“In plain sight”

Summary

Podcast Summary: Deadline: White House – “In Plain Sight”

Release Date: May 28, 2025
Host: Nicolle Wallace, MSNBC

---

Introduction: The Misuse of Presidential Pardons

Nicolle Wallace opens the episode at [00:07] by highlighting the constitutional power of presidential pardons, emphasizing their intended role as tools for mercy and forgiveness. However, she raises concerns about the apparent corruption and politicization of this power under the current administration.

---

Case Studies Highlighting Pardon Abuse

1. Todd and Julie Chrisley ([00:07]–[03:02])

• Background: Reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley were convicted in 2022 for fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to defraud the United States, receiving 12 and 7-year sentences, respectively.
• Pardon Appeal: Their daughter publicly appealed for their pardons on Fox News, alleging political motivations behind their prosecution.
• Outcome: Donald J. Trump pardoned the Chrisleys ([05:00]), raising questions about the fairness and timing of the release.

2. Scott Jenkins – “Cash for Badges” Scheme ([03:02]–[06:25])

• Background: Former Sheriff Scott Jenkins was swiftly convicted for accepting over $75,000 in exchange for granting law enforcement authority to local businessmen.
• Pardon: Trump pardoned Jenkins, framed Jenkins as a victim of an overzealous DOJ under Biden ([08:20]).

3. Governor Whitmer Kidnap Plot Conviction ([06:25]–[11:37])

• Trump’s Stance: When asked about pardoning individuals convicted of violent crimes, including plots against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Trump responded ambiguously, suggesting he would “look at it” ([03:33]).

4. Additional Pardons ([11:37]–[14:33])

• Paul Walskak: A tax cheat whose pardon was linked to his mother's substantial donations and attendance at a $1 million fundraising dinner.
• James and Marlene Kernan: A couple convicted of employment-related crimes were also pardoned.

Nicolle Wallace emphasizes that these pardons are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of favors granted to those loyal to Trump, undermining the rule of law ([14:43]–[16:42]).

---

Expert Analysis: The Corruption of the Pardon Process

Liz Oyer ([06:41]–[08:05] & [16:42]–[09:17])

• Traditional Process: Normally, the Office of the Pardon Attorney thoroughly vets applications to ensure pardons are granted based on merit, remorse, and rehabilitation.
• Current Administration: Under Trump, the process has been bypassed, favoring those with connections or financial support to the president.
• Illicit Use: Oyer asserts that none of the pardons granted by Trump meet the traditional criteria, indicating a deliberate abuse of power.

Harry Lippman ([10:04]–[11:37] & [25:57]–[29:34])

• Norms and Rule of Law: Lippman describes Trump’s actions as “deeply corrupt” and compares it to post-Soviet republic levels of corruption ([05:00]).
• Public Confidence: The misuse of pardons erodes public trust in the justice system, as high-profile pardons send a message that wealth and connections can override the law.
• Historical Perspective: Lippman underscores that the findings and practices under Trump are unprecedented in American history.

Alex Wagner ([05:00]–[24:35] & [33:00]–[42:35])

• Dual Systems: Wagner posits that Trump has institutionalized a two-tier justice system—one for the elite and loyalists, and another for the general populace ([05:00]).
• Personal Enrichment: She highlights Trump’s personal financial gains from his presidency, noting that Trump organizations generated $2 billion as reported by The New York Times ([05:00]).
• Corruption Reflection: Wagner suggests Trump’s actions reflect his personal desires and a projection of himself onto the grifters and conmen he pardons ([05:00]).

---

Impact on the Judiciary and Rule of Law

Threats and Intimidation ([49:00]–[73:47])

• Esther Salas ([49:00]–[73:47]):
  Amid escalating threats against judges, Salas shares her harrowing experiences, including the murder of her son and the targeting of judges through “pizza doxing.” She pleads for political leaders to cease demonizing judges, emphasizing the dire consequences of current rhetoric.

• Donald Trump’s Rhetoric ([56:33]–[66:23]):
  Trump’s public denouncement of judges as “monsters” seeking to destroy the country has intensified threats against the judiciary. He dismisses the severity of attacks, stating, “[66:13] … the safety of federal judges …” is paramount but fails to address the root causes.

Consequences for Judicial Independence:

• Increased Threats: The New York Times reports a dramatic rise in threats against judges, with [80:18] over 277 judges threatened within a fiscal year.
• Judicial Conference Discussions: Closed-door meetings suggest judges are contemplating managing their own security due to fears of federal marshals being incapacitated ([49:00]–[52:35]).

---

Retribution Against Law Firms and Legal Professionals

Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms ([74:09]–[86:11])

• Attacks on Law Firms: Trump issued executive orders targeting law firms like Wilmer Hale, Perkins Coie, and Jenner & Block for their associations with figures like Robert Mueller.
• Judicial Rejections: Federal judges have struck down these orders as unconstitutional, with Judge Richard Leon condemning the orders as attempts to punish protected speech ([74:09]–[82:49]).
• Law Firms’ Response: Some firms, such as Mark Elias’s Democracy Docket, have successfully defended themselves, enhancing their reputations instead of capitulating to Trump’s pressures.

Mark Elias’s Insights ([77:17]–[84:44])

• Strategic Legal Battles: Elias argues that fighting back against Trump’s retribution campaigns has bolstered the reputations of law firms that chose to litigate rather than comply.
• Recruitment and Integrity: Successful legal defenses have made firms appear as resilient and principled, attracting top talent and maintaining client trust.

---

Nick Kristof’s Perspective on Trump’s Political Vulnerability

Economic Mismanagement as an Achilles' Heel ([30:11]–[34:18])

• Economic Impact: Kristof argues that Trump's tariffs have effectively acted as the "largest tax increase since 1993," potentially driving the economy into a recession.
• Social Security Cuts: The Trump administration's reduction of Social Security staff has led to significant disruptions, fueling voter dissatisfaction even among his base ([34:18]).
• Voter Sentiment: As economic hardships become more palpable, even staunch MAGA supporters may begin to question their allegiance, presenting Democrats with an opportunity to sway undecided voters ([33:00]–[36:51]).

---

Final Thoughts: Erosion of Democratic Norms and the Rule of Law

Nicolle Wallace concludes by underscoring the gravity of President Trump’s actions in undermining democratic institutions and legal norms. The episode illustrates a concerning trend where pardons and executive orders are wielded as tools of political retribution, eroding public trust and threatening the independence of the judiciary. Experts urge vigilance and public scrutiny to restore and maintain the integrity of the American justice system.

---

Notable Quotes with Attribution and Timestamps

• Nicole Wallace ([00:07]):
  “To pardon someone is to completely circumvent the will of juries and courts, presumably in the name or spirit of forgiveness and mercy and second chances.”

• Donald Trump ([03:02]):
  “I will take a look at it. It looked to me like somewhat of a railroad job. … A lot of people think they got railroaded.”

• Harry Lippman ([10:04]):
  “[…] this is a deeply corrupting use of power, and the fact that you can get away with it under the Constitution really shouldn't obscure that.”

• Liz Oyer ([06:41]):
  “Under the current administration, there is no process that's being followed, and it appears to require some sort of insight, connection or access or willingness to pay to be able to obtain the benefit of a presidential pardon.”

• Alex Wagner ([05:00]):
  “Trump is able to do this not just because he likes giving favors to people who say they like him, but because I think he sees some of himself in all these peoples, in these grifters and con men and women.”

• Nick Kristof ([30:11]):
  “Trump’s tariffs amount to the largest tax increase for Americans since 1993, with one study suggesting that a typical household may pay an extra fourteen hundred dollars per year.”

• Esther Salas ([52:51]):
  “This is psychological warfare that is meant to intimidate the judiciary.”

• Judge Richard Leon ([77:17]):
  “Donald Trump’s order is a staggering punishment for the firm's protected speech.”

• Mark Elias ([78:37]):
  “If we don't fight back now, why did we get elected?”

• Jerome Powell ([73:47]):
  “Donald Trump wants to intimidate all institutions that stand in his way. … He hopes that by unleashing the mobs of his supporters … he will cause those folks to back down.”

---

Conclusion

The episode “In Plain Sight” by Nicolle Wallace delves deep into the contentious and politicized use of presidential pardons under Donald Trump, highlighting specific cases that illustrate a troubling pattern of abuse. Through expert analysis and firsthand accounts, the discussion underscores the broader implications for the American justice system, the independence of the judiciary, and the erosion of democratic norms. The episode calls for increased scrutiny, public awareness, and unwavering support for the rule of law to counteract these alarming developments.

