← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
"It should never, ever become normal"
00:42:57
July 22, 2026; 4pm: Nicolle Wallace on a wide open opportunity Donald Trump had to change the tone today. An opportunity he seemed to have passed on.
Loading summary
Transcript92 lines
- [00:00]
Nicole Wallace
Watch Disclosure Day at home now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you, would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Koepp, starring Emily Blunt, Josh o', Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson and Colman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required. Also in theaters.
- [00:31]
Carl's Jr. Advertiser
Yeah at Carl's Jr when late night cravings hit, you hit bag after 8pm for just 5.99 bag the Cali classic spicy chicken sandwich or for a limited time, the bacon cheeseburger. Decide between fries or onion rings and get four chicken stars. You build it, we bag it. Just $5.99. Build your bag all day and unlock more choices on the app. Available for a limited time at participating restaurants. Tax not included. Price may vary. Not valid to any counter combo Seattle for details.
- [01:06]
Nicole Wallace
Hi there, everyone. It's 4 o' clock in the east. On the heels of a deeply unsettling performance from Pete Hegseth yesterday on Capitol Hill, Commander in chief had a wide open opportunity to change the tone. It's an opportunity he seems to have passed on at Joint Base Andrews earlier today, on his way to the dignified transfer for Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 2nd Sgt. Michael Emanuel Swinton, Private Isabella Gonzalez and Sgt. Angel S. Rampersad, who were all killed fighting the war with Iran. Donald Trump was asked about the human toll of this war, about those service members and all who have been killed in action. Watch what he said.
- [01:47]
Eugene Daniels
They are indeed great heroes. Actually, they said, and all of them said very strongly, we can't let, we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weap.
- [01:59]
Nicole Wallace
Sir, let's just say to the families of these fallen soldiers, when Americans are
- [02:06]
Eugene Daniels
wrongly against this war, how do you ask them? Well, Americans aren't against the war. A poll just came out. Americans don't want high gasoline prices, but they're not against the war. That just came out loud and clear in a poll. Nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Do you want Iran to have a nuclear weapon? You think it's good?
- [02:30]
Nicole Wallace
All of them said strongly, we can't let them get a nuclear weapon. There's simply no historical precedent for that for an American president discussing the death of American soldiers on his watch as the commander in chief. In terms of them all the four who died saying something about Iran's nuclear program or saying anything for that matter about the price of gas in America. And it should never, ever become normal for a president to put words in their mouths or to talk about the men and women who have died for their country. In the context of polls about gas, this is again a war he started. And frankly, the numbers of those paying with their lives continues to grow. Yesterday, we learned the name of another casualty in the war with Iran. It was released by the pentagon. It is Sergeant Angel S. Rampersad, 28 years old, of Ozone Park, New York. As we mentioned earlier, she was part of today's dignified transfer brings the total number of U.S. service members killed to 18. Sgt. Rampersad enlisted in the U.S. army in March of 2019. Her awards include the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Army Service Ribbon. And despite Donald Trump's claim that Americans only objections to the sacrifice, these sacrifices, like that of Sergeant Rampersads, is the price of gas, the polls show that that is actually not true. Donald Trump could not be more wrong. Washington Post poll finds that just 29% of Americans approve of the war with Iran, with a Politico poll out today finding that even Trump's base is souring on the conflict, with nearly one in five MAGA voters saying that the war should end, no matter the impact on prices. That's an increase of 7 points since the question was asked in May. Donald Trump's callousness and the senselessness of the war driving away even Trump's own MAGA support is where we begin today with some of our favorite experts and friends. Retired U.S. marine Corps Lt. Col. Amy McGrath is here. Also joining us, Paul Rykoff is back. He's the host of the Independent Americans podcast, the founder and CEO of Independent Veterans of America. Also joining us, Media Matters for America President Angelo Carazone is here. Amy, your thoughts today?
- [05:08]
Amy McGrath
Well, just from your intro, I think it's really important that people know that Donald Trump does not know these American service members personally. He's just flat lying when he says that these folks have said the things that they've said. That's just not true. And he's implying that all members of the military who are active duty and are over there are for this war. And that is not true either. Okay? And that wasn't true in Afghanistan. It wasn't true in Iraq. And for a president to say those things again is just, again, it's just a slap in the face to everybody that's served.
