"Jay Clayton versus simple questions about who won the 2020 election”

Summary

Podcast Episode Summary

Deadline: White House

Host: Nicolle Wallace
Episode: "Jay Clayton versus simple questions about who won the 2020 election”
Date: July 15, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the explosive Senate confirmation hearing for Jay Clayton, President Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The hearing spotlighted Clayton’s refusal to plainly state that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, raising deep concerns over the politicization of intelligence and the ongoing erosion of democratic norms in Trump's second term. The episode also explores Todd Blanche’s controversial nomination to be Attorney General—scrutinizing his record on political prosecutions, January 6th pardons, and mishandled Jeffrey Epstein files. Wrapped up in the reporting: new revelations about Vice President J.D. Vance’s Secret Service detail.

---

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Jay Clayton’s Confirmation Hearing: Refusing a Basic Truth

Key Moments and Reactions

• Clayton dodges the question on whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election, despite repeated, pointed inquiries from Senators Cornyn and Ossoff.
  • Jay Clayton:

    “Joe Biden was certified as the President of the United States.” [01:31] “He followed our process, had the most electoral votes, was declared the winner…” [02:05]

  • Senator Jon Ossoff:

    "But you refuse to answer a simple matter of fact about the 2020 election. Is that right?" [02:17]
    “Isn't it humiliating to be unable to answer this question, to have to indulge the President's delusions? ... Why can you not give it?" [02:45]

• Nicolle Wallace and panel's analysis:
  • Wallace highlights Clayton’s evasiveness as symptomatic of Trump-era demands for loyalty over truth.

    “Notably the lack of an answer, the lack of an ability of a permission structure… for Jay Clayton to answer that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, he won it decisively." [03:23]

  • Michael Feinberg likens the atmosphere to “North Korea style group think” [05:16], lamenting the transformation of comfortable “normies” into cowed political servants.
  • Former CIA Director John Brennan:

    “His answers lacked total credibility... it’s going to lack credibility in terms of being able to speak…truth to power and to make sure there's going to be objectivity and independence… I hope he does feel humiliated, because he should.” [06:48–08:41]

Notable Quotes

• On the wider impact:
  • “If America sends its top spy chief to deal with America's allies, whichever ones remain, and that person can't say out loud who won the 2020 election... how does that work?” — Nicolle Wallace [06:33]
  • “What our partners are going to be looking at... is going to lack credibility… You want somebody in that position… who is going to fulfill... principles and the ethics that…are supposed to be incumbent in whoever fills that role.” — John Brennan [13:18]

---

2. Domestic Election Interference & Fulton County

The Tulsi Gabbard Precedent

• Clayton waffles on questions about former DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s presence at a controversial FBI raid in Georgia, only admitting knowledge when pressured by Senator Ossoff.
  • Ossoff:

    “Are you aware that Director Gabbard was present at the Fulton county raid earlier this year?” [10:26]

  • Clayton:

    “I was made aware of it by you yesterday.” [10:59]

  • Panel Reaction:

    “It suggests if he didn't [know], he's not paying attention to the news.” — Michael Feinberg [12:19]
    “It's also not true to say, quote, that's a hypothetical. It's going on in Georgia right now.” — Wallace [13:02]

---

3. Press Freedom and the NYT Journalist Subpoenas

Subpoenaing Journalists

• Clayton claims SDNY followed procedure in subpoenaing five New York Times journalists, contradicting legal experts and press advocates.
  • Jay Clayton:

    “I’m confident the procedures in place to protect the First Amendment and... the freedom of the press...were followed.” [14:51]

  • Kendallanian counters:

    “There are no procedures anymore...The governing document...was revoked...So I don’t know what procedures he’s claiming they followed.” [16:27]

  • John Brennan:

    “You don’t go out...issue subpoenas...trying to uncover sources. You find out within your own ranks who is leaking. ...Going to the press with subpoenas...is highly irregular and quite frankly, wrong.” [18:02]

---

4. Department of Justice Under Todd Blanche

Blanche’s Record & Political Prosecutions

• Scrutiny over DOJ 'Weaponization Fund’ and potential for political prosecutions.
  • Sen. John Cornyn quizzes Blanche on the opacity and potential abuse of a $1.8 billion “weaponization fund.” [21:27]
• Mike Gordon:

  “When you stand up in court, you don’t say Todd Blanche for Donald Trump, you say Todd Blanche for the United States. ... Todd Blanche has forgotten who his client really is and what his oath was.” [23:39]

Pardons for January 6th Rioters

• Sen. Dick Durbin:

  “Do you think that blanket pardoned by the president of January 6th rioters was the right thing to do?” [24:36]

• John Cornyn:

  “The Constitution gives the president the full power to pardon anybody for any reason he wants.” [24:52]

• Mike Gordon:

  “The attorney general historically has been independent from the president ever since Watergate..." [25:54]

• Kendallanian (former FBI):

  “Every person who trespassed the Capitol…was attempting to halt the peaceful transition of power…As for people still at the FBI and DOJ...the number of personal friends I have...grows smaller because people just can’t do it anymore.” [27:29–30:18]

Jeffrey Epstein Files and Victims’ Accountability

• Sen. Dick Durbin:

  “Can I get your word under oath that within the next 30 days you will personally sit down with these 10 victims…?” [31:31]

• Blanche dodges, offers only to have staff meet victims.
  • Kristi Greenberg:

    “The idea you can’t meet with a victim if she’s represented by Counselor just the felon is absurd. ... He has clearly no interest in doing that, and that is shameful.” [32:58]