Transcript

[Nicole Wallace]

Hi there, everybody. Happy Wednesday. It's now 4:00' clock in New York. When it comes down to it, it is a rather kingly power. Even the founders, so opposed to a monarchy, put it right there in the Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, the President has the authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States. To pardon someone is to completely circumvent the will of juries and courts, presumably in the name or spirit of forgiveness and mercy and second chances. So what happens when that power, a relic of 7th century England, is completely, publicly, brazenly corrupted? I'll let you decide for yourself. There are three cases to consider just today. First, that of Todd and Julie Chrisley. Viewers of reality TV might know their names. In 2022, a jury in a federal trial found them guilty of fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to defraud the United states. Their sentence, 12 years for Todd, seven years for Julie. Pretty cut and dry. Case closed. See you in 7 and 12 years. Until in February, the couple sought presidential pardons. Here's the appeal made by their daughter without evidence on Fox News last month. Originally, they were not going to prosecute because they said it was very weak. They didn't have the evidence that they needed to prosecute that. It just, it wasn't a case. It took nine years to issue a federal indictment. Both prosecutors were Democrats. They have donated to Democratic candidates. And from at trial, we knew it was game over. Fast forward to this afternoon and the Chrisleys are now expecting a pardon as soon as today from Donald J. Trump. Now stick a pin in that one and let's look at another. It took just two hours for a jury to convict Scott Jenkins, the former sheriff of Culpepper County, Virginia, on all counts in what is called a cash for badges scheme. The government's evidence included undercover video showing Jenkins accepting more than $75,000 in exchange for providing law enforcement authority to local businessmen. And despite the fact that Jenkins argued he was targeted because of his conservative politics, it was a jury of his peers that convicted him and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. You can probably guess where this one's going. This week, Donald Trump announced he is pardoning Scott Jenkins, insisting he too was a victim of an overzealous Biden Department of Justice that just so happened to prosecute Hunter Biden, too. Okay, but there's more. There's what happened this afternoon. Asked about pardons for the man convicted of plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, here's Donald Trump.

[Donald Trump]

I'm going to look at it. I will take a look at it. It's been brought to my attention. I did watch the trial. It looked to me like somewhat of a railroad job. I'll be honest with you. It looked to me like some people said some stupid things. You drinking, and I think they said stupid things. But I'll take a look at that. And a lot of people are asking me that question from both sides, actually. A lot of people think they got railroaded. A lot of people think they got railroaded, and probably some people don't.

[Nicole Wallace]

A lot of people, both sides. Okay. Well, these three cases, separate, individual, separate cases, serve to illustrate a new reality in America that we have to face one way or the other. No longer are pardons issued to the people who deserve them most. They are now officially, brazenly issued to people who adequately suck up to the only person in our government able to provide pardons. And do not take our word for it on this one. Take theirs. In a social media thread dedicated to thanking Donald Trump for pardoning that sheriff we mentioned, Ed Martin, the U.S. pardon attorney, writes this, quote, no MAGA left behind, end quote. It's where we start today with some of our favorite experts and friends. Former U.S. attorney, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Lippman is here. Also joining us, former Department of Justice pardon attorney Liz Oyer, who was fired in March, joins us today. And with me at the table for the hour, MSNBC senior political analyst Alex Wagner is here. Alex, I want to start with you and the importance of sort of taking our slack jaws off the table and moving these stories forward in terms of understanding what they mean for everybody else, not just the Trump fans who receive these three pardons.

[Alex Wagner]

Well, it's the most sort of out in the open confirmation that there exist two systems in this country and Trump has firmly established them in broad daylight. One for the wealthy and the well connected and the allegiant and the other for everybody else. And that needs to be hammered home again and again and again. And it follows through not just from the pardons to the, to the tax code to literally to the, you know, to the tariffs. The tariffs. There is, there are Trump and his people and everybody else. And that to me, for Democrats seems like a very potent line of attack. But there's something else I think, Nicole, that is equally worth pointing out, which is that I think Trump is able to do this not just because he likes giving favors to people who say they like him, but because I think he sees some of himself in all these peoples, in these grifters and con men and women and cheats. I mean, this is a person who, at the same time that he's doing this, is using the White House to make money for Trump organizations and his children. I mean, the New York Times reported that last month Trump affiliated businesses brought in $2 billion. This is personal enrichment, the likes of which we have not seen in American history. David Frum says that this is corruption on the level of a post Soviet republic. I mean, that is what is happening in this country under the watchful eye of Donald Trump. And I think this is very much an extension of that because, as you know, with everything Trump, it's a reflection as much of his own desires, a projection exactly as it is anything else.

[Nicole Wallace]

I want to ask you, Liz, to level set us, because I think sometimes these stories come absent at baseline. And can you, can you just tell us what is supposed to happen so we can measure how beyond the pale abnormal these three pardons are?

[Liz Oyer]

Yeah. Thanks, Nicole. So there is a process that is in place and has been in place for a very long time for applying for a presidential pardon. And the reason this process exists is to ensure that the pardon power is not totally politicized and corrupted in the manner that is happening now. There is an office, the Office of the Pardon Attorney, which is dedicated to reviewing and vetting applicants for pardons. Individuals from around the country who are seeking presidential pardons apply through the office, wait their turn for their application to be vetted, and the office makes a very thorough and comprehensive recommendation in every single case to the President. Those are ordinary Americans who are going through that process, and many of them are actually very deserving of the relief that's provided by pardons. They include individuals who were sentenced under mandatory minimum laws that are now defunct, that no longer exist. Many of them are serving life sentences in prison. And many of them have demonstrated that they have earned a presidential pardon through exemplary conduct and character. In years and years that have passed since their convictions, all of that has fallen by the wayside. Under the current administration, there is no process that's being followed, and it appears to require some sort of insight, connection or access or willingness to pay to be able to obtain the benefit of a presidential pardon.

[Nicole Wallace]

What, Liz, crosses the line into what, under normal times, without a publicly and brazenly politicized Department of Justice, what, if anything, is illegal even for a president?

[Liz Oyer]

Well, unfortunately, the pardon power is very unconstrained. The president does have the constitutional power to pardon anyone that he chooses. And for that reason, it's very important that this process is followed so that it's not totally corrupted in the way that it is now. The Department of Justice has a comprehensive, detailed set of guidelines in place that it follows or is supposed to follow in recommending pardons to the president. And I can tell you that there is not a single person who has received a pardon from President Trump who meets those criteria that apply in ordinary times. And President Trump has appointed a pardon attorney who has demonstrated that he does not feel bound by those decades and decades of guidance that have always applied. Ed Martin is the first political appointee ever to occupy the position of pardon attorney, which has historically always been occupied by a career employee of the Department of Justice.

[Nicole Wallace]

Harry, let me read you POLITICO's reporting about Ed Martin. He's only been on the job a little bit, but here's what he's up to. Quote Trump's new pardon attorney personally reviewed application for January 6th ringleader Stewart Rhodes in his first full week as the Justice Department's pardon attorney, Ed Martin personally reviewed a pardon application for Oath Keepers founder Stuart Rhodes. Peter Tickton, a lawyer and former classmate of Trump's at New York Military Academy, hand delivered a collection of 11 pardon applications to Ed Martin at the Justice Department on Thursday, including one for Stuart Rhodes, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 18 years in prison in connection with the January 6th Capitol attack. Your thoughts on where we are?

[Harry Lippman]

So look, Ed Martin has already shown his stripes when he was the nominee to be U.S. attorney. Although I gotta say, even for him, no MAGA Left behind is particularly crass. Look, I want to pick up on what Liz said. It's that we, it's really important to distinguish between the pardon powers being broad or plenary or kingly, as you say, and it's being unprincipled. It's supposed to express society's broadest aspirations of mercy and forgiveness. That's why it's given to people. And you normally have to show the Justice Department, you express remorse for your crime and you have made your life better. These are, you know, there are good pardons, bad pardons, and abominable pardons. And these are all the last category. They are people who have done one thing and one thing only. Please, Donald Trump. In one case, their mother gave $1 million to them. That could even be a crime, but for the Supreme Court's immunity decision. So it's a deeply corrupting use of power, and the fact that you can get away with it under the Constitution really shouldn't obscure that. It's Also, I think, really undermining of the public's confidence in the rule of law. Right. You go through the whole process. It's an elaborate process. The jury rules. And then Donald Trump raises his finger to be sure no MAGA left behind. That totally reinforces the worst and most corrosive notions of justice in this country.