- [05:57]
Nicole Wallace
Paul, I want to bring you in on the same question. Your thoughts to what we've seen Today,
- [06:03]
Paul Rykoff
it's a somber and humbling experience and one that I'm glad the country hasn't turned its eye from. I know it's summertime and people don't want to be focused on the news and a lot of folks are checked out. But you need to learn the stories of these young soldiers who were taken from us far too soon. I'm glad you mentioned the name of Angel Rampersat, 28 years old from here in Queens. You showed her face. That is a human cost of war. But what Trump's doing is one of the most dangerous kinds of propaganda to say that he knows what those soldiers thought or felt and to blur the separation that we've worked hard to create between our people and our politics. Our troops should be insulated from the politics. We worked very hard to teach this country after Vietnam to separate the war from the warriors. What he and Hegseth have tried to do in the last 24 hours especially is ram it back together and make it seem like he's got a MAGA army and everybody's all in and they're all signed up to just fight in his war in Iran. And that is very, very dangerous to our national security, to our recruiting, to the civil military bond that exists in this country. And I think it's a sign of desperation. But we need to continue to call him out on it. And also, if he cares so much about our troops, where is the VA secretary? We heard yesterday from the agriculture secretary. We've heard from Hegseth. Why haven't we heard from Secretary Doug Collins about what he's doing to prepare the Department of Veterans affairs for a whole new generation wounded and a whole new generation potentially of kinds of wounds. We know we weren't prepared at the VA after the last two forever wars. They may not be prepared now. We need to hear from him on budget requests and just the fact that they exist and whether or not they'll be prepared to take care of a whole new generation of wounded.
- [07:44]
Nicole Wallace
Well, I mean, Angela, let me bring you in on that, because the New York Times, Eric Schmidt, who happens to be one of the five New York Times journalists who was subpoenaed for his reporting on the Qatari gifted Air Force One, has reported that there is a cover up underway that the Pentagon isn't even releasing information at this point about the injuries.
- [08:05]
Angelo Carusone
And I think that we should put that into broader context because it makes it especially messed up in some ways. Trump putting his justification for this war into the mouths of those who can no longer speak for himself is actually quite consistent with the policy of disrespect and disregard that's in practice here. Because at the start, they haven't had a briefing from the DOD from the podium since May 5th. And that's bad enough. But we also know that they are closing off access to journalists. They are cracking down in Hegseth, and the Department of Defense are working with the Department of Justice to crack down on what they consider leakers and anybody going outside of the policy to share information. So on the one hand, they're suffocating the information pipeline, just basic nuts and bolts about what's happening. And then on the other hand, they are going after and stifling and targeting the very types of individuals, not just the reporters, but also the people that will be getting this basic information out there. They're also attacking them. And so this notion that somehow there's this core data cover up, it's par for the course. They are trying to control the narrative. And in this case, the way that they're going to control it is by by erasing it, by pretending that it's not happening so that they can polish up the little bits that come through. They can paper over the few cracks that we're able to as a result of some of these leaked information coming through. That's the context that this is taking place in. And so Trump gets out there and says this thing just like some of the other stuff he was posting last night. You know, in the absence of all that other information, there's a real chance that this stuff sticks. And that's why I'm so glad Paul made that point that we should continue to call him out for these things and needs to be called out for these things so that they don't get total control over the narrative.
- [09:47]
Nicole Wallace
I have to say it is a deeply unpopular narrative, but I will show it. This is what Trump posted on social media about the number of people who have sacrificed with their lives in service of this country. This is his post. He posts about Afghanistan, 2,000 dead Iraq, 4,600, Vietnam, 58,220, Korea, 36,574. Then he adds Venezuela and Iran, which he calls a military conflict. And I'm not sure, Amy, that I know the point of this, but if he's going to just put a number, I'll go ahead and take the opportunity to tell another story. This is Tyler Feehan's family's tribute to him. They posted on their GoFundMe page to raise money for ROTC scholarships in his honor. And let me read their words. Quote, tyler packed in more living than most people manage in a lifetime. He chased adventure relentlessly, whether it meant reaching Everest base camp or walking the Camino de Santiago across France and into Spain. As a leader, he never wavered in putting his soldiers first. He believed deeply in the power of military service, especially what it builds in a person. Discipline, leadership, character. Everybody who knew him loved him. Behind him, he leaves a family in mourning. His parents, his fiance, who was to become his wife upon his return from deployment, four sets of grandparents, and a wide circle of aunts, uncles, and cousins who adored him. Tyler, we are proud of you beyond words. Devastated, yes, but prouder still. No parents could have asked for a better son. And carrying your legacy forward is now our purpose. We ask only this, that in remembering Tyler, please pause to see the good this country still holds rather than what divides it. Family grieving this unimaginable, unthinkable loss, lifting up the whole country, saying, we ask that in remembering Tyler, be for pause to see the good this country still holds rather than what divides it. Beautiful and needed sentiment.
