with my party 91% of the time, which means I agree with the. I have agreed with the President 91% of the time. But when they're protecting pedophiles, when they are blowing our budget, when they are starting wars overseas, I'm sorry, I can't go along with that. And back home, people agree with me.

Nicole Wallace (3:31)

When it comes to the Trump administration's failures to address the affordability crisis in America, Donald Trump has tried. He's tried everything except actually the things that would lower the prices of things, lower the cost of living. First, Trump tried to claim that rising prices was just a con job carried out by the Democrats. And now JD Vance sounds insane, throwing every excuse at the wall in hopes that something will stick.

Paul Rykoff (4:01)

They're expensive because we inherited this terrible inflation crisis from the Biden administration. A lot of young people are saying housing is way too expensive. Why is that? Because we flooded the country with 30 million illegal immigrants who were. That ought, by right, go to American citizens.

Nicole Wallace (4:22)

So the worst of the worst, just who they say they're deporting, have stolen all the houses, 30 million of them. Okay. Inflation has been rising for the last five months, and it's now the same as it was when President Joe Biden left office, thanks in no small part to tariffs put in place by Donald Trump. That $30 million undocumented immigrants he cited, that is false. It's not a real number. And economists don't believe that any immigrants, the ones they've targeted for deportation or people who are here legally or going through a legal process, have anything to do with the current surge in housing prices. In other words, JD Vance is gaslighting again, the entire country. But also the Trump MAGA base, just like Donald Trump has become very accustomed and comfortable doing these days. And again, they're getting called out by prominent members of their own coalition. Here is Marjorie Taylor Greene, of all people.

Marjorie Taylor Greene (5:26)

And so gaslighting the people and trying to tell them that prices have come down is not helping. It's actually infuriating people because people know what they're paying at the grocery store. They know what they're paying for their kids clothes and school supplies. They know what they're paying for their electricity bills. And so that approach does not work. We need compassion and show that we care about the American people and show that we are in the trenches with them on what they're going through, that's first and foremost. You don't gaslight them, you don't lecture them, and you don't deny what's happening.

Nicole Wallace (6:05)

Marjorie Taylor Greene just took away your three favorite tools. JD Vance, an out of touch Trump administration losing the support of their own base and some of their most prominent backers is where we start today with some of our favorite experts and friends. Co founder and executive director, director of Protect America and former associate White House counsel Ian Bassin is back with us. Also joining us, staff writer for the Atlantic, David Frum is here. He's also the host of the video podcast the David Frum show and MSNBC political analyst, host of the Bulwark Podcast. Tim Miller's here. Tim, they have blamed and sought to dehumanize people in this country illegally as well as asylum seekers since the beginning of the MAGA brand. It actually predates J.D. vance's attachment to the brand. But this smear from J.D. vance that the housing crisis is because of 30 million people in this country illegally seems like the bottom of the rungs that they've touched. And I've stopped saying that they can't go any lower. But it also doesn't have any association with the truth, but it does reveal. It's like mask off or we're just going to blame people who come to this country from other places for absolutely everything. See if we can stir the hate potential a little more frothy.

Tim Miller (7:21)

Yeah, it's funny. As somebody who has to suffer through J.D. vance's interviews, a couple weeks ago he was on, I think it was the New York Post, and he's telling a different story about immigrant housing. He was once again smearing immigrants. But he was, he was talking about how people get upset because they're living in the suburbs. And he's talking about how American citizens have a right to get upset if somebody moves into your neighborhood and they buy a three bedroom house and 20 people move into the house and they speak a different language and it's getting rowdy over there. He didn't mention the cat eating, but the host then did and he laughed about that. So on the one hand, all of the migrants around the country are jamming into one house like a clown car and eating pets. And then two weeks later it's like, well, that's not actually true. They've bought 30 million houses and your house is expensive because of them. Because migrants are coming into the country and I guess competing with millennials for the condos, the apartments they want to buy In Brooklyn, he doesn't care. Right. It's just like at the moment, whatever argument he could make to blame immigrants is the argument he's going to make because it's a safe place for him. He knows that Donald Trump won't get mad at him if he does that. He knows that the MAGA base put them in because of animus towards immigrants, and so that's all he's gonna do. There's one other thing they've done this week that I think is worth noting on the. Because they have considered one policy change, and that is they're thinking about rolling back some of the tariffs. The New York Times was reporting this yesterday, and that caught my eye. Cause I was like, that's interesting. You think that rolling back the tariffs is going to lower prices? I think that would imply that putting the tariffs on raised the prices, you would think. And so that. I think the only substantive move that they have made or that they're talking about making is. Is rolling back what they did to create the problem in the first place.