[Nicole Wallace]

You know, it is almost cartoonish, and maybe that's part of the reason it doesn't all break through. You know, the scene in is it Batman where they're emptying the jails and all that. And that's what I keep seeing. But on the case that Harry just mentioned, here's the New York Times reporting. Trump pardoned tax cheat after mother attended $1 million dinner. Paul Walskak, a former nursing home executive who had pleaded guilty to tax crimes days after the 24 election, submitted a pardon application to President Trump around inauguration. The application focused not solely on Mr. Wolcak's Walchack Walchack's offenses, but also on the political activity of his mother, Elizabeth Fago. Ms. Faygo had raised millions of dollars for Trump's campaigns and those of other Republicans. It also highlighted her connections to an effort to sabotage Biden's 2020 campaign, publicizing the addiction diary of his daughter, Ashley Biden, an episode that drew law enforcement scrutiny. His pardon application argued that his criminal prosecution was motivated more by his mother's efforts for Mr. Trump than by his admitted use of money earmarked for employees taxes to fund an extravagant lifestyle. Still, weeks went by. No pardon was forthcoming, even as Trump issued clemency grants to hundreds of other allies. Then Ms. Faygo was invited to a $1 million per person fundraising dinner last month that promised face to face access to Trump at his private Mar A Lago club in Palm Beach. Less than three weeks after she attended the dinner, Trump signed a full and unconditional pardon.

[Alex Wagner]

At what point, I mean, our legal experts can probably answer this, does it tip from corruption to extortion? Right. The idea, like, first of all, this woman runs a series of rehab centers, which Ashley Biden, who is, you know, surviving addiction, left her journal in her recovery space to go help her father on the campaign trail. Someone found the journal and then these folks had a role in publishing that journal to smear the reputation of a woman who is recovering from addiction. So just put that in its own, like, level. That's the underlying, that's the ethics. Right. That's how they get in good. Trump's good graces initially. Right. Just that is worth its own discussion. But the idea that you literally send your mother and her money bags to try and help you get out of jail and that it appears explicit, Right? As you say, as the Times points out, the timing isn't coincidental. Nothing happens until that million dollars hits the Trump bank account. I mean, whether it's a super PAC bank account or otherwise, it's quite obvious that Trump knows who's paying a million dollars to sit down to dinner with him. And beyond this individual case being so disturbing, Nicole, it is the signal that it sends. Just like the pardoning of, potential pardoning of Stewart RH Sends to an array of unsavory people, whether they are insurrectionists or grifters. If you pledge allegiance loudly and to a high enough dollar amount, you are golden. Nothing can touch you. That is the America that Trump has established.

[Nicole Wallace]

But what does it say about us that that is passable, that that's not scandal level, that that's not going to damage you politically?

[Alex Wagner]

Well, I think there's two things to think about. One is, and I say this having come back from Hungary and I've talked about this on the show before, corruption is a nefarious trauma to visit on upon US side because the more you have of it, the less impact it makes, right? It all becomes part of the same thing. It is hard to get people alarmed about corruption when it happens consistently, constantly, and in broad daylight. When Trump feels like he has nothing to apologize for, people begin to think, oh, this is normal, it's okay for the president to pardon people that he likes. And then the other piece of it is like, you know, you put a show together every day. There are a million things people need to be concerned about every day. Unless and until Democrats decide that they are going to take the names of the Chrisleys and Paul Walchack and the crooked sheriffs and make them put them on bumper stickers and say, we are going to help the American public understand from a narrative point of view the corruption and the tainting of the presidency on a character by character basis. It's going to be hard for anybody to follow this story through to its conclusion.

[Nicole Wallace]

We don't know if Trump's watching, but as if he were, this just happened. Quote. According to a White House official, President Trump has officially signed the pardons for reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley. He also signed a commutation for former Chicago gang leader Larry Hoover today, as well as a pardon for former New York Representative Michael Grimm, who was convicted of tax fraud and related charges in 2014. Trump also pardoned James and Marlene Kernan, a couple from Oriskani, New York that pleaded guilty in 2009 to willfully employing a three time convicted felon at their businesses. So convictions that happened not during the Biden Justice Department's tenure. Liz, talk me through the significance of these additional pardons.

[Liz Oyer]

Well, I haven't had a chance to review the specifics of all of the individual pardons, but it does appear that the president is demonstrating that he is going to be using his pardon power actively and aggressively even early during his administration. And I think it's important that all Americans carefully review and scrutinize what he is doing with that pardon power. The pardons that have been issued to date really should offend and disgust people of all party affiliations. It's not a partisan issue, the fact that what he is doing is corrupt. It's something that really is upending decisions that have been reached across political administrations. For example, the Chrisleys, whose daughter says that they were wrongly targeted for prosecution. That prosecution was initiated under a U.S. attorney who was a appointed by President Trump during his first administration in office while Donald Trump was the president. Similarly, in the case of Paul Walchack, the judge that sentenced him to prison and to pay restitution was an old school Republican who was appointed by George Bush. And that judge said when he sentenced Walchak to prison, I am sending a message that wealth is not a get out of jail free card. What Trump has done is sent the exact opposite message that wealth is a get out of jail free card under President Trump. And that is something that should be offensive to all Americans, regardless of who they voted for and what their party affiliation is.

[Nicole Wallace]

And we don't know that it isn't. This is happening today. I need to sneak in a break, but I'm going to do two things. Again, we have this breaking news. Since we've been on the air, Donald Trump has officially signed the pardons for reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley. On the other side of the break, I'm going to play you some of his phone call with the Chrisley family and talk about some of the things that the people he's pardoned have gone on to do, including physical violence toward toddlers. Also ahead for us, Donald Trump looks more politically vulnerable than ever as he does these things as well as profiting from his presidency. All his trade war starts to hurt the economy. That's the argument being made by New York Times columnist Nick Kristof. He'll join our conversation later in the hour. Also from the anonymous pizza deliveries intended to tell judges we know where you live to bomb threats and swatting. Federal judges across our country are living in a Trump and MAGA manufactured climate of intimidation and thinking about taking their own protection into their own hands. All those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[Mark Elias]

It's conversation, it's perspective.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's the weekend on MSNBC with three new dynamic hosts, Jonathan Capehart, Eugene Daniels and Jackie Alemany.

[Alex Wagner]

And in the evening, it's the weekend.

[Nicole Wallace]

Prime Time with Eamon Mohadin, Katherine Rampel.

[Mark Elias]

Elise Jones and Antonia Hilton join them.

[Jerome Powell]

As they offer analysis on the week's.

[Esther Salas]

Most important events and set the agenda.

[Mark Elias]

For the week ahead. The weekend at 7am eastern and the weekend prime time at 6pm eastern Saturdays.

[Nicole Wallace]

And Sundays on MSNBC.

[Donald Trump]

It's a terrible thing, but it's a great thing because your parents are going to be free and clean and I hope we can do it by tomorrow. Give them I don't know them, but give them my regards to they were given a pretty harsh treatment based on what I'm hearing. Just congratulate your parents and I hear they're terrific people. This should not have happened.

[Nicole Wallace]

They're terrific criminals. What I mean, what are we doing here?

[Harry Lippman]

HARRY lyman look, it's deeply repugnant. The power that he has may be broad, but it's supposed to be in support of social values of mercy and forgiveness for people who admit the crimes they do and then make a better life. It's exactly not what this is supposed to be. And the Walcheck case, I think is a crime. It's just that the Supreme Court has ruled he can't be prosecuted. But it sure looks like not just extortion, but a flat out bribe. We know what we're doing. We're completely this is supposed to be part and parcel of the criminal justice system. Instead, he's using it as an override for the most crass, most political, least sort of public spirited reasons there are. Do you and by the way, the other five we just heard about on tv, I don't know anything about them either, like Liz, but I can tell you what presidential candidate they supported and that really should always be irrelevant to a pardon application. Just a very quick, broad point that I want to make is this is all about norms. We were talking about this in the first term with Sheriff Joe and others. He really did transgress norms and they seem kind of like second level. But this really goes to show, as with everything else in the doj if you just completely demolish norms, whether or not there's a crime there, it deeply injures the rule of law and the constitutional justice system. And that's what's happening here with pardons.