- [12:00]
Amy McGrath
Yeah, it really is. And I think if you take a step back and recognize that America owes its troops, the men and women who are over there risking their lives, owes them leadership that will make sure that this sacrifice is worth it. So when I listened to Pete Hegseth yesterday at the hearing on the Hill, any criticism or blame for the failures of this Iran war, you know, he turned it around and said, well, you guys are blaming the troops or you're unpatriotic. And actually, it's the opposite. If there's anything that the post 911 wars have taught us in two decades of war, it should be that our leaders have a responsibility to our troops to clearly define the objective, to have a solid strategy to make sure that it's authorized from Congress and it's backed by the American people to make sure that their sacrifices are worth it and make sense. And we don't have that right now. And that's why this is so tragic.
- [13:16]
Nicole Wallace
Let me show you what we do have. We have Pete Hegseth, who was really, really, really uncomfortable with a line of questioning from Senator Ossoff, who was simply Pete Hegseth with Pete Hegseth's own words. Let me play that for you,
- [13:33]
Senator Jon Ossoff
Secretary. Early in the conflict, day three, you said one of those core objectives was to, quote, destroy the missile threat, and as you restated on day five, to, quote, obliterate Iran's missiles and drones. Those were clearly and repeatedly stated core objectives of the campaign, which four months ago you declared had been completed victoriously with every single objective achieved. Were those objectives achieved four months ago?
- [13:58]
Pete Hegseth
No one ever stated that every single missile was gone.
- [14:01]
Nicole Wallace
The question is at scale against opponent like the United States of America, which
- [14:05]
Eugene Daniels
went toe to toe with them and Iran couldn't.
- [14:07]
Senator Jon Ossoff
You stated on March 8, day nine of the war on 60 Minutes, you assured the American people of Iranian surrender. Does that remain your prediction?
- [14:17]
Nicole Wallace
Ultimately, Iran will never have a nuclear
- [14:20]
Paul Rykoff
weapon to threaten the United States of America.
- [14:22]
Eugene Daniels
That has been the objective and it remains so.
- [14:25]
Senator Jon Ossoff
So just to review, you will not answer whether your statement made on the 14th day of the war that Iran's military had been, quote, destroyed and made combat ineffective was a truthful statement to the American people as you sit here and ask for tens of billions more.
- [14:44]
Nicole Wallace
Paul, I know you're a harsh critic of members of both parties, but this wasn't partisan at all. This was just. Does Pete Hegseth agree with Pete Hegseth? I thought it was a very effective line of questioning.
- [14:55]
Paul Rykoff
I think that's right. I think Ossoff was effective. And I think you also saw frustration from Republicans yesterday, which underscores how unpopular this is and how much Hegseth is in a hot seat. We talked about it yesterday. I think it's important to see his posture, his shoulders are lower, he's not quite so cocky. He was definitely irritated because he has to ask people for something after he blew past them for really the last year, but especially since this war began. He didn't ask Congress for permission, he didn't ask them for funding. He was all gas, no brakes, with both middle fingers up. And now he has to go back with hat in hand and ask them for more money because they can't square the numbers. And I think it just underscores that you can't trust Pete Hegseth. I mean, I debated Pete Hegseth on another war on this network 20 years ago and he used a lot of the same lines of arguments. He's been a culture warrior ever since. But I think the human cost is what's really stacking up for them. It's what Trump doesn't want to focus on. You'll see him with the killed in action, you won't see him at Walter Reed, you won't see him with any wounded. And I think that's very, very important. Cuz he doesn't want to show that because it resonates with the American public in a very popular way. The other thing you won't see is Barron Trump. You won't see him enlisting. You won't see him talking about it. And he's 20 years old. One of the soldiers that was killed was 19 years old. So I think the media should ask him every single day, why hasn't Barron Trump enlisted? Why isn't he part of this war? If this war is so worthwhile, why haven't you sent your kid? I think that is a valid question for a commander in chief who's willing to send other people's sons and daughters to die.
- [16:25]
Nicole Wallace
Let me show you the contagion of squirming. This is Brian Kilmeade Angelo on Fox and Friends getting a little exasperated himself.
- [16:38]
Paul Rykoff
Senator, from this 11 days, are you
- [16:41]
Nicole Wallace
heartened that we're taking kinetic action again
- [16:44]
Paul Rykoff
as opposed to pretending we're making progress
- [16:47]
Nicole Wallace
with talks and an MOU that wasn't
- [16:49]
Angelo Carusone
worth the paper was printed on?
- [16:55]
Nicole Wallace
Somewhere JD Vance is screaming into a pillow. I think that was his handiwork. But I don't know what sort of jujitsu. Fox thinks they're playing with their audience, that if we end up coming out against an MoU and for kinetic fighting, which is another one of Pete Hegseth's favorite buzzwords, will what turn support around? I mean they didn't even take this hearing yesterday with their former colleague testifying for about five hours about a war that over the weekend took the lives of four US Service members.