Culture and Morale in DOJ

• Mike Gordon:

  “All of us are planning for the day when the Department of Justice can be restored to what it’s supposed to be... What we're seeing is that we can't just count on good people doing the right thing.” [34:31]

• Nicole Wallace:

  “He seems...personally involved in the firing of people who didn't carry out Trump's will.” [35:48]

---

5. Secret Service & JD Vance: Morale Crisis

Vice President Vance's “Royal” Use of Resources

• Exclusive new reporting from Carol Leonig and Von Hilliard on the resentment brewing inside VP JD Vance’s Secret Service detail over “unprecedented” and “royal” requests, including using a military helicopter for his child's golf lesson.
  • Carol Leonig:

    “They're not used to providing royal treatment to the children of a vice president.” [39:51] “They're basically now making fun of the fact that they are survivors of working for JD Vance and his family.” [42:35]

  • Custom “Bobcat OTR Survivors Club” coins and stickers have become tokens among agents, mocking the frequency and unpredictability of Vance’s family requests.

---

Noteworthy Quotes & Time-stamped Highlights

• “He was putting his answers through what was the equivalent of a Trump food processor… What can I say that's not going to get me a perjury charge, but what's not going to get Trump mad?” — John Brennan [07:33]
• “This is like North Korea style group think we've never seen in American politics.” — Michael Feinberg [05:16]
• “Every week that goes by, the number of personal friends I have in the FBI or at the RFK Building...grows smaller because people just can't do it anymore.” — Kendallanian [29:18]
• “All of us are planning for the day when the Department of Justice can be restored to what it's supposed to be. ...We can't just count on good people doing the right thing.” — Mike Gordon [34:31]

---

Conclusion & Takeaways

This episode delivers a sobering look at the state of American democracy and its institutions under Trump’s second term. Jay Clayton’s hearing is a case study in the corrosive effects of politically motivated loyalty tests, and the consequences resonate—from international credibility, to journalists' rights, to the rule of law itself. The DOJ’s transformation under Todd Blanche and the Secret Service’s frustrations with JD Vance’s requests capture further downward spirals in institutional integrity and morale. Throughout, Nicolle Wallace and her panel drive home the gravity and historic resonance of the moment.

---

Timestamps of Key Segments

• Jay Clayton hearing on 2020 election denial: 00:00–08:41
• Fulton County raid/Tulsi Gabbard episode: 10:13–13:18
• Subpoenas of NYT journalists and First Amendment threats: 14:34–18:28
• Todd Blanche hearing, weaponization fund, & January 6th pardons: 19:27–27:29
• DOJ/Attorney General morale, Epstein files, and survivor meetings: 30:59–35:48
• JD Vance Secret Service reporting: 38:29–44:35

---

Tone & Language

The discussion is urgent, incredulous, and at times exasperated, reflecting the panel’s concern for U.S. democratic institutions, norms, and the rule of law. The language is direct, accessible, at moments darkly humorous, and sharply critical, especially of evasions and abuses of power by Trump officials.

---

This summary covers all the key content of the episode, providing a detailed, time-stamped roadmap for those who did not listen, while highlighting the panel’s most revealing moments and the broader stakes discussed.

Transcript

[Nicole Wallace]

Home to the Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, the briefing with Jen Psaki and more voices you know and trust. Ms. NOW is your source for news, opinion and the world. Learn more at Ms. Now. Hi there, everyone. It's four o'clock in New York. One of the defining missions of Donald Trump's second term as president has been to do whatever he can think of to erase the humiliation of his defeat in 2020 to President Joe Biden. Donald Trump has made it abundantly clear what he wants in that regard from the nation's Director of National Intelligence in helping him pursue that mission. But, you know, that is the person who heads the nation's 18 intelligence agencies. That job was created after 911 to keep us safe. And that is someone who, in Trump's view, should not just indulge his election conspiracies, but help him act them out and relitigate the 2020 presidential election. Today, in his confirmation hearing to be the next Director of National Intelligence on a permanent basis, Jay Clayton did just that. He was repeatedly given opportunities to differentiate himself from former DNI Tulsi Gabbard and current acting DNI Bill Pulte when it comes to their attachment to Donald Trump's election delusions. And he could not answer the simple question about whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Watch.

[Jay Clayton]

Do you deny that Joe Biden won the 2020 election? Senator, I'm not an election denier. Joe Biden was certified as the President of the United States.

[Kendallan]

Can you tell me why Joe Biden

[Senator John Cornyn]

was certified as the winner of the 2020 election?

[Kendallan]

I really.

[Jay Clayton]

I'm going back to my constitutional law here, but I don't want to continue to have debate about this. But I believe he had the most electoral votes.

[Nicole Wallace]

So he won the election.

[Jay Clayton]

He followed our process, had the most electoral votes, was declared the winner, and.

[Nicole Wallace]

And who has the most electoral votes?

[Senator John Cornyn]

Is it the person that wins or

[John Brennan]

the person that loses?

[Jay Clayton]

I think that's your characterization.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

You're here asking for the support of senators to lead America's intelligence community. We've established that you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with this committee and with the American public. But you refuse to answer a simple matter of fact about the 2020 election. Is that right?

[Jay Clayton]

No, that's not right.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

Then answer the question. Who won the 2020 election? I have answered the question. Answer it. What is your answer?