[Nicole Wallace]

Alex, we've been circling around this issue of breaking through and stories. I mean, if there's a pardon story that might break through, I want to bring this one up. Donald Trump pardons a man named Jonathan Braun in the final days of his first term. This is reporting about what he's gone on to do. A convicted New York drug dealer whose 10 year federal prison sentence was commuted by Donald Trump was back in custody after he was accused of several crimes, including assaulting a toddler. Jonathan Braun was charged in April of violating the terms of his supervised release and ordered detained in Brooklyn federal court, According to the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York's office. Now, this is a longer lifespan of a pardon. This was a first term pardon. But this is what this pardoned individual went on to do. Again, I want to quote it accurately, quote, assaulting a toddler.

[Alex Wagner]

I think to Harry's point about how norm shattering this is, we can't lose sight of the ethics behind the pardon. Right. And in fact, criminal justice reform more broadly. Right. At one point was a bipartisan issue. Are we overly punishing people? Should we rethink the way we incarcerate? And that is such a worthy conversation to have. And this has just utterly bastardized that entire conversation that you're letting out. People who are obviously guilty, who have done bad things. And in the case of this individual in particular, and I would bet in some others as well, these are not good people that have shown any penance, any sort of contrition, have not rehabilitated themselves in the course of their incarceration and should not be let back out into society and all be forgiven. You know, And I think Trump has done so much bad in such a short time. But when you think about the way in which something that is an expression of social benevolence, of political benevolence, of the state, saying perhaps we made a mistake, and tainting that forevermore, we lose something that has been good, like a moral sort of part of the moral foundation of the presidency and of our federal government is its ability to, to rethink decisions, Right. And to say we're not always right, and the ability to admit, you know, overcompensation or, you know, strident overreach is what makes us good.

[Nicole Wallace]

Right, Right, right.

[Alex Wagner]

And when you shatter that in the way that he has, you lose that goodness. And I don't mean to be heavy handed, but I do think it's part of the moral erosion that is the sort of at the root of all of these decisions that Trump is making on his own behalf.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah. I mean, Liz, it's another failure to im how feeble and inadequate norms are because the founders couldn't imagine someone like Donald Trump simply pardoning the people that were his supporters or who paid a million dollars to go to a dinner. There are no checks. This is an absolute power. There is an absolute amount of power being given to one of the men running the Department of Justice and I believe had a hand in your firing over the handling of Mel Gibson's gun rights. Let me read you this bit of news. Donald Trump has just issued this statement, quote, it is my great honor to nominate Emile Bobe to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Emil is a distinguished graduate of Georgetown Law. He served as Assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York for nearly a decade, where he was the co chief of the Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit. Emil is smart, all cap, tough, all caps, and respected by everyone. He will end the weaponization of justice, capitalized, restore the rule of law, also capitalized, and do anything else that is necessary to all caps, make America great again. Amel Bove will never let you down, exclamation point. What does that elevation mean to you?

[Liz Oyer]

Well, Trump surrounds himself by enablers, of which Bove is one, and, and he rewards them when they serve him faithfully. And that's what this illustrates. A position on a federal court of appeals is a very prestigious and coveted legal job. And it's a job that carries a great deal of responsibility for defining the laws and norms in our nation. So that's a very important role that he has given to someone who served him first as his personal attorney and then essentially as his henchman in the Department of Justice during the early days, days before Todd Blanche was confirmed and even before Pam Bondi was confirmed. So that just shows that loyalty is rewarded by Trump. Trump expects and demands loyalty and he surrounds himself with panderers who are hoping to benefit from their proximity to the powers of the president.

[Nicole Wallace]

Harry Lippman, can I this may be super obvious to everybody, but it just strikes me as we're having this conversation and taking in all this news again, happening most of it this afternoon, some of it since we've been on the air just, just 30 minutes. Does it confirm that all the efforts to apply the rule of law as we knew it before Donald Trump, either through the Mueller probe or through Merrick Garland's somewhat slow start and then Jack Smith's legal work, when you now have Trump running a Justice Department where Emil Bove is elevated to the bench after 111 days or something. Pardons are not even attempted to be masked as anything other than going to political patrons and people that pay a whole lot of money, including and up to people that post pardon, go on to eke out violence, quote, against a three year old toddler. And you have people like Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs very worried that Donald Trump's executive order, again issued publicly and in writing, will be investigated and potentially prosecuted for simply speaking out. Where are we in terms of an autocratic slide and a destruction of the rule of law?

[Harry Lippman]

Pretty damn far down the river, it seems to me. I think we've passed a point of constitutional crisis in the sense that things really could go awry, but I don't think it's certain that they will. But every important decision, remember, by the way, Bove, Martin, they are the very people who facilitated what probably the most outrageous pardon of all or in history, the pardon of all January 6th offenders. And here's a good time to make the point that pardons are not supposed to go to violent criminals or serious criminals. But I think there's no important decision that's been made and that includes whom to prosecute, which is truly horrifying, as well as whom to let go, as well as how to staff things that are not simply based on the caprice of a guy who's not just, you know, power mad, but really legally completely ignorant and indifferent about what it means to have equal justice without fear or favor. So I think within the Department of Justice, it's a little hard to say. It's something of a black box. But I think we are well down the road to a very bad place. Not irreversibly so, but all the the moving parts are in place, subject only to the court's countermand to basically just mow over everything we've relied on for at least, you know, since the 50s, if not 200 years, about what a criminal justice system, not just ours, but any decent criminal justice system is about.

[Nicole Wallace]

Harry Lippman and Les Oyer, thank you for starting us off today on all of this. Alex sticks around for the hour after the break. Quote, trump is immensely vulnerable. Our next guest argues that Donald Trump is weaker than he appears and that Democrats, despite all outward appearances, do have the power to stop him. We'll have that conversation next.

[Donald Trump]

I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer. I mean, I could be a stupid person, say, no, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane.

[Liz Oyer]

You said some dolls are going to cost more. Isn't that an acknowledgement that some prices will go up?

[Donald Trump]

I don't think a beautiful baby girl needs, that's 11 years old, needs to have 30 dolls.

[Nicole Wallace]

We're seeing as a result the ports here in the US the traffic has really slowed and now thousands of dock workers and truck drivers are worried about their jobs.

[Donald Trump]

That means we lose less money. I'm not concerned. We may have short term, some little pain and people understand that.

[Mark Elias]

I'm sorry I don't have a plane to give you.

[Donald Trump]

I would. I wish you did.

[Nicole Wallace]

I take it, I would take it.

[Donald Trump]

If your country offered the United States Air Force a plane, I would take.

[Nicole Wallace]

It all out in the open. Donald Trump, with his patriotic messages of fancy planes for me. Fewer dolls for Those beautiful baby 11 year old girls. Telling Americans, especially 11 year old girls, to do more with far, far less while he attempts to extract as many airplanes and as much money as possible from foreign governments and shadowy business people. And if watching it unfold in public brazenly makes you want to tear your hair out, one New York Times opinion writer makes the case that it might turn out to be Donald Trump's Achilles heel. Nick Kristof, in a new column, writes, critics of President Trump have frankly been fairly ineffective. Witness his election and the way his approval ratings have risen in some polls lately. But Trump does give us a great deal to work with. He is immensely vulnerable. Trump is deeply corrupt. All presidents are accused of shady practice. But Trump is a felon who is using his office to enrich himself as no other president did in history. The Times reported that more than $2 billion has flowed to Trump companies in just a month. And some of his ventures look alarmingly like opportunities for influence peddling. One reason Trump won the presidency was voter resentment at inflation and economic weakness under Joe Biden. Now it's Trump who is badly damaging the economy and hitting voters in the wallet. MAGA voters may shrug at Trump's defiance of the courts, but be offended by evidence that he thinks they are dummies. Joining our conversation is New York Times opinion columnist Nick Kristof. Alex is back. Nick, I stopped in my tracks when I read this over the holiday weekend. I sent it to everyone who said, go back to your barbecue and I just could not. There is this thing Right. That we threw in with a felon because eggs were too expensive. But now it's not just take your eggs and shove it, you know, no pain, no gain. I will have a free jet from any government that will give me one. Explain your argument about how that makes him politically vulnerable.

[Mark Elias]

So I think my argument is really rooted in the fact that I'm living in a small rural town in Oregon that voted about 2 to 1 for Trump. And it's a very working class community with very working class concerns. And a lot of the issues the Democrats have talked about just seem kind of distant. But what does matter? Well, for example, one friend of mine, they're in a pro Trump household, but the woman recently tried to sign up for Social Security and she has had immense difficulty doing so. You know, presumably partly because Trump pushed 7,000 Social Security staff out even at a time when it was staffing was at a 50 year low. And so these kinds of, of impositions on daily life, whether it's inflation, whether it's the, well, you know, when they're trying to take away Medicaid or reduce Medicaid, at a time when 40% of American children rely on Medicaid for health insurance, you know, all these things hit voters in a very personal way. And, you know, we're not going to change every MAGA voter. But if one can reduce the number by 5 or 10% and especially in places like Wisconsin, Ohio, et cetera, boy, that makes a difference. And I think that is coming.