- [17:31]
Angelo Carusone
I mean that Fox News is full of it, I understand is not that it's not a novel concept, but this really is just a really striking example because it was not that long ago that they spent several weeks wall to wall coverage celebrating the MOU as a signature crowning achievement that only Donald Trump could be capable of putting together something like this. And that was his mastery in this entire conflict was to get that very document. And yet just casually in that one notion. And we'll get to the kinetic part in a second. But just in that one question he tossed it away. It wasn't even worth the piece of paper it was written on. They spent a week bragging about how amazing it was. And it's just like in the context of what we were talking about before with Trump and with Trump and putting the words in the fallen soldiers mouths. They did a week long outrage machine in 2014 when President Obama gave a salute to somebody while holding a coffee cup. I mean they called it shocking. There was a shocking display of disregard is how they described it. And yet here they are just completely ignoring it. So that's the one piece and then the second. And this is the scary part, because that's where the prescription comes from. It's sort of this. Again, it says long conversation. They are amping Trump up again on the same thing that they sold him on that got us in there in the first place, that if you escalate now, if you just keep pushing, if you just follow your instincts and your impulse, that somehow this will resolve itself, that if you just stake out the ultimate position, the power of America will succeed here and that will be the end of it. So in the second part of that question, and that is reflective in the rest of their coverage, they're amping him up again to go to intensify the attacks and beginning to lay the groundwork for more aggressive action in Iran for a real meaningful escalation. And that, to me, is the, the alarm bell about where this goes. It's not just, you know, it doesn't just begin and end of the hypocrisy. It actually is that they are giving him a prescription. They're telling him to do something.
- [19:26]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, yeah. The problem is that, and I know that we exist in post truth, post fact America when it comes to covering them, but it is like the election denial speech, because what Donald Trump has told his base, who are really the only people who are potentially available to believe him, is that they, quote, obliterated Iran's nuclear program a year ago. A year ago, that that was the mission that was achieved and they fired people who assessed that that wasn't the case. So it is really sort of a test on that side of the information ecosystem. No one's going anywhere because there's more when we come back. Trump signed a landmark nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia that the Middle Eastern countries currently at war with over having that same type of nuclear enrichment program will try to make sense of it for you. It likely has to do with the many, many, many entanglements he and his family have with that country. Plus, wrapping up just in the last few minutes, Democratic senators held a public forum on the damage Todd Blanche has already done to the rule of law in America and on how bad it could get if he's confirmed as the country's attorney general. And later in the broadcast, remember last week when Trump tried to scare Americans that into believing that the election systems in our country are under attack by foreign adversaries? There's new reporting that reveals that the agency tasked with protecting our elections from foreign adversaries has been gutted by Donald Trump. We have all those stories and much more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Watch Disclosure Day at home now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you, would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Koepp, starring Emily Blunt, Josh o', Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson and Colman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required. Also in theaters.
- [21:40]
Eugene Daniels
Yeah, maxing is so maxing right now, bro. Get ready for spicy chicken maxing because
- [21:45]
Paul Rykoff
Carl's Jr. Is saving you big with
- [21:47]
Eugene Daniels
a $5.99 maxed out double stack double
- [21:49]
Paul Rykoff
stack double stack spicy chicken sandwich.
- [21:52]
Eugene Daniels
Seriously, just $5.99cent double stack spicy chicken?
- [21:56]
Paul Rykoff
This is unreal value in the bromosphere. The new spicy chicken Max Wallet friendly Max Tasty only at Carl's Jr available for a limited time at participating restaurants.
- [22:07]
Eugene Daniels
Tax unincluded, not valid for use within
- [22:08]
Paul Rykoff
a combo or a combination with any other offer discount. Simone Sanders Townsend and I have known
- [22:12]
Eugene Daniels
each other for more than a decade,
- [22:14]
Paul Rykoff
tussling over politics and policy when she worked in the White House and I reported on it.
- [22:19]
Liz Oyer
And now we're friends and colleagues and
- [22:21]
Angelo Carusone
on our podcast, Clock it, we are
- [22:23]
Liz Oyer
positioning ourselves at the intersection of culture and politics.
- [22:27]
Paul Rykoff
Clock it is where we talk about
- [22:29]
Pete Hegseth
what we see and hear in the news.
- [22:31]
Eugene Daniels
So you can start to clock it too. Clock it with Simone and Eugene. All episodes available now.