[Jay Clayton]

I've given you my answer.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

What is your answer? You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election, but you asked to lead America's intelligence community. Isn't it humiliating to be unable to answer this question, to have to indulge the President's delusions? We know, you know, everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question. Why can you not give it?

[Jay Clayton]

I think I gave you the answer.

[Nicole Wallace]

Notably the lack of an answer, the lack of an ability of a permission structure, if you will, for Jay Clayton to answer that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, he won it decisively. The reluctance or unwillingness to do that on the part of the person who presumably has enough support to be our country's next spy chief, absent any GOP revolt. It comes just a day ahead of when Donald Trump is set to give a primetime speech that's going to focus on voting machine security and alleged efforts by foreign nations to influence US Elections. Mind you, this speech is going to be a big reveal about stuff that happened while Donald Trump was president. The only election of the three in which he ran that he's going to allege there was interference was the one of the three that he was in charge of. Not the one in 2016 when President Barack Obama was in charge of protecting our elections. Not the one in 2024 when that job fell to Joe Biden. Just the one where he was in charge. Make that make sense. He's also reportedly going to release declassified intelligence documents on these subjects. Donald Trump's pick to be the nation's next Director of National Intelligence engaging in Donald Trump's election lies and delusions during his confirmation hearing. That's not the bottom. I don't know what is, but it's where we start today with the former Director of the CIA. Now our senior national security and intelligence analyst, John Brennan. Also joining us, former assistant Special Agent in charge at the FBI and national security and intelligence analyst Michael Feinberg. And joining me at the table are justice and intelligence reporter Kendallanean. I can't get over the fact that this person's gonna represent the United States of America's intelligence assets around the world and won't say out loud who won the 2020 election. How does that work?

[Michael Feinberg]

He won't say it and he knew this question was coming. I've talked to folks who discussed this with him that he would be asked this. And this is like North Korea style group think we've never seen this in American politics.

[Nicole Wallace]

They just without the group, because Bill Barr called it bullshit. Chris Krebs said it was, quote, the most secure American election in history. Quote, we did it, right? I mean, all of Trump's last All the last Jake Claytons said that there was no interference.

[Michael Feinberg]

But things have changed now. If you work for Donald Trump today in this administration, you have one answer, and that's Joe Biden was certified as president. You're not allowed to say he won. He couldn't use the.

[Nicole Wallace]

He can't even say why he was certified.

[Michael Feinberg]

Exactly, exactly. And you know, Jon Ossoff asked, wasn't it humiliating? And of course it was humiliating. You could see it in Jay Clayton's face. Jay Clayton is, was thought to be one of the normies, right? Like he ran the SEC in the first Trump administration and he emerged with a decent reputation. And people were relieved. They people want him instead of Bill Pulte as the dni, or they thought they did. I'll tell you, Mark Warner, who had had a good relationship with Jay Clinton before this, the ranking Democrat on that committee, went into that hearing inclined to vote for Jay Clayton. And my understanding is he's not going to vote for him now. He said during the hearing he was incredibly disappointed with that performance.

[Nicole Wallace]

Director Brennan, what does happen if America sends its top spy chief to deal with America's allies, whichever ones remain, and that person can't say out loud who won the 2020 election?

[John Brennan]

Well, as John Ossoff said, his answers lacked total credibility. And I think that's what our partners are going to be looking at. It's going to lack credibility in terms of being able to speak, as they say, proverbial truth to power and to make sure that there's going to be objectivity and independence in terms of our intelligence. You know, the whole hearing today was mind boggling. As Ken pointed out, both sides of the aisle, they're salivating for, you know, having Jay Clayton go in there and replace somebody as corrupt and as incompetent as Bill Pulte. And they wanted him to say the right things. And he could have, he could have easily said, yes, Joe Biden won the election and yes, what Tulsi Gabbard did in Georgia in terms of showing up with the FBI agents there was inconsistent with the authorities of the Director of National Intelligence. Was Donald Trump going to pull back his nomination? This is his opportunity to be able to demonstrate to both sides of the aisle and internationally as well that he is a man of integrity and he did have a great reputation beforehand. I know Mark Warner and Jim Himes, the head of the Democratic member of the House Intel Committee, they all spoke very highly of Jay Clayton. But here he was just in one hearing, and for a prosecutor and a lawyer I don't think he handled any of those questions very deftly. It was clear that he was quite flustered and he was putting his answers through what was the equivalent of a Trump food processor trying to think, okay, what can I say that's not going to get me involved in a perjury charge, but at the same time, what's not going to going to get Donald Trump mad? Well, if he would have said those things very easily, I think it would have been overwhelming the support in the committee as well as in the Senate. Let's get this guy confirmed and let's get this Bill Pulte out of the Director of National Intelligence before he does even more damage. And I'm sure Jay Clayton today is just shaking his head in terms of what happened today, and I hope he does feel humiliated, because he should.

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, I think, Michael Feinberg, you add that it's in the record that Donald Trump said this, quote, I can't believe I lost to this effing guy. That's the sworn testimony of Sarah Matthews before the January 6th select committee. So you could have quoted Donald Trump.