[Nicole Wallace]

Let me read more from the piece. Trump's tariffs amount to the largest tax increase for Americans since 1993, with one study suggesting that a typical household may pay an extra fourteen hundred dollars per year. Trump might already have sent the economy spinning into a recession. And plans for huge increases in American debt are pushing interest rates up, which for many Americans means putting off any hope of buying a house. The Trump administration is also cutting the number of employees at the Social Security Administration by at least 7,000, even as staffing is already at a 50 year low. The upshot is reports of disruptions and extra long waits for assistance as they wait on hold for hours. Callers should be encouraged to think about how Trump and Musk have made their lives more difficult. Is it this most basic thing about American politics that you can talk to or sometimes at people until you're blue at the face, but until they feel something either concern or empathy or relation or economic insecurity or an absence of a benefit they deserve or they've paid into when it comes to Social Security, you can't move them.

[Mark Elias]

Yeah, I think that's right. And, you know, I think there's also a lesson related to that from other authoritarian countries around the world. And part of it is that a lot of voters, I think, don't know what is real and what isn't. And now there's all kinds of things floating around on Facebook and elsewhere, and they don't know quite what is true in that free for all out there, but what they can judge is their own life and how much they're spending at the supermarket or whether they can get through to Social Security or whether they have insurance. And so I think that that and what we've seen in other authoritarian countries is those issues really count. You know, it's striking now that that Hungary and Orban is behind in the polls, you know, because of a lot of these more banal issues. And so I think that maybe particularly at a time when it's harder for voters to establish what is true and what isn't, then these economic factors have special weight, and I hope Democrats will really pounce on them. You know, and on the corruption issues, which I think also just, you know, I mean, Trump was elected in part on these accusations of the swamp, and of course, he is verifiably creating more of a swamp than ever.

[Nicole Wallace]

I want to ask you, and I want to bring Alex in, who's just done her own reporting in Hungary, about whether the economic anxiety is the keyhole through which people will view the corruption differently in this country and others. I have to sneak in a break first. We'll be back on the other side. We're back with Nick and Alex. I mean, Alex, so much of this marrying up of corruption and economic despair is what you witnessed is one of the things that got people in the street.

[Alex Wagner]

Yeah, people, to Nick's point, people, when they feel it immediately in their lives, in their lived experience. I mean, for a very long time, Viktor Orban was saying, you know, everything is fine here, all is well, but now they're actually feeling real economic pain because of the relationship. He's taken to the European Union and he's made bad decisions. Reminds you of someone else who's power hungry here in America. Right. And I think people are, I don't want to say holding out hope, but expecting that, you know, all the people who are getting screwed over on their Social Security checks or feel like their earned benefits, the social safety net that has been in place since FDR is in danger of falling apart, even if they voted for Trump, are going to Say, hey, hold on, wait a second. This is not okay. This is not what we bargained for. I think the question for Democrats is making the connection between a, what Trump has said he's going to do and what is actually happening to them in their lives. His alliance with Elon Musk has directly resulted, resulted in some of this economic pain people may be feeling. But also connecting the reality of the poor and the working class in this country to the benefits Trump is bestowing upon the wealthiest and most well connected. Right. We began the hour talking about corruption and there is a through line there, right? Trump is literally going to strip, you know, strip benefits, strip important programs and support for working class Americans in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy. And that those two pieces are of the same whole. And I think Democrats need to do that work. And to Nick's point, this is such a great op ed. It hits so many different buckets. They gotta do it in a way that doesn't alienate the people that voted for Trump. This is a shared American experience. This pain is shared. If you want to get these votes back from some of these people, you have to bring them into the conversation in a way that makes them want to look for change. And that is, I was in Hungary and they said autocracies feed on polarization. The conversation has gotta be bigger than the one that's happening right now because this is a national pain. These are national decisions Trump is making in our name and it is the erosion of democracy in our name. And the R is collective. And Democrats need to figure out a way to have a bigger conversation about it.

[Nicole Wallace]

I think, Nick, I read your piece and I have this little weekend fantasy again. Before everyone sent me back to my barbecuing duties, I hope everybody called him and said, how do we connect, connect these dots? I mean, who do you see doing what you argue they should do in terms of political vulnerability that already exists and that you're already seeing in your community?

[Mark Elias]

So, I mean, unfortunately, in the Democratic Party, one of the very best at doing this, I think, was Sherrod Brown. And of course, you know, he, he went down in part, I think, because the national party wasn't very good at talking to working class Democrats intended to, to, to annoy them, you know, but I think Pete Buttigieg, I think, is quite good at making those connections. We, you know, I think there are a bunch of folks around the, the country who are good. I think that it's easier for those who are outside of Washington because there is this anti Washington sentiment And so I think that governors, or those at least outside of Beltway, have a better hand at that. You know, and I just think it's also. And this sort of goes to what Alex was saying. It's important that Democrats in blue places don't antagonize centrist voters in Wisconsin or Arizona or Georgia or Nevada. And we have a tendency to do that. And, you know, every time a Democrat refers to people who voted for Trump or who thought about doing it as racists or bigots, we lose votes from their family members, from people who aren't quite sure. Every time, you know, anytime somebody contemplates downtown San Francisco or downtown Portland, they have legitimate questions about, you know, is this what Democrats do when they have the chance to govern blue places? And so, you know, blue parts of the country need to fix those blue spots. But at the end of the day, I think that Democrats can do that. I think they can make really compelling arguments about Trump's corruption, about his economic failures, about the contempt that he has for his own base. And I think that will, you know, that will amplify the, you know, to Alex's point about Hungary, one of the things you always see in authoritarians is they make bad economic decisions because they're surrounded by yes men and they are corrupt because they don't have guardrails. And so I think we're going to see more of that from Trump, and that's going to make his vulnerability even greater.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's an amazing piece, your. Your body of work and just. I've lost how many days? 111. 112 days. We. We quote from all of it. It's a treat to get to talk to you about this one. And, Alex, thank you for being here for the whole hour. The seat is your seat, whenever you'll take it. Thank you both. Another break for us. We'll be right back. I believe in the rule of law.

[Mark Elias]

This provision was unknown to me when I voted for the bill.

[Esther Salas]

Okay, next question. Next question.

[Mark Elias]

I am not going to hide the truth. This provision was unknown to me when I voted for.

[Nicole Wallace]

That is never a good sign when your defense to that in front of your own constituents was. I didn't read that version. That was Nebraska Republican Mike Flood at a town hall yesterday getting some pushback over a provision in the House's big, beautiful bill that would make it harder for judges to enforce orders holding people in contempt for defying court orders. It is the second combative town hall meeting Flood has held since the start of the year, and the first since Republican congressional leaders advised their members to stop holding in person town halls. Flood won his seat by 20 points in November. We'll stay on top of that story. Coming up in the next hour of deadline. White House threats against judges have soared as the Trump presidency and Trump administration dials up its negative rhetoric against judges striking down Trump policies as unlawful. Former Judge Michael Ludig and Judge Esther Salas will be our guest to get for the first time. That's next. Introducing the Weeknight on msnbc, join hosts.

[Mark Elias]

Alicia Menendez, Michael Steele and Simone Sanders.

[Nicole Wallace]

Townsend for a spirited conversation challenging each.

[Mark Elias]

Other and our leaders about the biggest issues of the day.

[Esther Salas]

It's about knowing what you are for.

[Nicole Wallace]

Who you are for. That's what politics is about, is engagement. We are going to dive deeper into.

[Liz Oyer]

The legal side of today's breaking news.

[Nicole Wallace]

The weeknight Monday through Friday at 7pm Eastern on MSNBC.

[Donald Trump]

We are being hit hard by judges that I think they're trying to take away the power of the presidency. We have bad judges. We have very bad judges. And these are judges that shouldn't be allowed because the judges, so many of these radicalized judges, we have to be treated fairly by judges, and we're not being treated fairly by all judges.