- [22:43]
Nicole Wallace
As the Trump administration continues to wage a war with Iran and openly consider escalation, and now landing on this justification that it's all about preventing that country, that Middle Eastern power, from acquiring a nuclear weapon, Donald Trump has just greenlit a new agreement that could pave the way for another power broker in the same region to acquire a nuclear weapon. President Trump has formally approved a landmark agreement with Saudi Arabia that will provide that country with a civilian nuclear program and potentially open the door to uranium enrichment in the kingdom's territory, according to administration officials. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the new deal, which would last 30 years, is estimated to be worth tens of billions of dollars. It is designed to give American companies a central role in developing Saudi Arabia's nuclear infrastructure while shutting out other foreign competitors. The deal is raising eyebrows given the litany of transactions that have occurred within Donald Trump's personal businesses and personal orbit with Saudi Arabia, who have become a favored ally of the United States since Donald Trump's return to The White House. We're back with Amy, Paul and Angelo. Amy, your thoughts?
- [23:54]
Amy McGrath
Well, take the corruption piece out and just think about the national security piece of this, the regional security. The worry is the spread the proliferation of nuclear weapons into an extremely volatile region of the world. Look, this region is always a tinderbox. We've lit it even more with this war, and now we're potentially giving Saudi Arabia, who is in the middle of this region, the nuclear technology not for a weapon, but as the sort of precursor for a possible weapons program. You're giving them the scientific knowledge, you're helping them with reactors right in the middle when you're in a war with their biggest rival, all about this very technology. So to me, it's reckless, totally reckless.
- [24:48]
Nicole Wallace
I want to just read a little bit more from the Wall Street Journal's reporting on this to you, Paul. The Journal reports this. Saudi officials have long argued that the deal is necessary to enable the kingdom to develop a nuclear industry which would draw on unproven uranium or deposits to try to meet energy needs at home that would free up more of its oil production for export and boost revenues. Saudi Arabia insists its intentions are peaceful, although Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto leader of the country, said in 2018 that if Iran ever develops a nuclear weapon, his nation will follow suit. Saudi Arabia is now under threat by Iran in part because of our conduct in the region. This has nothing to do with America first, and I know that. Again, along with being post fact, we're posting holding Trump to his own commitments and political promises over a decade on the world stage. But this is just pickled. In 10 years of cozy business alliances between Jared Kushner and bin Salman, bizarre carrying of the official state messaging of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, not the United States intelligence services, when it comes to the slaughter of Jamal Khashoggi. And this is again, another nuclear program in a region that American service members are currently risking their lives trying to stabilize. Your thoughts?
- [26:22]
Paul Rykoff
This is the most corrupt administration we've ever seen. I feel like every single deal should have a public disclosure of conflicts of interest, because we have no idea how deep the ties go. But I think it's even something bigger. I think it's the best indication that Trump has lost the war in Iran because the Saudis don't trust Trump to take out Iran's new capacity, so they have to build their own. This is an indictment of his war. This says that we're worried that Trump can't take it out. We're worried the Americans are going to leave. And we need a backup plan. And their backup plan is to develop their own nukes because, I mean, I would hope that at least the next generation would say no to another war in the Middle east if that came to the fore. But this one is going south. The likelihood is high that eventually, if not Trump, the next president, will pull the US out of the Middle East. The Iranian threat will not be neutralized. And this is the insurance policy for the Saudis.
- [27:14]
Nicole Wallace
Angelo, the U. S. Saudi alliance is deeply unpopular with all corners of the American people especially and including the MAGA Republican base. How are they taking this?
- [27:28]
Angelo Carusone
Barely. So they're not taking it the way they should. They're holding as, you know, possibly a good thing. There's been a little bit of, very little bit of discussion, just scant reads. I think it will percolate and will sort of turn into something more. Another example of Trump sort of cooperating, especially as some of the information about it comes through, because we're calling it non proliferation. But this is sort of a signal that this is actually the fear that the policy of the United States now, at least under Trump, is actually proliferation. And because that's what this is. And I think once that sort of begins to percolate in parts of the MAGA media, right wing media, they'll be more critical of it. Then it'll tie it into the larger critique of Trump sort of bumbling around on foreign policy. Because it's worth noting that this takeaway is weaker than anything that Biden ever did. Part of the reason the Biden administration didn't engage in a similar deal because they were negotiating with them, is that they had conditions that Trump stripped away. He stripped away conditions without anything in return. That's why this deal got executed. And then to put a bow on it, he's basically enlisting. He enlisted the dead today to justify a policy that he was contradicting simultaneously. And his own secretary of state in 2018 or 2019 sponsored legislation that said that no one can engage in a policy just like this one today unless Congress affirmatively approved it because of the significant ramifications and implications. There are so many. Do I think they're going to revolt over this? Probably not. It's too complicated, too, too hard to see. It's a really long term trend. Do I think some of those cracks will emerge? Yeah, and that's really what this is about in the long term. It's a cumulative effect of all these little things chipping away at sort of the mythology that they gravitated toward in the first in the first place to support Trump.