[Kendallan]

Yeah, there's lots of things that Jay Clayton could have done during this hearing that he chose not to. And I'll confess I'm less mystified by his answers because this is sort of what we expect from Trump nominees at this point than I am by his general demeanor. His whole tenor in tone during this hearing was not very savvy. If he gets this job, which given the way that Republican senators get behind each other, he probably will, I mean, let's be honest. But if Congress flips in the midterms, he's going to have to deal with all these people. And the first opportunity that he had to build trust, instead, he struck a match and threw it in a pool of gasoline. These are the people on the Select Committee for Intelligence or their House counterpart who he is going to have to brief. These are the people who are going to approve his budget. These are the people who are going to have oversight of his operations and analysis. Like he needs to interact with Congress as the Director of National Intelligence. He did not show that baseline understanding

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

today,

[Nicole Wallace]

I think for a lot of reasons. I'm going to show you more of Jon Ossoff's questioning of Jay Clayton.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

Are you aware that Director Gabbard was present at the Fulton county raid in Georgia earlier this year?

[Jay Clayton]

You. You discussed that with me yesterday in your office.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

Are you aware that Director Gabbard was present at the Fulton county raid earlier this year?

[Jay Clayton]

You brought it to me, my.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

What is going on here? You've said at the beginning of this, you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee. I'm asking a very simple question. Are you aware that Director Gabbard was present at the Fulton county raid earlier this year? Yes or no? Are you aware?

[Jay Clayton]

I was.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

You won't answer that question.

[Jay Clayton]

I just said I was made aware of it by you yesterday.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

The first time you learned that Director Gabbard was present at that raid was in my office yesterday.

[Jay Clayton]

It was the first time that in my recollection, I've thought about it recently. Now, was I aware of it before?

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

What? Are you aware that former Director Grabber testified that her presence at the raid was, quote, requested by the president?

[Jay Clayton]

I'm not aware of that until now.

[Senator Jon Ossoff]

If the White House chief of staff or the president asks you to travel somewhere across the United States and oversee the execution of a domestic search warrant on a sensitive election facility, will you do it? Is that appropriate? Is that appropriate for the Director of National Intelligence?

[Jay Clayton]

That's a hypothetical.

[Nicole Wallace]

An extraordinary display of. It looked to me like lying. I think even Fox News, in a very complimentary way, went back and covered the FBI raid in the Fulton county election office. So I don't know what rock he was under, and maybe I can rent the rock, but I just don't believe that he didn't know until Ossoff told him.

[Michael Feinberg]

I mean, it suggests if he didn't, he's not paying attention to the news

[Nicole Wallace]

because it was huge news anywhere. I mean, it was everywhere.

[Michael Feinberg]

And given.

[Nicole Wallace]

I think Trump tweeted it and Tulsi tweeted it. So he's also not following Trump on social media, which I don't believe for a guy that ambitious.

[Michael Feinberg]

And this is one of the central questions, if you're about to take this job, is what are you willing to do and what are you not willing to do when it comes to domestic elections? Because clearly, Donald Trump wants a DNI that's going to be heavily involved in this issue of was there foreign interference? Was the 2020 election stolen? You know, he want. There's an FBI investigation ongoing right now of that. And if you're thinking about, do I want this job, what am I going to do in this job? This is one of the central issues. So how did he not know that?

[Nicole Wallace]

I mean, it's also not true to say, quote, that's a hypothetical. It's going on in Georgia right now. It's not even theoretical. It's an actual Director Brennan. I mean, what do you do with this lack of candor today?

[John Brennan]

That's why I think Senator Ossoff and Senator Kelly's questions were very well put. And as you point out, it's not a hypothetical. Again, you answer the question that it is inconsistent with my understanding of the authorities of Director of National Intelligence. The Director of National Intelligence should be there when FBI agents are serving a search warrant. There are ways to do that. But I think, as both Michael and Ken pointed out, he wasn't very agile in terms of how he was answering it. Clearly he was. You could see his mind going through the process of thinking about how am I going to phrase this without getting on the wrong side of the president? And clearly, I think you want to be able to have somebody in that position of Director of National Intelligence who really is going to be able to speak, speak truthfully and not put it through some type of political calculus that you're not going to irritate the person who is going to be making some of these decisions. So I think, by all accounts, he did not meet the requirements today for the Director of National Intelligence. But somebody who oversees those 18 intelligence agencies, particularly at a time we're at war with Iran, we have challenges with Russia, China, across the board. You want somebody who really is going to fulfill, I think, what the spirit of that position, as well as just adhere to the principles and the ethics that I think are, you know, supposed to be incumbent in whoever is going to, you know, fill that, that role.

[Nicole Wallace]

I want to show you something else he said today under oath about sdny, which he currently leads, and their unprecedented subpoenas for five New York Times journalists. Michael Feinberg, here's more. Jay Clayton,

[Jay Clayton]

I can't get into the specifics of an investigation, an ongoing matter. Let me say that I'm confident that the procedures that we have in place to protect the First Amendment and protect the freedom of the press and not result in intimidation of journalists or the like, were followed.

[Nicole Wallace]

I mean, Michael, the general Counsel of the New York Times, David McCraw, doesn't think so, has called it a blatant violation. And I think press watchers around the world have described it as, quote, chilling. Your thoughts?

[Jay Clayton]

Yeah.