Nicole Wallace (9:16)

I just got my first ever wave of sympathy for Caroline Levitt, who spent 11 months at the podium saying that tariffs do not make prices go up and tariffs are not taxes, and fighting with Republicans who go on Sunday shows and say the opposite. So it will be interesting to see, one, if they do that, and two, how they explain it. I want to show you, Ian, some of the polling on what Trump has done the last few days and weeks. This is AP polling on Trump's handling of the federal government. 33% approved, 67% disapproved. More interestingly among the Republican Party. And again, these are high numbers for normal Republicans. But for Trump, this number is usually in the 80s and 90s, only 67. No, I'm sorry. Among Republicans, 68% approve of Donald Trump's handling of the federal government. 32% of Republicans disapprove of Donald Trump's handling of the federal government. It shows that even the shutdown was an argument that Trump lost among a larger swath of his own party than is usually going along with whatever escapade he takes them.

David Frum (10:26)

Well, I think I was on here maybe two weeks ago or so, and I said, you know, we're going to win. By which I meant those who believe in democracy and freedom against the forces of authoritarianism and illiberalism are. Are going to ultimately prevail. And Nicole, you said that's about the most optimistic you'd ever see me in my tracks.

Nicole Wallace (10:45)

Yes.

David Frum (10:46)

Yeah. Well, you know, at the time I said that I was looking at a couple of data points, right? I was looking at the Pentagon press corps, including Fox News, refusing to accept Secretary Hegset's gag order. I was looking at America's airports refusing to air a propaganda video about the shutdown that Secretary Noem had said around. I was looking at the universities, which a lot of which had initially caved to some of the administration's demands, but more recently rejecting the sort of preferred status in exchange for their academic independence. I was looking at all those as signs that maybe America's institutions were starting to see that the emperor was maybe not naked but wasn't fully clothed and were willing to stand up. And I think since then, we obviously had the electorate in districts around the country, states and localities vote fundamentally in opposition to the direction of that Trump was taking the country. And now we're seeing the polls like the one you just showed with him hitting really kind of rock bottom lows for both of his two terms in office. And the reason why this is important in the battle between democracy and authoritarianism is because it is very difficult for extremely unpopular leaders to consolidate authoritarian control. We saw this in South Korea when President Yoon tried to declare martial law when polls had him somewhere between 13 and 19% approval. And that just didn't. Whereas, in contrast, where you have relatively popular authoritarian minded leaders like Narendra Modi in India, it's a lot more likely that they will be able to undermine the checks and balances and the rule of law that are the hallmarks of liberal democracy. And so Trump is essentially in a race. And I'm so glad that David's on here because he's written about this. Trump is in a race to consolidate power before the unpopular things. He does make it much harder for him to effectively do so. And I think right now he's losing that race.

Ian Bassin (12:45)

Yeah.

Nicole Wallace (12:45)

I mean, David, we've turned to you, I think, as often as we can get you on this show for the way you've helped us understand not just the economic debacle that the tariff regime represented, but the political debacle it could create for Donald Trump in terms of how it would completely, these are my words. Not you wrote more eloquently than I'm going to say it, but sort of bifurcate the economy, that people that bought things would be hurt far more, far, far more noticeably in their lives than people at the higher ends of the economy. It feels like that took a minute to sink in. But that is some of the political pain that Trump is either being told about because it's not clear that he's seeing it or believing it. He keeps calling it a con job. He keeps blaming Democrats somehow for his own supporters feeling economic insecurity and anxiety. But what you laid out seems to have come to pass, or started to come to pass.