- [29:12]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, I view this as like a seed that may not sort of be until the Republican primary of 2028 when Marco Rubio and J.D. vance seek to put some distance between themselves in coming out in different positions on it. Because trust me, the US Saudi relationship is really complicated in the minds of all American voters. Amy, Paul and Angelo, these are really serious times. I appreciate all of your serious, thoughtful contributions today. Thank you so much for starting me off after the break. Todd Blanche has been promising over and over again that Donald Trump's Blush Fund is dead. Or kind of dead or mostly dead or a little bit dead. But the two Republican senators he needs to win over to be confirmed as Attorney General do not think it's dead enough. We'll look at all the reasons why next.
- [30:09]
Carl's Jr. Advertiser
At Carl's Jr when late night cravings hit you hit back after 8pm for just 599. Bag the Cali Classic Spicy Chicken Sandwich or for a limited time, the Bacon Cheeseburger. Decide between fries or onion rings and get four chicken stars. You build it. We bag it just 5.99. Build your bag all day and unlock more choices on the app. Available for a limited time at participating restaurants. Tax not included. Price may vary. Not valid to any other offer, discount or combo. See app for details.
- [30:38]
Eugene Daniels
Ms. Now presents the chart topping original podcast the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week, historian, professor and author Heather Cox Richardson.
- [30:49]
Nicole Wallace
What Americans really are doing in this
- [30:51]
Angelo Carusone
moment is recovering their agency, remembering that
- [30:54]
Nicole Wallace
actually there is joy in the creation of a community that is safer.
- [30:58]
Eugene Daniels
The Best People with Nicole Wallace Listen now. For early access ad free listening and bonus content, subscribe to Ms. Now premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [31:11]
Nicole Wallace
If just one of the litany of problems created by Todd Blanche could sink his nomination to be Attorney General, it will be the issue of Donald Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund. Two Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee, Thom Tillis and John Cornyn, have hinged their yes votes for Todd Blanche on the fund being formally and officially killed. Dead over. I'm impressed by Tillis and his written questionnaire for assurances that the slush fund is in fact dead. Todd Blanche continued to stonewall. He would not or could not answer basic questions about how the fund was created and whether or not it would be revived in the future if Donald Trump orders it revived. Another sign that the fund is very much still alive. There was a court hearing on it today. A federal judge is looking for the same assurances. Both Republican senators whose Votes blanch cannot afford to lose if he wants to be. The attorney general signaled to reporters that they are not satisfied with what Blanche has told them. Here's what Senator Tillis had to say to our network.
- [32:16]
Amy McGrath
If the vote were today, would you be a no?
- [32:19]
Pete Hegseth
Well, I've said the 1776.
- [32:21]
Angelo Carusone
I don't know how
- [32:24]
Pete Hegseth
better I can
- [32:25]
Eugene Daniels
communicate other than the 17.
- [32:26]
Pete Hegseth
The 1776 fund has to have a fork.
- [32:37]
Nicole Wallace
Also in the spotlight today is the damage that Todd Blanche has done to the Department of Justice with the purging of hundreds of career civil servants. Here's a testimony from a former DOJ employee who worked on Jack Smith's teams and was fired by Todd Blanche. Peter Carr, warning about the impacts of the purge at a forum held by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.
- [32:59]
Peter Carr
But these firings aren't just unlawful, they're also incredibly damaging to the department and its law enforcement mission. The men and women of the Justice Department handle some of the most complicated and important cases in the government. They're expected to do this and not think about the consequences. They can't do that anymore. This administration has fired or pushed out hundreds of the department's best people for simply doing their jobs, people who did everything by the book. They just happened to work on cases that people now in power don't like, or they refuse to move forward with cases where the facts in the law didn't support criminal charges.
- [33:47]
Nicole Wallace
I want to bring in former Department of Justice pardon attorney Liz Oyer. She testified last week against Todd Blanche and his confirmation, and now she is feeling the effects of that firsthand. We're also joined by justice and Intelligence reporter Kendallanian. Liz, first of all, who appoints prosecutors to work on cases? Is it like circle time where you raise your hand and say, I want this one, I want that one? Or are you assigned by some. Someone above you?
- [34:11]
Liz Oyer
You are signed by someone above you. You don't ask questions. You take the cases that are given to you.
- [34:18]
Nicole Wallace
So who would have been above the men and women that worked on Jack Smith's cases other than Jack Smith?