[Kendallan]

Look, I spent an entire career oftentimes investigating the mishandling of classified information, oftentimes to journalists who are not allowed to receive it. And I'm probably more sympathetic than anybody else on this show right now to the idea that there might be circumstances under which reporters should be subpoenaed. But I'm also self aware and savvy enough to realize that that is an incredibly controversial opinion and to actually act on it is going to divide the country. And if you know anything about the history of the First Amendment or its jurisprudence or you know the slightest bit about how the intelligence community, namely the CIA and the FBI, wrote absolute roughshod over it for the entirety of the Cold War until the Church Committee,

[Jay Clayton]

you

[Kendallan]

would be a little bit more articulate and humble in justifying it. And we should point out one more thing. In his answer, he said he is confident that all procedures were followed for the subpoenaing of journalists. There are no procedures anymore. The governing document was a memorandum enacted by Eric Holder when he was Attorney General. It has been enforced except for the first Trump administration, when there were still enough professionals who, even if it wasn't official policy, abided by its guidelines. It's been enforced for decades now, and Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and Emil Beauvais revoked it. So I don't know what procedures he's claiming that they followed in making this decision to get these records, but as near as I could tell, like, the only procedural hurdle they might face is, you know, Donald Trump's uncheckable ID any given day.

[Michael Feinberg]

Look, Merrick Garland actually strengthened that memo and made it almost impossible to subpoena reporters because that chills our ability to do our job full stop. I mean, it's a very destructive thing to do. There is precedent for it, obviously, the Valerie Plain CIA leak case, but generally, they go through all kinds of hoops before they do this. This was done within 24 hours after cash Patel was summoned to the White House. We have never seen this before in modern history.

[Nicole Wallace]

Director Brennan, I'll give you the last word.

[John Brennan]

Yeah, I think what the government should be doing is looking at the source of the leaks inside of the executive branch or the legislative branch, whatever. You don't go out press and, you know, issue subpoenas and trying to uncover the sources. You find out within your own ranks who is, in fact, leaking national security information. So there's an obligation to be able to stop those leaks. But going to the press with subpoenas in the first instance, I think is highly, highly irregular and quite frankly, wrong.

[Nicole Wallace]

Former Director John Brennan. Kendallanian, thank you so much for covering this with us today. When we come back, the other confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill, Donald Trump, former personal attorney who's been nominated by Donald Trump to be the Attorney General. Todd Blanche, one single Republican vote against him could kill his chances. We'll dig into how that went. Plus, Blanche also at that hearing, says he can't meet with the Epstein survivors. We're expected to hear from many of them this hour. We'll bring that to you when we do. Also ahead, our friend Rachel Maddow will join me right here at the table on all of the day's news. Much more ahead. Don't go anywhere. There's a lot of news to cover. Money, the economic fallout from the war, Is it temporary Power? Is this White House for sale?

[John Brennan]

Politics.

[Nicole Wallace]

What is your message to the country right now?

[Kendallan]

Money, power, politics. With Stephanie rule, weekdays at 9am Eastern on Ms. Now,

[Nicole Wallace]

other than politicizing intelligence, the other hallmark of Donald Trump's second term as president has been to turn his rhetoric about retribution into a single governing philosophy. And no agency has carried out that philosophy as completely as Donald Trump's Department of Justice. There are the prosecutions and investigations into people like Jim Comey and Tish James and Jerome Powell. There are the pardons for the January 6th rioters. Investigations opened into the spouse of a woman killed by ice, the ongoing cover up of Epstein. Related materials, all of it has transpired under the leadership of the current acting attorney general and now nominee to be Attorney general Todd Blanche. Today, the Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee gave him an opportunity to articulate a direction different from any of those flagrant abuses of norms and power at his confirmation hearing, an opportunity he did not seize. Senators Cory Booker and Adam Schiff were specifically powerful in their condemnations of him.

[Mike Gordon]

So this isn't a confirmation hearing. This is more of a performance review. And clearly, when it comes to the treatment of Epstein victims, when it comes to politically motivated prosecutions, when it comes from avoiding appearance of impropriety with corporations, you failed. You seem to be favoring the interests of a president and the powerful. You've chosen Trump over truth. What happened to the prosecutor who once respected the rule of law? What happened to the prosecutor who said that there wouldn't be a whiff of political partisanship? And then prosecutes the president's enemies over seashells cases, over making a video stating the plain law and Constitution? What happened to the Todd Blanche of the Southern District of New York that could convert him into you, someone willing to say the president has both the right and the duty to prosecute his political enemies? I cannot imagine that Todd Blanche of the old days would have ever done that.

[Nicole Wallace]

Now, importantly, Todd Blanche's confirmation is dead, doomed, over if he loses one single Republican vote. And the one Republican who seemed to take the hardest sort of posture against Todd Blanche today was Texas Senator John Cornyn, who pressed Todd blanche on that $1.8 billion slush fund.

[Mike Gordon]

I believe you have said that the weaponization fund is a moot issue. Is that your position?

[Senator John Cornyn]

Yes, it is a moot issue. Meaning there is no weaponization fund. The weaponization fund is dead. It's not moving forward.

[Mike Gordon]

On page four, this settlement agreement can be modified, may be modified only upon the written agreement of the parties. Has there been a written agreement of the parties to modify the settlement fund?

[Senator John Cornyn]

No, the settlement fund's just not moving forward. There's nothing. There's no modification. It's just. It never started.

[Mike Gordon]

Is the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties?

[Senator John Cornyn]

Well, yes, it's an enforceable document. So I suppose if President Trump's counsel sought to enforce it, they potentially could,

[Mike Gordon]

including the weaponization fund?

[Senator John Cornyn]

Well, they could try to enforce a the contract. They can't force the Department of Justice to move forward with the weaponization fund. They could potentially say that, I suppose, that we breached by not moving forward. They haven't done that, and I'm not aware that they're planning on doing that.