Ian Bassin (13:45)

Well, let's revert to that point about housing that is so important. It is true. Immigrants buy housing. They also build housing. About a quarter of the of the construction workforce in this country is immigrant labor, and that's higher in states like California and Florida that are farther south. And it's even higher in the specialties that are most demanding and dangerous, like drywalling and especially roofing. So if you were to successfully round up and deport every immigrant in the United States, you might freeze up some housing. You'd also bring new housing construction to an almost complete start. And the reason that that's an important point to drive home is as with the tariffs that J.D. vance in particular is advocating, a kind of magical thinking about the economy that Republicans were, we thought, sent on earth to oppose. Republicans were the Republican job, and I was a Republican for a long time. You were as well, was to say money doesn't grow on trees. Markets work. Every worker is also a producer. Every producer is also a consumer. The Trump immigration policy is on the way to shrink the population of the United States in 25 for the first time since the beginning of the census in 1790. They're going to be, maybe there'll be a baby boom in the last few weeks of the year. So we don't know the exact figure, but on the present trajectory at the January of 2026, there will be fewer people living in the United States than in January of 2025. That ramifies through the whole economy. And you combine a supply crunch because of the tariffs, a supply crunch because you've shrunk the workforce and selective raids that depress building and building industries that make housing, new housing less available. Because the idea, hey, J.D. there would be more of these houses. Houses don't last forever. You can't say if there had been no immigrants that we could all happily live in the houses that were buil 1964. We don't want to live in the houses that were built in 1964. We want to live in the houses that are newer. And those houses have to be built and they have to be built by somebody. And they're being built. They were being built by the people whom Trump and J.D. vance are now running up and deporting with effects on everybody's costs.

Nicole Wallace (15:52)

I mean, it's such an important point about everything they've done, right? I mean, the war with, the rhetorical war with Canada, insulting them, making them the 51st state, the tariffs, I mean, that now has an impact on tourism being felt. And because the federal government's being the most generous way, I think we can call it stingy with data. You're seeing it in state data coming out about tourism. I mean, everything they have done that I can think of or that we've covered has been depressive to economic growth. What is, what in your view, is even available to them? And if they, I mean, they don't seem to mean what they're saying. J.D. vance is blaming immigrants. Donald Trump is blaming Democrats for a, quote, con job. What are you seeing that could actually help Americans?

Ian Bassin (16:46)

Well, what could help Americans is to drop the tariffs. That would be a big help. But what they're, and there's some, as Jim said, some baby steps on the way to doing that. But what they're mostly doing is villainizing the Federal Reserve and trying to put pressure on the Federal Reserve to bring it more into presidential control. So the plan is there's going to be less of everything in the economy because of the tariffs, because of the roundups, less of everything. But we're going to try to make money cheaper. We're going to have more cash and fewer things. That's how you get inflation. That's how you get stagflation. Because when you have fewer things but more cash, you are producing less and creating more money with which to buy the things that you're not producing. And that's back to 1977, 78, with low growth, high inflation.

Nicole Wallace (17:25)

I mean, Tim, that's an unbelievable legacy for Scott Besant. I don't know if Howard Lutnick realizes that will be his legacy or cares, but Besant should.

Tim Miller (17:35)

Yeah, there's some reporting I just saw before I came on and how well Letnik's family is doing in the markets right now. Just coincidence, I guess, that was doing better than ever. So that might be his legacy, it turns out. But look, here's the thing, Besant. You know, when you came into Trump 2.0, most of these, most of the people that came to the cabinet this time, as we discussed, you know, different than 1.0, were fully on board with the agenda, right? There were just a couple of people that were pointed to that people were saying, well, maybe they can be bumpers on some elements of his agenda. Marco Rubio at State and Besant at Treasury. You know, the two most noteworthy, and I guess at times it seems like Besant did protect Trump and Lutnick from their worst impulses, particularly back in the spring when they were really pressing the gas on the tariffs. But once that was accomplished, Lutnick has now spent the last six months doing exactly what Marjorie Taylor Greene said not to do at the beginning, gaslighting, people spinning, speaking illiterately about the economy, saying things he knows are not true, about what the impact of the tariffs are going to be on the economy, about the trajectory of the economy, about what things are costing the American people these days. And he's decided to do it in a very kind of haughty manner. And eventually the bill's going to come due for that. Because the economy is one thing. Look, you can trick people, you can trick your own supporters, not the whole country, into thinking that you won the election when you lost because they don't know any different one way or the other. They're being told something by people that they trust. You can't trick them into thinking that their grocery bill is lower than it is. They experience that when they go to the store every week. And I think that is going. So it's going to be much harder for Trump and Besant and Lutnick to use the tools they used in the 2020 election to trick their own voters into advancing a big lie when it comes to the economy. Much tougher on the economy than it was on democracy, which is sort of.