[Nicole Wallace]

No evidence that any of those statements are true. Hi again, everybody. It's five o' clock in New York. Viewers of this program know we do not just gratuitously platform lies about anyone, but especially judges or intimidations or threats against them. But today we feel that we must show you that and call out harmful rhetoric when we see it. Donald Trump's vicious and ugly attacks against federal judges, as you saw in that sample of the many, many things he said and posted on social media, people who have been ruling against his actions, not from a partisan standpoint, but because they are illegal and unconstitutional for the sole reason, in fact, that they believe the things he has sought to do in his first 120 days are unlawful. But tension continues to build. Trump even ratcheted up his attacks in a social media post marking of all things, Memorial Day, calling out judges who he described as, quote, USA hating judges who suffer from an ideology that is sick and very dangerous for our country. He then called them, quote, monsters who want our country to go to hell, end quote. These are judges appointed by George W. Bush, Donald Trump, President Clinton, Obama, sorts of presidents from all sorts of parties calling them, quote, monsters. This personal animosity and anger and the sentiment it is stoking is having immediate, direct and serious effects on the actual members of the Judiciary and their families. New York Times is out with some startling new reporting. Quote, in the five month period leading up to March 1st of this year, 80 individual judges have received threats. Then, over the next six weeks, an additional 162 judges received threats, a dramatic increase. That spike in threats coincided with a flood of harsh rhetoric, often coming from Trump himself, criticizing judges who have ruled against the administration and in some cases, calling on Congress to impeach them. To put that sad fact in perspective, the total number of judges threatened this fiscal year, 277, represents roughly 1 third of the judiciary. The New York Times got these numbers from a face familiar to this program, Judge Esther Salas, who said she obtained them from the U.S. marshals Service, which is tasked with overseeing security for the judiciary. But at the moment, there are questions about that arrangement. New reporting in the Wall Street Journal finds this quote, some federal judges are beginning to discuss the idea of managing their own armed security force. The notion came up in a series of closed door meetings in early March when a group of roughly 50 judges met in Washington for a semiannual meeting of the Judicial Conference. Security committee members at the conference worried that Trump could order the marshals to stand down in retaliation for a decision that didn't go his way. The Marshals Service denied that would happen, saying in a statement this, quote, the security of our federal judiciary is a cornerstone of our nation's democracy, and the marshals take that responsibility very seriously. Federal judges make hard decisions based on the rule of law, in large part because the marshals ensure they can make these decisions without fear, intimidation, or retaliation. Yet the idea that judges are even thinking about taking over their security operations and taking oversight of that into their own hands says volumes about where we are in our country right now. It's also where we start the hour with former federal judge Michael Ludig and U.S. district Court Judge for the District of New Jersey, Esther Salas. It's a privilege to be here with both of you at the same time. I think a lot of our coverage is shaped, Esther, by your sharing of what you went through when your son was murdered. I wonder if you can just level set this conversation with a reality check about what is happening right now to your peers in the judiciary.

[Esther Salas]

Well, good evening, Nicole. Always a pleasure to see you. And of course, Judge Ludig. I honestly feel as if it's incumbent upon me as Daniel's mom, to talk about the clear and present dangers that exist. I've talked to you on, on a number of occasions about my concerns with respect to the inflammatory rhetoric. I've talked to you about this concept of a bonfire that is just burning, and instead of us trying to squelch it or tamp it down, we're adding accelerants to it. And I continue to feel that way. But I think the numbers support the concern that I have been expressing, and that is that we are seeing these numbers rise. And you know, it is irresponsible for people in political power, irresponsible for people with power and large social media platforms to continue to use words that define judges as corrupt or partisan or monsters or leftist, crazy, unconstitutional judges when there's no basis for it. Right. And I do believe that it is necessary for me as Daniel's mom, to come out and really speak up for justice, to speak up for the rule of law, to defend the Constitution. I feel it necessary now more than ever when I know what the numbers are saying and I know the risk. I live it every day. Mark lives it every day without our son. Our only child was murdered in our home because of my job. And so for me, as his mother and as an American and as a concerned citizen, I come forward sort of begging, pleading, and asking our political leaders to lead responsibly. To lead responsibly. And that doesn't mean agreeing with judges rulings. Certainly, as Chief Justice Roberts said, there's always been some tension between the branches of government. There always has been. It's as old as the republic. But there's a difference between disagreeing with a ruling and appealing it and utilizing the constitutional framework to appeal us to a higher court and making it personal and calling us names and really villainizing us. And I think it is an absolute dangerous road to be going on right now. And I am just praying that for our political leaders and those in power to tone it down. Tone it down. Disagree all you want, but please don't make it personal because you're inviting people to do us harm.

[Nicole Wallace]

Esther, when you saw the message on Monday from the most powerful politician in our country calling judges, quote, monsters who want the country to, quote, go to hell, did you have any conversations with fellow judges who were scared or worried? Or do you have any ongoing conversations with judges who worry about themselves and their families? I guess in most instances they would worry more about their own children.

[Esther Salas]

No, I've been worried for a long time. I've been worried since we started seeing members of Congress calling for impeachment of judges for doing their jobs. That was something that obviously I worried about. I've been worried about the words rogue judges. Rogue judges. I mean, Chief Justice Roberts, he called these illegitimate attacks on the judiciary. He called it out in 2024 in his year end report. He said four illegitimate attacks on the judiciary. Violence, we've seen that, right? We've seen Judge Romer killed by a man he sentenced 15 years earlier in Wisconsin. We've seen Judge Wilkinson gunned down in his driveway in Maryland in October of 2023. So violence, we've seen it. Intimidation, we're seeing it in the form of these pizza doxing that I'm sure we're going to talk a little bit about and how that's being used as psychological warfare against judges. So second was intimidation. Third was the spreading of disinformation. You keep saying over and over again judges are unconstitutional, judges are rogues, judges are craz leftist judges, judges are monsters, judges are this, judges are that. You keep saying that over and over again. After a while, the American public begins to believe that disinformation and they begin to have and question the justice system. And so that is an illegitimate attack on judges is the spreading of disinformation. And then finally, even the threatening to not follow lawfully issued orders by the court. These are four illegitimate attacks called out by our chief justice. And we see it and we're seeing in real time. And so for me, I'm here on your show yet again, sort of trying to appeal to people's senses and compassion and civility and professionalism. And that's why I'm here. I'm here to speak up for justice, to speak up for events like tomorrow's event that we're having at noon Eastern Standard Time, 9 Pacific. And we're talking about the independence of council tomorrow. We're going to keep doing these programs, nonpartisan programs, because we need to speak up for justice. We need to speak up for the rule of law. We need to defend our Constitution. And so, so I've been worried for a long time and I'm reminded every day when I wake up and the first thing I think about is my Daniel, and the last thing I think about is my Daniel. So I am obviously very concerned for judges all throughout this country. And I just pray that we can start to get back to a place where we can agree to disagree, where we can have civil discourse and we can all rally around the fact that we're Americans and we live in the greatest country, in my opinion, the greatest country in the world. That's what I'm hoping for, Nicole.

[Nicole Wallace]

That's what I'm hoping for, Esther Will you explain? Pete said doxxing sure, sure, sure. So.

[Esther Salas]

You know, there have been pizzas delivered to judges. These pizzas were not ordered by judges. They arrived to judges homes. And we started to see an uptick in these pizza deliveries in about February, March. And everyone at first wasn't sure what this was all about, Right. But then we realized that this was a message that was being sent to judges. We know where you live. And these were judges, many of them, although there have been some judges that haven't ruled and made unfavorable decisions in quotations. But they got these pizzas and that was weird. And then the next thing, judge's kids started getting pizza. And those pizzas, what do they say to those judges? We know where you live and we know where your children live. And then as of April 6, the first pizza that we know of online order was sent to a judge. And the name on the order was my son's name, Daniel Andrew. They're using my son's name. They're weaponizing my son's name to inflict fear on judges. And what does that say? Do you want to end up like Daniel? You want to end up like Judge Salas? This is psychological warfare that is meant to intimidate the judiciary. Let's not even say this is harmless pranks. This is psychological warfare. And we now know, confirmed, confirmed now by the marshals, 103 pizzas have been sent or attempted to be sent to judges all over this country. And 20 of them, 20 of them in my murdered son's name. Can you imagine? Can you imagine taking a name like Daniels, who he gave his life as an act of love for his father and me. You know, he sacrificed his life for his parents and in many ways, Nicole, the person that killed Daniel had a list of judges and their names on there. He had information about Justice Sotomayor that was found in a storage locker a few months after the murder. To me, Daniel represents all that's light, all that's love, all that's beautiful about humanity. And people are taking that name and trying to weaponize it and make it dark and make it evil. As his mom, I, you know, I can't tell you the emotion that that right, you know, brings up in me. And, you know, I am reminded every day about his love and his light. And I stayed there. I'm going to stay there because that's where he wants me.