[Nicole Wallace]

I mean, why would you be aware unless you were also acting as Trump's attorney? Now, Cornyn told reporters after that exchange that he still had more concerns, leaving Blanche's confirmation in question, at least for now. I want to bring in the former senior prosecutor, DOJ's January 6 insurrection case, Mike Gordon. He was fired by the Trump administration. He's now suing, alleging his firing was politically motivated. And joining me at the table, legal analyst Kristi Greenberg is here. She's a former criminal division deputy chief at SDNY. She's also the host of the YouTube show Courtside. Michael Feinberg is still here. Mike, just take me through what you saw Todd Blanche trying to do today.

[Mike Gordon]

Well, I saw him try to justify the turn he's made in his career. Todd Blanche was an ausa like I was, like Christie was. He has done this job, and he understands that on day one of becoming a federal prosecutor, you learn, or if you didn't already know, that your client is not the president, it's the American people, that when you stand up in court, you don't say Todd Blanche for Donald Trump, you say Todd Blanche for the United States. And so you're not his personal attorney anymore. And if the president's whims conflict with the law or the Constitution, your duties to the Constitution and the law. And so what I saw was Todd Blanche try to justify all the things that he has done over the past year that show that he has forgotten who his client really is and what his oath was.

[Nicole Wallace]

Mike, let me show you what he had to say about the January 6th pardons.

[Senator Dick Durbin]

Trump friends among those who were pardoned by the president are individuals who've gone on to commit serious crimes against innocent victims across the United States. Do you think that blanket pardoned by the president of January 6th rioters was the right thing to do?

[Senator John Cornyn]

I think that this, the Constitution gives the president the full power to pardon anybody for any reason he wants. And so I don't question President Trump's authority or his decision to do so on

[Nicole Wallace]

I mean, Mike Cordon, I guess the answer from a law student might be okay, I read the chapter on what the Constitution says the president maybe not even law school. I guess we'll put that back in high school civics. But the answer from the nation's top cop about the crimes that the people that were pardoned for their violent crimes in some instances on January 6th have gone on, according to NPR, to carry out child sex crimes. And they told one of the victims, according to NPR's reporting again, to be quiet about the molestation because he was coming into money from this slush fund. I mean, what does it say when the country's attorney general won't speak to the recidivism of the pardons that were issued on his watch?

[Mike Gordon]

It says that he's essentially left his judgment and his ethics at the door and that whatever the president says is that he's what he's going to fall in line behind. And the attorney general historically has been independent from the president ever since Watergate for the reasons that we need the nation's top law enforcement officer to be loyal to the law. First, you know, it's not and it's not just the pardons. I want your viewers understand that the way the weaponization slush fund and the tossing of the seditious conspiracy convictions, how it plays in to the pardons. The pardons didn't cover the 14 members of the Oath Keepers and proud boys who were convicted of seditious conspiracy. Right. The ones who spent months plotting the overthrow of our government. And a jury convicted them of that. The pardons didn't cover them. It just commuted their sentences, let them get out of jail. But the convictions stood. Todd Blanche recently asked the court to toss their convictions too, so that they will forever onward be in the eyes of the law, never guilty of plotting to overthrow the government. And I don't know how Todd Blanche can justify that.

[Nicole Wallace]

MICHAEL Feinberg Weigh in on what this means for the people who remain inside the department if violent crimes prosecuted by their predecessors, and I guess in some instances their former colleagues are erased because of perceived political affiliation. Being on Trump's team.

[Kendallan]

It's very difficult for me to speak about this in an entirely objective manner. I was a supervisory special agent in the Washington field office. On January 6, I was called from home along with every other special agent to come respond. I spent a 24 hour period providing security at the homes of prominent members of Congress, including some who, to be blunt, are no totally on board with these pardons. But at the time they were rattled. I don't understand how anybody who has ever taken an oath to the Constitution, or as you put it, a basic high school civics class, can be okay with these pardons. Every single person who trespassed against the Capitol on that day was attempting to halt the peaceful transition of power in their own country. A large number of them assaulted police officers who were trying to protect our democracy. Another number of them actually were convicted of seditious conspiracy, as Mike noted. And if you look at the history books, that is not a common charge that gets thrown about light. That signifies how serious this was taken by everybody involved, including the Trump officials who began the January 6th investigations prior to Biden's inauguration. As for people still at the FBI and still at doj, I don't know. I left, obviously. So maybe let my actions tell you my gut instinct. There is an argument for staying. If you're a good person, if you value the rule of law, perhaps once or twice, maybe you might be a bulwark against some of the more offensive instincts of this administration. But at the same time, I think there's a legitimate worry that by staying you give a professional sheen to a fundamentally now corrupt enterprise. I don't think there's a right answer. I think it's between every attorney, every agent and every employee and their own conscience and their families and what they think they could do in terms of good and what they can live with compromising. I don't envy them. I will note that every week that goes by, the number of personal friends I have in the FBI or at the RFK Building of Main justice grows smaller because people just can't do it anymore.

[Nicole Wallace]

I want to press all three of you on what that means for US national security. On the other side of the break, also on the other side of the break, Todd Blanche faced questions from some Republicans on the Justice Department's handling of one issue, and that was the Jeffrey Epstein files. We'll tell you about that. On the other. There's a lot of news to cover.

[Kendallan]

Money.

[Nicole Wallace]

The economic fallout from the war. Is it temporary power? Is this White House for sale?

[John Brennan]

Politics.

[Nicole Wallace]

What is your message to the country right now?

[Jay Clayton]

Money, Power.