Nicole Wallace (19:39)

A reality wrapped in a tragedy, wrapped in everything that we talk about. I need all of you to stick around. I have to sneak in a break on the other side. More on how the White House is trying to undo zone undoing after consumers and voters balk at Trump's key economic policies, which are sending prices soaring. News on what we're talking about, this tariff rollback ahead. Also ahead is Donald Trump in a losing battle with Republican lawmakers when it comes to his efforts to suppress the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Congressman Robert Garcia will join us on that. And what he calls Trump's panicked and desperate attempt to deflect his involvement in in the scandal. And later in the show, what started as a peaceful demonstration of faith, leaders voicing their opposition to the Trump administration's mass deportation policies turned ugly when protesters clashed with police, leading to dozens of arrests. We'll look at this latest display of resistance and much more when Deadline WHITE House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

MSNBC Announcer (20:42)

MSNBC presents season two of the Blueprint hosted by Chen Psaki. In each episode she talks to leading Democrats about how they plan to win again, including Texas Congressman Greg Cassar, who chairs the Progressive caucus, Congresswoman Sarah McBride of Delaware, the first openly trans person elected to Congress and more who are helping to shape the future of the party. The Blueprint with Jen Psaki Season 2 All episodes available now. Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter, sharp insights from voices you trust, standout moments from your favorite shows, and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up now@msnbc.com subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace, why Is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddows original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Nicole Wallace (21:58)

As we've been discussing, Trump's betrayal of his own voters when it comes to his promise to lower the prices of groceries and everything else is currently taking a political toll on Donald Trump and the entire Republican Party. In the wake of that stinging rebuke from the voters last Tuesday turned out to be a referendum election on Donald Trump, it appears the Trump administration is now scrambling to try to address the affordability crisis facing the nation, or at least to look like they are. The question now is, are voters going to believe them or accept that the arsonist is the best one to put out the fire? New York Times is reporting that the Trump administration is working on ways to clean up its own tariff mess, literally considering offering a series of exemptions on certain food items, citing high prices. The exemptions are expected to include beef and citrus products, although people caution that President Trump had not made a final decision. If the proposal goes forward, it would be the latest rollback of one of the President's key economic policies over growing concerns about affordability. And if you need any more evidence that Trump is aware that his economic policies aren't working, take a look at the latest proposal. This week, Trump proposed sending tariff rebate checks of up to $2,000, similar to stimulus payments issued during the COVID 19 pandemic. We're back with Ian, David and Tim. So Ian, I think it's great when politicians recognize mistakes and change their mind. I really do. I think if more people did that politics would be better. It would model some humility. There's no universe where I think Donald Trump is capable of doing either, admitting that the tariffs are what everyone said they were, taxes and inflationary, and two, admitting that he was wrong about them. It's something he's wanted to do since he came down that elevator. Where do you see this reporting sort of intersecting with reality?

David Frum (23:50)

Well, you're right. This is not an example of a foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds. This is actually underscoring something that has, I think, been sort of interesting and unique about Trump and Trumpism in comparison to some of the other kind of despots of history, which is many of history's great despots were primarily engaged in an ideological project. You saw that with Mao, you saw that with Stalin, you saw that with the German example. And Trump fundamentally has never really been engaged in some sort of political theory, ideological project beyond the aggrandizement of personal power, personal wealth and personal accumulation. Yes, there have been leaders in history who have been more of that sort of personalist Ben intent the way that Trump is. But Trump has never really been committed to an ideological project. Early in his career, he was pro choice until that was inconvenient for his run for president. Earlier in his career, he was in favor of stronger gun regulations and critical of the NRA until he became a Second Amendment absolutist because that was more convenient for his run for office. You know, earlier in his career, he said positive things about single payer health care systems and said we needed something like the Canadian one in America. He was more hawkish on foreign policy, saying things reportedly in support of the Iraq war or in favor of, you know, sort of preemptive strikes on North Korea in the early 2000s, only to become more isolationist when that seemed like the way to power. But through it all, the one thing that made Trump appear popular, to be popular was this idea that he wasn't a politician, that he told him like it is, that he was a truth teller. But it turns out that that may end up being more sort of the surface brand and not what's underneath it. Sort of like Trump University or Trump Stakes. And that the greatest vulnerability he may face is that all this flip flopping may expose him as the one thing he really can't afford to be seen as by his base, which is just another politician.