- [34:24]
Liz Oyer
So in that situation, I'm not sure who assigned those specific prosecutors to those cases. But what I can tell you is that they were assigned based on their experience, based on the needs of the case, by people that they reported to. They were fulfilling and carrying out the duties that were assigned to them. Todd Blanche was asked when he was confirmed or going through the confirmation process for deputy attorney General about whether those people needed to fear for their jobs, and he said no. He promised that he was not going to fire a single person based on the cases that they were assigned to work on. Fast forward one year and he is gleefully gloating and bragging about the fact that he purged, in his words, the department of all of the men and women who ever touched any case involving Donald Trump, as well as all of the January six associated prosecutors and career staff.
- [35:24]
Nicole Wallace
Kandalini, he used the word canned. And he was talking to Matt Schlapp, who runs cpac, an organization that's currently under investigation for potential abuses of Texas taxpayer money by the government of Hungary. But I'm off topic here. My question, what I'm trying to understand is if you were investigating a crime where the target of the investigation had absconded military plans that dealt with Iran and you had expertise on the counterintelligence side with Iran, would you have an option, Would it be optional to work on that case, or would you be brought into that case if that was your expertise in a national security and counterintelligence context?
- [36:05]
Pete Hegseth
Nicole, you're trying to apply logic to what is essentially an authoritarian way of approaching this. That's what the Trump administration is doing. And just a word about Peter Carr, the person whose clip you played there testifying. Peter Carr. I've known him for a long time. He was Robert Mueller's spokesperson as well. He is a Mormon who used to work for Orrin Hatch. Okay. So I don't know what his personal politics are, but I bet at one point he was a Republican. So just so people understand, this isn't a bunch of left wing deep staters who are now complaining that, you know, Donald Trump has come in and cleaned house and gotten the secret conspirers out of the government. They have wrought havoc in the Justice Department by getting rid of experienced, career, nonpartisan people that people, you know, even if people volunteered for in some cases, I'm sure they did for the Jack Smith investigation. That investigation was conducted pursuant to the facts and the law. There's nothing that the Republicans have produced in the last year and a half that contradicts that. They haven't laid a glove on it. There's no evidence of misconduct of any wrongdoing of anything that deviated from Justice Department policy in that investigation. Donald Trump and his people just don't like it because they accused Donald Trump credibly of crimes. And we all know that had those cases gone to trial, there was a very good chance that Donald Trump would have been convicted in either the classified documents case or the election case or both. And so what you have here is an effort to purge people who dared to cross Donald Trump. I attended the speech that he gave early on in his term at the Justice Department and it was very disconcerting to see Donald Trump in those hallowed halls just trashing the people who worked there and knowing that his portrait is now hanging in those halls. And now a year and a half later, we're seeing the fruits of this project.
- [37:52]
Nicole Wallace
Colin, it's such an important point that the people who are being purged either have no politics or if you worked for Orrin Hatch, you might have actually been a Republican at one time. Hell, I was a Republican at one time. I want to press both of you though, on the so what because Thom Tillis has an opportunity for the so what to be revealing that Todd Blanche has made us more dangerous, has put us at risk by purging the very people who protect us from threats like Iran. We'll sneak in a quick break, we'll have that conversation on the other side.
- [38:31]
Peter Carr
It was traumatic. You know, when you choose to devote your life to public service, you do a lot of you make a lot of sacrifices in your career and your career. It's part of my identity, right. Like I am a Justice Department person and so when that's taken away from you, number one, that it, it's very hard. But number two, I'm the father of four children, my family relies on my income and all of a sudden I don't have it. I was not offered severance at the time. My health insurance is gone. My wife had just been recently diagnosed with a life changing diagnosis. She needed health care. I don't have it anymore. We had to scramble and figure out how we were going to do that. It's a traumatic experience for people to go through and I know many people who have experienced this and it's a struggle to find a job after
- [39:44]
Nicole Wallace
that. Was the person we've been talking about, Peter Carr, the one time staffer for Orrin Hatch, a fire DOJ official, talking about basically being stripped away of his identity, of his income, of his health care at a time when his wife was suffering a health crisis. It was a Democratic Senate forum to provide testimony to the public, really and any senators still listening. For all the reasons to oppose Donald Trump's pick to be attorney general, the person who destroyed the department and purged people like that is Todd Blanche. Kendallanean I'm struck by something that Jack Smith said to me about the kind of people inside the department, that there are no people in the department that are Sitting around wearing, like, DNC RNC hats. I mean, there just, there aren't those kinds of people. And so we cover the purge as everything you're getting rid of. What is perhaps most toxic to the department is what they've inserted in their place. Right. Partisan actors being inserted in roles that Robert Mueller used to have. And, you know, these, these Jack Smith, Peter Carr. I mean, it's not just removing the lifeblood of the Department of Justice. It is putting in its place toxic political actors.