[Kendallan]

Politics. With Stephanie rule, weekdays at 9am Eastern on Ms. Now,

[Nicole Wallace]

Todd Blanche was essentially in charge of the administration's handling of the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files after it became the law of the land. He oversaw the Justice Department's botched, incomplete release of what they did put out publicly at his confirmation hearing today, Todd Blanche got into a tense back and forth with Senator Dick Durbin, going back and forth specifically about whether he would meet with Epstein survivors. Here's a little bit of that exchange.

[Senator Dick Durbin]

Can I get your word under oath that within the next 30 days you will personally sit down with these 10 victims and hear their case in terms of what needs to be done by

[Senator John Cornyn]

the Department of Justice Chairman, I appreciate them being here today. I also have somebody from my office who's spent her entire career working on cases like Mr. Epstein's. She's in charge of our task force investigating human trafficking. She's available to talk to them.

[Senator Dick Durbin]

She can sit right next to you. She can sit right next to you when you meet with these survivors.

[Senator John Cornyn]

I have never said I will not meet with survivors.

[Senator Dick Durbin]

Will you meet with these 10 survivors? I'm asking you on the record.

[Senator John Cornyn]

They have lawyers. As you know, I'm prohibited from meeting directly with them.

[Senator Dick Durbin]

Will you get it done within the next 30 days that each.

[Senator John Cornyn]

I will get it done today, if that's necessary. My point is there's somebody here who can meet with them today, get their information arranged, to meet with them.

[Senator Dick Durbin]

I think you ought to be in the room.

[Senator John Cornyn]

Pardon me?

[Senator Dick Durbin]

I think you ought to be in the room because you ought to hear this. You had singular responsibility for these files. There was a delay in meeting the statutory requirement on disclosure. You were involved in that. I think you ought to be part of this.

[Nicole Wallace]

Important to note that Todd Blanche did think it was important for him to meet personally with convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. Christy Greenberg, where are we? That was just such crap.

[Kristi Greenberg]

I mean, first of all, yeah, he met with Ghislaine Maxwell, with her lawyer. The idea that you can't meet with a victim if she's represented by Counselor just the felon is absurd. I mean, I met with how many different victims with their attorneys in the room. I mean, that's how you investigate sex trafficking cases. So that's just a Lie. Second of all, he's saying wants to punt it, oh, this person from DOJ is here who investigates human trafficking. Talk to her. You wrote the memo. You wrote the memo that said there's no other.

[Nicole Wallace]

You know, let me just stop you. Why didn't that person meet with Ghislaine Maxwell?

[Kristi Greenberg]

Exactly. Why didn't somebody from SDNY who prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell meet with Ghislaine Maxwell? Why were none of the agents or the prosecutors in the room? Why did he do that? And the reason, at least according to the New York Times reporting, based on what was going on in the Situation Room, is that's what they came up with, to basically have a narrative for this story to figure out if she could essentially exonerate Donald Trump. That was the purpose of that meeting. Whereas these victims actually want to talk about leads, they want to talk about cases. He has clearly no interest in doing that, and that is shameful.

[Nicole Wallace]

Mike, what is the sort of conversation among prosecutors who've been purged, fired, sort of menaced by Todd Blanche, Pam Bondi, Emil Bove, about Todd Blanche rising to the top of that heap?

[Mike Gordon]

Everybody's dismayed. This is the classic example of somebody kind of rising to the level of their willingness to put their morals and their ethics and their training kind of underneath their ambition. So those of us who have either been purged from the department or have left because we can't kind of stand to be part of it, because we look at the risk that Mike Feinberg was illustrating earlier about, do you stay and be complicit, or do you leave and keep your principle intact? All of us are planning for the day when the Department of Justice can be restored to what it's supposed to be, to what used to be, and trying to think, how do we build this in the future so that when the day comes, and it will come, I still have that hope that when that day comes, the principle of the Department of Justice don't just depend on norms, they don't just depend on good people being in place, but there are actually laws and rules that require it to be so. Because what we're seeing is that we can't just count on good people doing the right thing. Because Todd Blanche is showing that somebody who used to be a by the book, ausa, when he gets to this position of power, he throws that out

[Nicole Wallace]

the window and he seems that he was personally involved in the firing of people who didn't carry out Trump's will. Is that the case, obviously, with your dismissal and firing Mike Yeah, I don't

[Mike Gordon]

know if he was involved in mine. Part of the issue with my case is that it's never gotten to the discovery point. We're still waiting on Judge Cobb in D.C. to decide on jurisdiction. But, you know, beyond that, I certainly suspect it because of all the things I've heard about his oversight of the Weaponization Working Group and the Weaponization Working Group being the place where the names for heads to be put on stakes like mine came from.

[Nicole Wallace]

Mike Gordon, we really appreciate getting to talk to you today. Michael Feinberg, we always appreciate getting to talk to you. Thank you both for joining us today. After the break, exclusive new reporting on from our friend Carol Leonig on JD Vance and his relationship with the Secret Service. We'll tell you all about it next. Our colleagues Carol Lennig and Von Hilliard are out with some gobsmacking. Exclusive new reporting on simmering tensions within J.D. vance's Secret Service detail over crazy requests by J.D. vance and his family, considered completely unprecedented compared to every past vice president of the United States. From that new report, quote on Thursday last week, Secret Service agents groused amongst themselves as they prepared to deliver another perk to Vice President Vance's family, join a military helicopter crew to fly his young son to his golf lesson, end quote. The trip was canceled due to weather, but three sources tell Carol and Vaughn this, quote, the Secret Service staff's complaints about a planned chopper ride for an elementary school student reflects a building morale problem inside the team of agents assigned to shield Vance and his young family. Agents have shared concerns internally about Vance and his office pressing them for trips and assignments that some agents consider an inappropriate or even unprecedented use of government resources compared to prior vice presidents the agents pulled in to protect Vance and his family have also become fed up with the last minute travel demands that Vance and his wife, Usha Vance frequently place on the security team. The vice president's office provided a statement to Emma Snow saying this in part, quote, the Vance's are grateful to the men and women of the U.S. secret Service who serve our country with distinction. Joining us at the table, senior investigative reporter Carol Lennig. To the last sentence of this story, it is a holy.