Nicole Wallace (25:56)

Yeah. And I wonder, Ian, if you could just layer over the extravagance of the grift and people. I remember David Farenthal's body of reporting from Trump 1.0 about the emoluments clause I remember looking it up the first time I covered one of those stories and the family enriching itself based on the presidency, it didn't seem to catch up with him. I think looking from the outside in all the flagrant violations of ethics laws and norms and, you know, everything that anyone had ever covered or experienced in a White House, those laws of gravity didn't apply to him. But I wonder if you attach the economic betrayal to people really not loving all of his associations almost exclusively with billionaires swimming in martini glasses at actual Great Gatsby parties.

David Frum (26:51)

Well, I think the first move, typically for those who would seek to enrich themselves off of public office, is to distract people by blaming an unpopular or vulnerable group as a scapegoat. And this goes to what you and Tim were talking about in the earlier segment, which is if you convince people that their real enemy are the people coming across the southern border or who speak different languages living next door, they might not notice when you're picking their pockets of money and power. But the second move is to promise people a golden age that don't worry about what I'm taking on the side because I'm going to make your life wonderful. I'm going to drive prices down for you and give you back the American dream that was taken from you by all these villains that I'm telling you that you should point fingers at. But what Trump is also about to find out is that moment of tumultuous economic change. Globally, people are struggling. There's no way to deny that. And they're going to blame the incumbent. And that was Joe Biden. Previously, it was a populist more in the mold of Donald Trump in the Netherlands and Wilders recently and eventually, because I don't think Trump's solutions here are going to deliver the golden age people are looking for when they say, where's my golden age? All of a sudden, that's going to turn to a very difficult question for Donald Trump. And if when that question is asked, people view him as pocketing the riches that he promised them, that's going to be a pretty hard fall indeed.

Nicole Wallace (28:18)

I mean, that seems to be happening right now. David Frum. I mean, the knocking down of the White House isn't just a story about destroying something that people value and associate with the government and the country's identity. It's about building himself the most opulent thing that's ever been built by the American state.

Ian Bassin (28:38)

It's also an example of his disregard for people who are closest to him, in this case, literally because it looks like he's filling the White House ventilation system with deadly asbestos. Because the East Wing was built during World War II and people used asbestos to fireproof. And when you demolish such a building in the modern age, you need elaborate safeguards to protect the workers and the people next door. And those don't look like to have been put in place. One of the go to moves when things begin to go south for this kind of authoritarian leader, as Ian well knows, is military adventurism. And we are seeing a revival of that. The threats against Venezuela and just more recently, a revival of the threatening language against Denmark and Greenland. I don't know how excited the American people are going to be to have a giant glacier island all of their very own, against the will of the people who live there and in violation of NATO treaties with Denmark. But that seems to be one of the things you're going to get instead of affordable pasta.

Nicole Wallace (29:34)

It's amazing. Tim Miller, you get the last word. I'm still hanging on the idea of the four people who were exposed to Covid during Trump one now breathing in asbestos in Trump two.

Tim Miller (29:44)

Yeah, I wanted to hear more from David Frum, actually, but I guess briefly my last thought is I agree with what he just said. And if it is true that he decides that his way out of this is more aggressive action in Venezuela or Greenland or otherwise Canada, I guess I think that that is not a path to success for him because I think that the Trump, the elements of the Trump base that are the most vulnerable, that he's most vulnerable to losing, the people that are upset about Epstein, the folks that are more lower income and are more sensitive to costs, they're also the folks that were more interested in his isolationist pivot in the party. People that he brought into the party were the ones that didn't like the adventurism of Republican presidents past. And so I think that, frankly, it would be potentially the best way to get that number down into the low 30s would be to try to wag the dog this thing. But I don't think that that's necessarily going to stop them.