[Nicole Wallace]

Judge Ludig, let me bring you in on this. Judge Salas used a word that I first heard you use in congressional testimony. Clear and present danger. But now to the judiciary.

[Donald Trump]

Cole. It's tragic and it's heartbreaking that Judge Salas would be the one to make this passionate, chilling plea to the nation on behalf of the federal judiciary. Donald Trump, the Vice President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States should be reminded of this interview every moment for the rest of their this presidency. Every moment when Donald Trump or J.D. vance or the Attorney General either speak on television or publicly or through posts, the kind of absolutely preposterous, reprehensible threats to the federal judiciary and the federal judges that they've been making for the past four months.

[Nicole Wallace]

What is their aim, in your view?

[Donald Trump]

Their aim is to delegitimize the federal courts and the federal judges, including the Supreme Court of the United States, in the eyes of the American people. The first day back in office, on January 20, the President declared war on the federal courts, the Constitution of the United States, and the rule of law. This was a planned war, Nicole. It had been planned for at least four and a half years, since the day that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election and intended to occupy the White House again one day. That's why on the first day, the president launched all of the initiatives that he did. This was planned. And he knew that this would be to declare war on the federal courts and the Constitution, because he knew that every single one of his signature initiatives was literally either unconstitutional or in violation of the laws of the United States. He was anticipating exactly what's occurred in these first four months, namely, that every single federal court to receive any one of these initiatives has struck it down summarily. Now, that's not going to slow this president down. He anticipated this. And that's why he and the vice president in particular, have been stoking the salacious claim that the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States, Nicole, is not the final arbiter of the law in this country when it comes to the President. Rather, in their view, expressly stated, the President of the United States will determine the law. When it comes to actions and activity of the President of the United States, they are running directly contrary, and they know it to the most fundamental principle of our constitutional republic, that it is the Supreme Court of the United States that in Chief Justice John Marshall's famous word, say what? The law is, not the President.

[Nicole Wallace]

I'm going to ask both of you to stay exactly where you are. We'll hold our breath and sneak in a quick break on the other side. Judge Salas And Judge Ludig will be back with more of this conversation. Deadline White House continues after a very short break. Don't go anywhere. We're back with Judge Ludig and Judge Salas. First ever joint it's an honor to host the first ever joint television appearance. You're both so immensely powerful and together it's almost too much. But I just want to introduce another part of the conversation and turn it back over to both of you. In your view, would it be helpful if Chief Justice John Roberts were sitting in that chair and participating in these conversations?

[Donald Trump]

It would not just be helpful, Nicole. It's obligatory for the Supreme Court, through the person of the Chief justice, to be out nationally condemning this. His problem, I assume, is that to condemn it is to condemn the president of the United States. As far as I'm concerned, so be it. That apparently is not the Chief Justice's viewpoint, nor the courts as a whole. But the court is acquiescing in this, and there is nothing more important than the safety of federal judges to the Supreme Court of the United States and to the nation.

[Nicole Wallace]

Judge Salas, would you like to see more judges participate in this conversation?

[Esther Salas]

You know, I think it's very important for us to be mindful that people have concerns about coming forward. And I respect each and every individual who worries about their own personal safety and about the safety of their family. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, I have so I'm just so much respect for Chief Justice Roberts and for all the members of the Supreme Court. And in fact, I have so much respect and love for all my colleagues. And so I can only speak as Daniel's mom. I can only do what I feel compelled to do as his mother, and that is to speak up and to talk about the grave concerns that I have for this nation and for democracy and for my brothers and sisters on the bench. So I can only talk about what I feel I must do. And I'm not in a position to really talk about what everyone else should or should not be doing. But I feel compelled, with Mark's blessing, to be vocal, to be strong, to be adamant, and to appeal to America's sense of right in terms of what is right for this country, for the justice system, for the constitutional framework that we have all prospered under for 200 plus years. We've got a big birthday coming up, so I'm more comfortable telling you what I would ask our political leaders and people in power to do, and that is to remember that their words have consequences and that they lead responsibly and that they be impeccable with their words and that they trust the justice system and they work within the justice system, even if they want to criticize it, but to criticize it in a responsible way, to utilize the constitutional framework to challenge us, by all means, appeal us. Just please stop personalizing these rulings. Stop demonizing the court. These words matter, how they react to unfavorable rulings, that matters. And, you know, we have seen.

[Nicole Wallace]

In.

[Esther Salas]

Cases, my case, Judge Romer in Wisconsin, Judge Wilkinson in Maryland, Judge Lefkow. We have seen instances in which people believe that they need to take things into their own hands, that they're doing the work of. We need to be mindful that life matters and we are putting people's lives at risk when we speak so irresponsibly.

[Nicole Wallace]

Esther, have you, would you consider sitting down privately, one on one with Donald Trump, who himself was the target of two threats on his own life and making this plea directly to him?

[Esther Salas]

I feel like I would talk to anyone who would want to talk to me about what we've been through, about our journey. I mean, this is, we're coming on our five year anniversary. Mother's Day just passed a couple weeks ago. You know, it is never easy to live this life. But I, you know, Mark and I are doing the best we can with what is left of our lives. And I, you know, I'm learning to accept life as it is and not as I want it to be. But I would talk to anyone that would engage in a conversation about judicial security and independence, about the real threats that judges have to live with. I mean, the calls to our chambers wishing us dead, you know, saying they're coming to get us. You know, the doxing, the hoax bombs, threats, the, you know, these pizzas being delivered in the middle of the night when your family members are sleeping. The idea that just because you're doing your job, you took an oath to do your job and to follow the law, that somehow that makes you a monster. Somehow it makes us partisan because we disagree with certain individuals, with the positions of our leaders. This isn't personal. This is the law. This is the justice system. Lady justice is blind. She's blind for a reason. It shouldn't matter who the plaintiff is. It shouldn't matter who the defendant is. What matters are the facts. What matters is the law. And it shouldn't matter what one person or a group or that all doesn't matter. What matters is what does the law dictate. And judges who take their oaths and we take our oaths seriously. We're not lifting the veil, the blindfold rather, and trying to peek at who is this going to help? That's not justice. And the American people have to understand that this affects all of us. We have to have a justice system that is continuous, that is predictable, that if you are on the receiving end of something that you think requires you go to court, you don't want the judge to be worried about who your opponent is. You don't want the judge to be worried about the person has more money than you do or the person is more powerful. You want the judges to be blind. You want the judges to hear the case, look at the law and make a fair and just ruling. That's why this matters to every American that's watching right now. Because one day you might need the justice system, one day you might need to come to court. And your opponent may be a powerful opponent, but that doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. Justice. Lady justice doesn't care if you're rich or you're poor. Lady justice doesn't care your ethnicity. Lady justice doesn't care about who you are and how powerful you may be. Lady justice cares about justice. And that's why judges have to be blind to any other outside influences, just the facts and the law.

[Nicole Wallace]

Judge Esther Salas, Judge Michael Ludig. A conversation that will stay with me every day as we cover these events. I am so grateful to both of you, and I hope these conversations aren't necessary, but I fear they will remain not just necessary, but essential and potentially.

[Esther Salas]

Nicole, can I just give a plug for our event tomorrow?

[Nicole Wallace]

Please, go ahead.

[Esther Salas]

Speak up for Justice. Speak up for Justice. It's an event. If you Google Speak up for justice or SpeakUpforJustice law, you'll see a nonpartisan event, a webinar on the independence of council, which is critical right now. And we have a wonderful lineup. And I really do hope people turn in, tune in for Speak up for Justice.

