← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“leave no survivors”
00:45:08
Nicolle Wallace breaks down Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s military order to “kill them all” on the first boat strike in the Caribbean. These boat strikes were carried out on suspicion of drug trafficking.
Loading summary
Transcript69 lines
- [00:00]
Nicole Wallace
Deadline White House is brought to you by Progressive, where drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average. Plus auto customers qualify for an average of 7 discounts. Quote now@progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who save with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations. Hey guys. Finding the perfect gift for the food lover in your life is easy thanks to Gold Belly.
- [00:35]
Bill Baumgartner
Gold Belly ships America's most iconic foods.
- [00:38]
Nicole Wallace
Straight from world famous restaurants right to your door. So if you want to treat someone to Joe's Stone Crab from Miami, Franklin Barbecue from Texas, or desserts from famous foodies like Ina Garten or Martha Stewart, Goldbelly has you covered. Just go to goldbelly.com and for a limited time get 20% off your first order with promo code gift. That's promo code gift.
- [01:05]
Claire McCaskill
Hi everyone. Happy Monday. It's 4 o'clock in New York. We cannot say that they didn't warn us. We begin today with the words of those who at critical moments in Donald Trump's first presidency, pushed back against Donald Trump's wishes to use the military any way he wanted.
- [01:23]
Mark Hertling
When he would tell me that he wanted to do something 100% of the time, I check with the White House counsel because oftentimes he wouldn't have the.
- [01:35]
Nicole Wallace
Authority to do what he wanted to do. I'd explain to him, we can't do that. It would violate international law. It would be terrible for our neighbors to the south.
- [01:45]
Claire McCaskill
It would violate international law. It would be terrible. Quote, he didn't have the authority to do the things he wanted to do. Those comments were jarring at the time and now they serve as a canary in the coal mine for where we find ourselves today, right now, in the aftermath of extraordinary reporting that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the military to leave no survivors on a strike against boats in the Caribbean. Donald Trump and the Trump administration begin the week on the defensive after the Washington Post was the first to report the that Pete Hegseth ordered everyone on the boat killed according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. A follow up strike was conducted when it became clear that there were two survivors from the initial strike. Both of them were reportedly killed in that second strike. The Washington Post adds that SEAL Team 6 led that attack based on what we know from their reporting. It is by the accounts of lawyers and lawmakers from both parties and experts and everyone who has weighed in publicly, likely illegal. A group of former military leaders and lawyers known as the former JAGS working group. They write this in a statement, quote, not only does international law prohibit targeting these survivors, but it also requires the attacking force to protect, to rescue and if applicable, to treat them as prisoners of war. Violations of these obligations are war crimes, murder, or both. There are no other options, end quote. The black and white nature of what legal experts say the law says about the strikes are unavoidable even for Republicans, even in the time of Trump. Here's the head of the House Armed Services Committee, Republican Mike Turner.
- [03:30]
Mark Hertling
Obviously, if that occurred, that would be very serious and I agree that that would be an illegal act.
- [03:37]
Bill Baumgartner
That is not the legal opinion or.
- [03:40]
Mark Hertling
The information or the legal justification. The acts that have been described to Congress that are undertaken. There are very serious concerns in Congress.
- [03:52]
Bill Baumgartner
About the attacks on the so called.
- [03:55]
Mark Hertling
Drug boats down in the Caribbean and the Pacific and the legal justification that's been provided.
- [04:04]
Claire McCaskill
So called so called attacks on drug boats because the evidence hasn't been made clear to the public or it would appear the Congress, the Senate Armed Services Committee also announcing an investigation, promising, quote, vigorous oversight, end quote. And again, that is news in and of itself. There's been nothing vigorous in the category of oversight for the last 11 months. For his part, Secretary Hegseth initially called the Washington Post reporting, quote, fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory, end quote. While at the same time publicly defending the decision to strike the boats in the Caribbean. He then posted a meme, a parody of a children's book character, Franklin the Turtle. His boss has had a different response. He has publicly sounded much more circumspect, if you can use that word to describe Trump in his defense of alleged war crimes. Here's Donald Trump yesterday.
- [05:04]
Mark Hertling
I don't know anything about it. He said he did not say that and I believe him.
- [05:08]
Claire McCaskill
If there were a second strike that killed wounded people, wounded in the first strike, are you.
- [05:13]
Nicole Wallace
Well, number one, number one, I don't know that that happen.
- [05:17]
Mark Hertling
And Pete said he did not want them. He didn't even know what people were talking about.
- [05:23]
Nicole Wallace
So we'll look into it.
- [05:25]
Mark Hertling
But no, I wouldn't have wanted that.
- [05:27]
Nicole Wallace
Not a second strike.