Nicole Wallace (30:44)

It's amazing. And it's amazing the way these conversations have moved so quickly around some of these same themes. Ian Bess and David from Tim Miller, the best of the best. Thank you for starting us off today. After the break for US News of a secret DOJ memo that justifies Donald Trump's lethal strikes against boats as being completely legal. It hinges entirely on the words of Donald Trump. We'll bring you that Reporting next. If it feels like the pace of me saying what I'm about to say is picking up, it is. The United States military has now carried out its 20th strike on alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean, killing all four of the people who were on board. They're the usual questions, the questions we ask every single time as to the justification of the strikes, which have left at least 75 people dead so far. The evidence that was behind them has not been shared or made public. There's new reporting that reveals that there are worries within the government itself over the legality of these strikes. New York Times is reporting today that officials pursued an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. That office issued a memo over the summer stating that US Troops are not liable in the strikes. According to that memo or that reporting about the memo. The memo, blessing the strikes as lawful, quote, hangs on the idea that the United States and its allies are legally in a state of armed conflict with drug cartels, a premise that derives heavily from assertions that the White House itself has put forward. The New York Times adds this quote in endorsing Trump's determination that there is an armed conflict. The memo accepted the White House's assertions uncritically, according to the people who have read it. For example, they said the memo cites the White House's claim that cartels are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans a year. But it does not address the fact that a surge in overdoses over the past decade was caused by fentanyl, which comes from labs in Mexico controlled by Mexican cartels, not South American cocaine. Despite the mounting concerns over these strikes and Donald Trump's use of military force without congressional approval, yesterday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced a ramped up operation in the Caribbean. He's dubbed it, quote, Operation Southern Spear, with the goal of, quote, removing narco terrorists from our hemisphere, end quote. With me at the table, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut. Also joining us, host of the Independent Americans podcast, founder and CEO of Independent Veterans of America, Paul Rykoff is back. Congressman, my question is about a legal memo justifying these strikes with a lie. I mean, there's no evidence that. And just. And let's take, let's take the New York Times and MSNBC out of it. Rand Paul says there is no precedent of eradicating illegal drugs, which are horrible, we should eradicate them, but that there's no precedent of doing so with deadly strikes, that the practice that is accepted and lawful is to go on board and seize the drugs and arrest the people. Rand Paul says there is no law that permits any U.S. government agency or official to kill the people there. And there's no proof that's been put forward to the American people to shore up support among the public. So you have men and women of the military doing something that Rand Paul, pretty powerful Republican senator said is not lawful or precedented.

Ian Bassin (34:21)

Yeah, look, men and women of the military doing the thing that the American military has tried for two and a half centuries not to do, which is to kill civilians. You may despise these drug people, and by the way, most of them are fishermen who are making a couple hundred extra bucks maybe to run a load of cocaine up to Trinidad. You can despise what they do and say, oh, my God, for the first time ever, this country is targeting civilians. I've read the Office of Legal Counsel memorandum that you make reference to. It's a joke. These are illegal strikes. And the joke. You don't need to get into all the classified details of the opinion to understand that when the administration says this is a non international armed conflict, that we are in the same kind of conflict with the cartels that we were in with ISIS or Al Qaeda. That's bunk. Right? These people are selling in an illegal transaction and in a horrible industry, they are selling cocaine to willing American buyers. Lot of violence associated with that. That has traditionally been dealt with in a, you know, law enforcement scenario. But this is not an armed conflict by any stretch of the imagination. And just to make this best, and this is something that I would hope that more members of Congress would get upset about, the Trump administration is saying this is an armed conflict. But it's not enough of an armed conflict that we actually need to get congressional authorization, even though we've got a carrier strike group and all sorts of military assets in the area, and we're wasting dozens of people. Yeah, it's an international conflict, but it's not so much of an international conflict that it needs to be even reported to the Congress under War Powers Act. That's a huge problem.

Nicole Wallace (35:49)

Do you know why the top military official resigned? Who was overseeing these strikes?