- [41:08]
Pete Hegseth
That's correct, Nicole. And it's going to take a generation, perhaps, to repair the damage, because it's not easy to find people to fill those roles once the experienced people have left and gone to private law firms or found something else to do with their lives. And you're right, what I hear from sources is that they don't know when they talk to some of these people who have been elevated to very senior jobs or who have just joined the department. They're not sure where those people are coming from. And they don't always. They don't always speak candidly to one another. So there may be people with a hidden MAGA agenda who are operating, and the civil servants have no idea what they're dealing with. And there's a lot of games being played within the bureaucracy right now because decisions are being made and actions are being taken that are contrary to decades of Justice Department policy. And a lot of times, the people that are carrying out those moves are doing it sort of through a secret conspiracy. It's actually very. It's exactly what the Trump people were accusing the previous Justice Department of doing, which wasn't happening, but it's happening now.
- [42:10]
Nicole Wallace
Nicole Liz, what has your life been like since you testified against Todd Blanche?
- [42:17]
Liz Oyer
Nicole it has genuinely been really scary. I knew I was taking a risk by testifying against one of the most powerful men in America, a man who I know from prior experience to be vindictive. But what has happened since the testimony has really been terrifying. I have been getting death threats and hate mail on a daily basis through every available channel, through multiple different email addresses, through my website, through various social media channels. And it's all because of the disingenuous nature of political discourse in our country. Two senators, Josh Hawley and Eric Schmidt, decided to do some disingenuous grandstanding at the hearing, and they, I think, brought this on. I. I've spoken about the death threats I've been receiving, and Eric Schmidt actually doubled down on concerns by then posting again about me. I mean, this is all in the context of a hearing that I testified at that was about Todd Blanch. And these folks are doing everything they can to distract from the question at hand, which is Blanche's failed leadership of the Justice Department and his fundamental unfitness to be the Attorney general. And they're trying to shift the focus to me, a nonpartisan career civil servant at great expense to my family. And frankly, it is disgusting and despicable and terrifying.
- [43:47]
Nicole Wallace
I am so sorry that you are dealing with that. I am sorry for your family. I admire your brave choices. And I'll tell you this, I have a little bit of visibility into weak Republican men having spent some time on that side of the aisle. And when they know they're holding a really bad hand, they do lash out at the most honorable people in the room. So beyond the fear, there is maybe some comfort in the knowledge that somewhere, somewhere they know they're on the wrong side of this. But if there's anything we can do to support you, Liz, you know you have millions and millions of fans in our audience, Liz Oyer and Kendallane, and thank you for this conversation. When we come back, Texas Attorney General and Senate candidate Ken Paxton seem to believe that Ken Paxton can prevail in November without taking a single question on the extraordinary list of scandals he's facing. We'll show you what happened when journalists tried to ask one. I have a question. Yeah, we're going to get out of here.
- [44:52]
Angelo Carusone
Thank you.
- [44:54]
Nicole Wallace
Can we not have more than one person answer a question? What's your question? I don't know. I need to see that again. That was the moment, the instance when Texas Attorney General and Republican Senate nominee Ken Paxton literally ran, ran from the stage to make something happen, leaving all those sheriffs up there in something that hasn't been explained to me yet, but a matching hat day. It happened. After Ken Paxton was asked about two of his latest scandals, a journalist began to attempt to ask him about this New York Times reporting. Quote, public records reviewed by the time show Ken Paxton, his blind trust and another family trust now own at least 15 properties worth around $9 million, including a luxury cabin in Oklahoma, three homes in Florida, and a plot of land in Hawaii. Another journalist followed that question by asking about reporting from the local paper, the Texas Tribune, that says that Ken Paxton may have violated election law. From that reporting, quote, Ken Paxton appears to have used an address where he did not live while voting in six elections in the past two years, including in May's runoff that made him the Republican nominee for U.S. senator. He's not a man known for speaking with reporters or agreeing to debates. I guess it's becoming pretty clear why that's the case. We'll stay on top of that race after the break. Donald Trump takes another step toward seizing control of our elections. Much more ahead after a short break. Don't go anywhere.
- [46:30]
Angelo Carusone
Can I just quickly say hello to you? For me, being a part of this place has always been about the people, not about the politics. Why are you holding this sign? You ever been to a protest before?
- [46:40]
Pete Hegseth
Be safe.
- [46:41]
Angelo Carusone
People that we cover who allow us to enter their lives. How's everybody doing? Everybody doing okay? How long you guys been in line? I love human beings. To spend time connecting with them is the biggest blessing that I could ask for.
- [46:51]
Eugene Daniels
From the field to the studio, Jacob is finding the heart of the story. Connect with Jacob Soboroff Weekends at 10:00am Eastern on Ms. Now.