[Carol Leonig]

You know what, thanks, Nicole. Thanks for being patient as we tried to work with this story and work with our sources to make sure that it was above reproach. You know, the Secret Service doesn't complain a lot. I've covered them for a long time. But this was the kind of tip I felt like we should try to figure out if it was true. Because when they're angry in this way, it's sort of a red alarm. They are an overworked under resourced agency. And now they're being asked to go on a military helicopter flight on Marine 2 with the son of the Vice president to take him to a golf lesson from D.C. across town to Andrews, former Andrews Air Force Base, now Joint Base Andrews. Usually that kind of travel takes place in an suv. In this case, we learned from sources that the Vice President was planning to go on this trip as well. The trip ultimately got canceled because of thunderstorms that day. But they flagged it to me, these sources, because it's reflective of this bigger problem you just beautifully outlined. They are feeling really strapped by the last minute travel and the unprecedented requests from Vance. And some of them use the word royal treatment. You know, that they're not used to providing royal treatment to the children of a vice president.

[Nicole Wallace]

Let me read more from the story, which is absolutely extraordinary and incredibly detailed. First of all, quote, the White House military office, which reports to the President, would have to authorize the use of the helicopter for the golf lesson. Operating the helicopter costs taxpayers between $16,024,600 per hour. That's according to a 2022 Defense Department budget estimate. An administration official familiar with Vance's travel said the vice president planned to accompany his son. But to take your kid to golf to charge the taxpayers $25,000 an hour.

[Carol Leonig]

You know, it's reflective for me of how much more VIP helicopter travel there was right from the get go of the Trump administration. This presumption that anybod could basically use a helicopter as an Uber. And it preceded that horrible, horrible, fatal crash between a passenger jet and a military helicopter that was training at least to do a lot more VIP travel. There is just buzzing all over Washington D.C. with these helicopters. And in this case, the Secret Service is kind of waving the flag. Like, is this, is this where we want to go with the use of our resources, which are pretty limited?

[Nicole Wallace]

Let me read a little bit more from the story. They have a strong culture, Secret Service. Anyone who's ever been privileged to travel with the President has the privilege of benefiting in that sort of umbrella of protection. I certainly did when I traveled with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, especially after September 11th when they were very cognizant of how anxious people felt. And it is a real tight culture. You're sort of walking in small groups in and out of helicopters and in and out of tight corners and walking through kitchens of hotels. I mean, you really spend a lot of intimate time together and they sort of have some gallows humor. Let me read this. Quote, the frustration over the last minute asks from the Vances has boiled over to the point that agents have made custom coins and stickers to mock the frequency of the Vice President's and his family's last minute travel using JD Vance's Secret Service codename Bobcat, according to images reviewed by msnow, featuring an image of a bobcat's head. The coins and stickers read, quote, bobcat otr, which is an off the record. Right. An unplanned Stop Bobcat OTR survivors club. Explain.

[Carol Leonig]

These challenge coins and stickers are kind of a black market token for agents to share some sort of arduous assignment they've had together to also foster sort of mutual respect and trust about their adventures. Some of them hijinks, some of them really deadly serious. Right. And in this case we were steered to look at some of these images because they're basically now making fun of the fact that they are survivors of working for JD Vance and his family. I want to say something with, with care and in fairness to the Vance family, they're the first vice presidential family with really, really young kids at the Naval Observatory in a long time. But I'm so glad you mentioned the history of Dick Cheney because it was a threat after 911 to Dick Cheney's children that led to vice president's children and grandchildren getting more and more protection. That's where it all began. Historically. Biden wanted the same for his children and his grandchildren. But the Vance family is in this situation of like, how do we take care of our kids, raise them in the city and also have Vance serve as a vice president. You know, we want to put our hands together for a father who wants to spend time with his children. But maybe at not the agents maybe don't want to do it at $26,000 an hour.

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, and there's no reporting in this piece at least that suggests that anyone objected to driving them to the lesson in an suv. This was a, the helicopter specifically, right?

[Carol Leonig]

It absolutely was. And Vance being on the helicopter makes it more justified, if you will, because Vance, every time the helicopter travels, you know, it's Marine too. It's an official trip. But a golf lesson raises serious doubts about how official or how necessary it was. And you know, the Vice President should be allowed to spend time with his family. Agents are kind of crying out, we've had enough of this. And this is the worst example for them of a series of cases in which they feel the agency is being burdened.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's unbelievable new reporting. Carolina, Christy Greenberg, thank you so much for joining us today. After the break, Rachel Maddow will be here at the table for real. Quick break. We'll be right back.

[Kendallan]

Have you ever wanted to share your opinions with Ms. NOW about our TV programs, podcasts, live events and more? Now's your chance to have have your voice heard. Join the MSNow Insights community at Ms. Now Insights.