Ian Bassin (35:56)

I don't. You know, we haven't gotten a lot of insight into that. But, you know, Admiral Halsey was a guy commanding southcom who would have traditionally done three years in that job, and he left after one year. He's not now. Again, I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that Latin American countries have stopped sharing intelligence with us because they so despise these attacks. That's a huge problem. We actually work in partnership with places like Colombia to stop the flow of narcotics. There is a story out that I have not been able to independently confirm that maybe the British are not sharing intelligence with us on this. So setting aside the legality of this, we are losing an awful lot of the partners and the assets that we use to interdict drugs. And we're not even interdicting the drug that is killing most Americans. This is all cocaine, not fentanyl.

Nicole Wallace (36:43)

Is it coming to America from Trinidad?

Ian Bassin (36:46)

So there are routes that make island stops along the way into Florida, but there are alternative routes. This is the other thing. You can go the other way through the eastern Pacific. You can go overland, you can go in airplanes. So the United States military is killing a whole lot of people here probably at the end of the day to move the transit routes for the less lethal drug that is killing fewer Americans than the fentanyl that is made in Mexico.

Nicole Wallace (37:11)

That's unbelievable. Paul, I've got to sneak in a break. We'll bring you in on this. On the other side.

MSNBC Announcer (37:23)

MSNBC presents season two of the Blueprint, hosted by Jen Psaki. In each episode, she talks to leading Democrats about how they plan to win again, including Texas Congressman Greg Cassar, who chairs the Progressive caucus, Congresswoman Sara McBride of Delaware, the first openly trans person elected to Congress, and more who are helping to shape the future of the party. The Blueprint with Jen Psaki, Season 2, all episodes available now.

Nicole Wallace (37:54)

We're back with the congressman and Paul. The boats. You don't think it stops with the boats?

Paul Rykoff (37:59)

No.

Nicole Wallace (38:00)

What are they doing?

Paul Rykoff (38:01)

It's deja vu all over again. Twenty years ago, a generation of folks like me got sent to a war with false justification because a bunch of people wanted war. They wanted regime change. They wanted it to happen. They constructed a narrative to try to support that. End state. Trump wants war with Venezuela. He said it. He said he'll do strikes. He said he'll put boots on the ground. There are plenty around that want regime change or want the oil or want any other number of things, but ultimately it's about flexing power. And I still think the number one story in the world is that Donald Trump can do anything he wants with the most powerful military on the planet. And nothing is stopping him. Nothing is slowing him down. 29% of the country only supports this. The UK doesn't support it. Canada doesn't support it. Colombia doesn't support it. France doesn't support it. And he doesn't care because nothing's stopping him. So he keeps going forward. And look at the pieces in place. The ships are there. The rhetoric is there. They told you they weren't going to knock down the White House, too, and they did that. You can't trust them at the messaging. You have to look at what they're doing. And right now, they're moving the pieces in place. And I wouldn't be surprised if strikes started in the next 24 hours.

Nicole Wallace (39:02)

You really think the next 24 hours?

Paul Rykoff (39:04)

It could be any minute. It could be any minute. It could be any minute. It could be a month from now. It could be two months from now. But I don't fall into the wag the dog narrative. Like, this is part of a lot of crazy that they want to do. And Epstein is obviously in the news, but that's just slowing them down. They want to do this whether Epstein is big or small. There are other things they want to do, like transform the Pentagon and transform the culture. And Venezuela has always been on their Goldberg board, and they've made that clear. And they're moving all the pieces in place to do it. And I think it's really important. They don't care about popular opinion. He doesn't care about popular opinion. I don't think he even cares about the midterms, because right now they're going for big pieces, and Venezuela would be one for him.

Nicole Wallace (39:40)

And what does that mean for the men and women of the military?

Paul Rykoff (39:43)

It means that on the week of Veterans Day, Veterans Day was Tuesday. We were on the verge of creating an entirely new generation of veterans. And Congress has completely failed. The President, I think, has obviously failed. I think both parties are failing here to slow him down or even ask hard enough questions. The War Powers act vote last week failed again. They are falling asleep at the switch, getting distracted, getting rolled. But at the end of the day, this seems to be moving forward. It seems to be imminent. And our allies are deeply concerned and throwing up their arms, too. But I keep coming back to it. If the courts try to stop him on this and they deem it illegal, that will be maybe the most significant constitutional crisis we've had, especially because. Because it's focused on national security. But it looks like that moment is coming, and I think the country needs to wake up and be more prepared for it.