[Nicole Wallace]

Judge Salas, Judge Ludic, thank you so much from the bottom of my heart. Thank you. When we come back, Donald Trump so far is on a winless streak against the top law firms who sued after he targeted them with executive orders. What is behind all that legal losing and why Trump is fighting back against these rulings? We'll talk about that next. Donald Trump's retribution campaign against America's biggest law firms was dealt another blow yesterday when a federal judge struck down Donald Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Wilmer Hale for its association with former special counsel Robert Mueller. In a scathing opinion laced with more than two dozen exclamation points of his own, Judge Richard Leon ruled that the executive order was blatantly unconstitutional and undermined the independent judiciary and independent lawyers that the Founding Fathers deemed necessary. He writes that Donald Trump's order is, quote, a staggering punishment for the firm's protected speech. The order is intended to and does in fact, impede the firm's ability to effectively represent its client. Adding this quote, the order shouts through a bullhorn, if you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished. This is now the third major law firm to take on Donald Trump in court over the executive orders and prevail rather than capitulate, showing that standing up to Trump's retribution campaign works quite well in court, as the New York Times puts it, quote, the ruling seem to validate the the strategy embraced by a minority of firms of fighting the Trump administration instead of caving to a pressure campaign and making deals with Mr. Trump to avoid persecution. Judges have already rejected similarly punitive executive orders aimed at the law firms Perkins Coie and Jenner and Block. Joining our conversation, voting rights attorney, founder of Democracy docket, friend of the show, Mark Elias, who is a former partner at Perkins Coie. Mark, we can start here, but you want to start with the attacks on the judiciary and sort of the broader frame of news today. How much of this is exactly what you think Donald Trump intends? You know, the reckless language, calling judges, quote, monsters on Memorial Day, and the climate of fear that Judge Sallis Wallace so painfully and powerfully talks about?

[Jerome Powell]

Yeah, I think it's entirely on purpose. I think Donald Trump wants to intimidate all institutions that stand in his way. He wants to intimidate all individuals who stand in his way. And when he is unable to get obeyance in advance, like we've seen from too many law firms and some other large business and other institutions in society, then he takes to threats and he starts with general threats against, you know, courts as a whole. And then they become ever more dangerous as they become more specific, targeting individual judges, targeting individual lawyers, targeting individual whistleblowers, targeting individual people in the media. And he hopes that by unleashing the mobs of his supporters on both the institutions and on the individuals, he will cause those folks to back down and will also set an example that will prevent others from speaking up in the first instance.

[Nicole Wallace]

Where do you think his retribution campaign against the law firms that he associated with? Folks like yourself or Robert Mueller or Causes he didn't like. Where does that stand in terms of the, the strength or the reputational damage done to the firms that capitulated?

[Jerome Powell]

I'm really glad you asked this question because it's easy to get lost in the fact that, that Donald Trump is now 0 for 3 and has lost all three of these cases against the three firms that have, that have fought back. And none of the opinions have suggested it was even a particularly close question. As you point out, Judge Leon's opinion used 25 or 20, 26 exclamation points. Honestly, I have not seen an opinion that used that many exclamation points in my entire career. So these have not been close questions. I think that what is a big news story that has been undercovered is just how badly this wound up backfiring for Paul Weiss in particular, which was the first law firm to capitulate and collaborate, but also for Skadden, Orbs and the others that then followed because they made a calculation that they would be able to capitulate quietly, Donald Trump would then forget about them and the public, you know, maybe would have, you know, found the whole thing distasteful, but would move on. And ultimately they would be viewed as savvy businessmen and women. And the opposite has taken hold. The fact is that people have not forgotten, people have not moved on, none, the least of which are the judges who keep, you know, excoriating Donald Trump, but also criticizing the law firms that settled. And rather than look like savage savvy businessmen and women, they now look like naive rubes because the fact is their reputations have been stained. They no longer look like the pit bulls worth $2,000 an hour that they charge. And the fact is that, that you have partners leaving these firms in some instances, and you have judges criticizing them. So I think really the business case for this turned out to be a pretty crappy one.

[Nicole Wallace]

I want to press you on that in terms of what it means for recruitment. I have to sneak in a quick break. We'll have that conversation on the other side.

[Mark Elias]

If we don't fight back now, why did we get elected? And why did we become attorneys to defend the law? But there are those with power and money that are choosing not to fight. And that brings me to, I guess.

[Nicole Wallace]

A touchy subject maybe here.

[Mark Elias]

Big law. Granted, granted, getting singled out by executive orders by the President of the United States will scare the crap out of you. Trust me, I get it. And I know it probably spooked their clients. But as anyone else here could tell.

[Nicole Wallace]

You, those executive Orders carry about the.

[Mark Elias]

Same constitutional authority as a ransom note. The quality of the writing is about the same too. Those firms are home to some of.

[Harry Lippman]

The nation's top flight lawyers.

[Mark Elias]

These are folks that know how to throw a punch.

[Nicole Wallace]

Mark, where do you go when you're a top firm known for having, as Governor Walz said, their top flight lawyers in it, and you did a bad deal to avoid an executive order that was described as unconstitutional and illegal with more than 40 exclamation points. How do you sell yourself as either a deal maker or a lawyer to potential clients or potential recruits?

[Jerome Powell]

Yeah, it's a good question. And I think that that is the business reality that I think some of these firms are going to face now. You know, the one thing I want to put a lie to is it's not that everybody capitulated. You know, the three, the three big law firms that have won their cases didn't capitulate. Sussman, the fourth law firm, didn't capitulate. I was, you know, named in that exact Perkins Coey executive order is why they were going after Perkins Cooley. I was named, as you covered before in a separate executive order. And I've been singled out by the President, United States on a number of occasions. And my law firm, we put out a statement saying we will never back down, we would never obey, we would never capitulate. And you know what? Clients responded positively. We didn't lose clients, we gained clients, we didn't lose attorneys, we, our recruiting is going through the roof. And so, you know, the fact is, it feels to me like oftentimes the conflict. Conventional wisdom right now is that everybody wants people to be scared because they are scared. It may be that they understand you're scared, but they don't want you to back down. They don't want you to shrink away. And certainly when you're a lawyer or a law firm, as you say, it's really hard to sell that as good business.

[Nicole Wallace]

The other thing is I'm guessing that that even in MAGA world, even if you are a Trump supporting law student who wants to go work for one of the best firms, you're still attracted to strength. And the stronger party isn't the firm that went in there proactively and did a deal with Trump to avoid his wrath, it's the firm that litigated against him and prevailed. So where either in the legal sphere or the business sphere, or even the political arena, does this make any sense today?

[Jerome Powell]

Yeah, I think that that's also a really important point. And you know, this having covered politics and seen Republic Republicans up close, they actually respect strength. You know, sometimes I think that Democrats don't realize that, that Republicans, they may not like strong Democrats, but they are, they respect them more and they are less likely to mess with them. And I think that that's what some of these law firms, including law firms that like Paul Weiss, that actually have a traditional liberal or progressive or Democratic bent to them. You know, you can go listen to what's Steve Bannon has said about me. And he is both very critical of me, but he has also said that I am the best lawyer and the toughest lawyer because I fight so hard. And, you know, Cash Patel maybe said I'm an enemy of the Republican Party. But he also, you know, this is before he was at the FBI. You know, he also had clear respect for the fact that I fight hard. And it's not just me. That's true in the legal profession as a whole. It's true in every profession. And it's true in politics. You know, when you fight hard for your side, when you fight hard for what you believe in, the other side, particularly when the other side is Donald Trump, tends to back away.

[Nicole Wallace]

We'll stay on top of this, you and I, unpacking it all day by day, news cycle by news cycle. Mark Elias, thank you so much for joining us today.

[Jerome Powell]

Thank you.

[Nicole Wallace]

Another break for us will be right back. There's another commencement address that caught our attention this week. Here's Fed Chair Jerome Powell at Princeton University.

[Jerome Powell]

Since the founding of this great democracy 250 years ago, generation upon generation have.

[Nicole Wallace]

Assumed the burden and the honor of.

[Jerome Powell]

Moving us closer to the ideal that all are created equal.

[Nicole Wallace]

Now. Now it's your turn.

[Jerome Powell]

I ask you to take a minute.

[Nicole Wallace]

And realize how the quest for these.

[Jerome Powell]

Values has led us to this point in our history. We lead the world in so many ways, including in scientific innovation and economic dynamism. Our great universities are the envy of.

[Harry Lippman]

The world and a crucial national asset.

[Jerome Powell]

Look around you, and I urge you.

[Nicole Wallace]

To take none of this for granted.

[Jerome Powell]

When you look back in 50 years, you will want to know that you've done whatever it takes to preserve and strengthen our democracy and bring us ever closer to the founder's timeless ideals. I have one last and key. Life matters not just to you, but to the people who love you. 50 years from now, you'll want to be able to look in the mirror.

[Harry Lippman]

And know that you did what you.

[Jerome Powell]

Thought was right in every part of your life. At the end of the day, Our integrity is all we have.

[Nicole Wallace]

Guard it carefully. Our integrity is all we have. Some powerful advice for the next generation. And all of us. Another break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes. We are grateful.