Nicole Wallace (40:27)

How much access do you have to the truth from Pete Hegseth?

Ian Bassin (40:35)

Well, I mean, I can answer that question by telling you that the attacks on these Caribbean boats were going on for something like six Weeks before there was any briefing of the United States Congress. I'm the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. You know how many briefings we've had on the targeting and the intelligence being used for the these? Zero. Not one. So I think that answers your question. You know, this is not an administration that feels in any way obligated to consult with Congress. We are a nuisance to what they want to do. And the Republicans in the majority, in the House and the Senate are just happy to disappear.

Nicole Wallace (41:06)

Is this conceivable to you that within 24 hours there could be strikes?

Ian Bassin (41:10)

I'm a little more. Now look, with Donald Trump, anything is possible. I'm a little bit more skeptical for this reason. Donald Trump has already crossed his base MAGA with Epstein. He crossed his base with the H1BS. If he were to attack a country that had not attacked us, he attacked Iran, that would, yeah, you know, Iran. We dropped a bunch of bombs down a couple of ventilation shafts. I don't think he has the courage, quite frankly. And I do think he cares about what his, at the end of the day, what his base thinks about him. I don't think he has the courage. Cuz any flag officer worth his salt is going to say, Mr. President, you can't do this without a risk that a couple of American airmen die or get shot down. And oh, by the way, if you succeed and you somehow topple Maduro, what if Venezuela is in absolute chaos and you have 5 million refugees destabilizing the nation of Colombia where the cocaine gets made? So I'm making a tenuous argument here because I'm not sure that the President listens to analysis. But this would be a huge reach for a guy that I don't see as particularly courageous.

Nicole Wallace (42:09)

Last word?

Paul Rykoff (42:09)

I think there's a total failure of imagination. Nothing is beyond him right now. And I think that, that with all due respect, I think you have to take his threats and what he's telegraphed as his punches more seriously. He said he will strike there. Why would we think he won't? He said he would knock down the White House. He did that too. He's saying he's going to do these things and our enemies and our allies are paying attention. I think people in Washington need to pay closer attention and stand up and slow it down and do what Congress is required to do. We haven't had a declaration of war since World War II. We shouldn't accept that. It seems like folks are just willing to accept that because it's become the status quo now. Especially is not a time to accept it.

Nicole Wallace (42:45)

Stay on it.

Ian Bassin (42:46)

May have to come back and see who was right 24 hours ago.

Nicole Wallace (42:49)

Exactly. Open invitation. Congressman Paul, thank you both so much. Incredibly important story. Difficult to cover without, as you said, access to real, credible information from the Trump administration. We're just taking one more break. We'll be right back. We reported yesterday about the latest target of Donald Trump's retribution campaign and his now pattern, the politically charged mortgage fraud allegations against people who have sought to hold him accountable. The fourth now, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell, who says he's been referred by one of Trump's top henchmen for a federal criminal investigation. Swalwell says the new mortgage fraud allegations are false, but only surprising because they took so long. Here's what Swalwell said last night on MSNBC about why nothing, including that lawsuit over January 6, will be changing on his end.

Eric Swalwell (43:43)

We have one mortgage and a residence in California. And I spend my time every week between California and Washington, D.C. this is, again, just Donald Trump doing everything he can to target his enemies in our lawsuit. It's not lost on me that we've begun to depose members of the administration. And so you can connect the dots there, if you will. I'm telling you right now, I am not going to shrink one bit because of Donald Trump trying to intimidate me. And it's not working with any of the other colleagues that he's gone after either.

Nicole Wallace (44:18)

After the break, another attempt at distraction. Donald Trump has instructed Pam, that's his nickname for the United States Attorney general, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's ties to any other high profile figure he may have been associated with. We'll have much more on that after the break.

David Frum (44:36)

Change is coming to this network, but we're still going to be having conversations about the issues that define us as a country.

Tim Miller (44:42)

The only thing changing is our name.

David Frum (44:44)

Same mission, new name.

MSNBC Announcer (44:46)

MSNBC becomes Ms. Now. November 15.