- [05:30]
Claire McCaskill
I wouldn't have wanted that. Not a second strike. I wouldn't have wanted that. The news of the second strike puts the video that was made by those six Democrats who simply urged members of the military, men and women in the military to not follow any order that is illegal and Donald Trump's and Pete Tegsess and the administration's insane, hyperbolic, furious backlash to that simple message in that video. We have to look at that differently now. Right? Here's one of the six Democrats who appear in that video who's now under investigation by the Pentagon. Senator Mark Kelly, based on what you, what CNN is reporting, what the Washington Post is reporting, do you believe if there was a second strike to eliminate any survivors, that that constitutes a war crime?
- [06:31]
Nicole Wallace
It seems to. If that, if that is true, if what has been reported is accurate, I've got serious concerns about anybody in that chain of command stepping over a line that they should never step over. We are not Russia.
- [06:49]
Bill Baumgartner
We're not Iraq.
- [06:50]
Nicole Wallace
We hold ourselves to a very high standard of professionalism. And this is where I'm really troubled about this, is because I have so much respect for people in the United States Navy. I served in the Navy for 25 years. And there is no organization more professional than Navy seals, and they should be revered. And that's why I say I hope what I've heard about this strike is not accurate.
- [07:14]
Claire McCaskill
You mentioned that you are a captain in the Navy. If you received that order, would you have carried it out?
- [07:19]
Bill Baumgartner
No.
- [07:21]
Claire McCaskill
He would not have carried it out. It is an inflection point for the US Military. It is an inflection point for the country. This an inflection point for the Trump White House. We'll show you how they're dealing with it today. And all of it comes in the wake of news reporting of alleged war crimes crimes being carried out by the Trump administration. It's where we start today with some of our favorite experts and friends. Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling is with us. He served as the commanding general of the US army in Europe. Retired Rear Admiral Bill Baumgartner is here. He is the former Commander of the 7th Coast Guard District and also served as the chief counsel of the United States Coast Guard. He's now a member of the former Judge Advocates General, the JAGS working group who released the letter we just quoted from. Also joining us, political analyst Claire McCaskill. She served on the Armed Services Committee while in the Senate. An incredibly serious and solemn news cycle. And I'm honored to have all three of you here with me. Let's just take this as it, as it faced public. So what the public first heard, and I understand that that may be different. It's definitely different from what happened inside the military. And it may even be different as I sit and reflect on it from what the six members of Congress, the senators and House members who made that video knew. But when Ellen Nakashima and Alex Horton of the Washington Post posted this story, you could almost feel the tectonic plates and I just want to read the first couple paragraphs to what the country, with the public, what the world first knew about this. Pete Hegseth ordered on first Caribbean boat strike. Officials say, quote, kill them all. Quote. As two men clung to a stricken burning ship targeted by SEAL Team 6, the Joint Special operations commander followed the Defense Secretary's order to leave no survivors. The longer the US Surveillance aircraft followed the boat, the more confident intelligence analysts watching from command centers became came that the 11 people on board were ferrying drugs. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. Quote, the order was to kill everyone, one of them said. The Post goes on to detail the operation and I'll get to that. But I want to stop here and ask you, Admiral Baumgartner, just if you can just illuminate if that much of it rings true to you, that when you are carrying out a military strike, there are eyes on it. And that's how a president or any policymaker can visit the tank and watch the operation in real time if it's vital or imperative. But for anyone doing any sort of oversight in Congress when they decide to have that role or within the agency's intelligence and military, that that many people at least always have eyes on an operation and ears on the chain of command.
- [10:28]
Nicole Wallace
That would be true. There are going to be a number of people that are that are watching it and monitoring it in real time. In fact, that's normally what makes our operations successful because we do have that kind of command and control and monitoring. So that would happen in this particular case. It is kind of interesting here. It makes it sound like it was just unexpected that there would be survivors. And what that tells me is this was a tremendous failure in planning. The military has a great planning system and you look at what are, what are possible contingencies. It's almost inconceivable to me that a good planning system wouldn't have said, what if we don't kill everybody on the first strike? What do we do with the survivors? What are our legal responsibilities? What resources do we have to take care of those survivors? So some parts of this don't ring true to me that they weren't prepared for that. They should have been prepared and would.
- [11:26]
Claire McCaskill
I mean, the Washington Post, the first paragraph makes clear that the two sources that the Washington Post said, have, quote, direct knowledge of the operation. I'll read it one more time. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive suggesting that he was somehow on this live feed, quote, the order was to kill everybody. Would a defense secretary be monitoring something like this? Is that something that could or would happen? Especially this one was allegedly at the beginning of September. And would he have the ability to give that kind of order?
- [12:04]
Nicole Wallace
It is certainly something that he could have been watching, and he does have the ability to give that type of an, that type of an order. It really shouldn't happen that way because these things should be planned, they should be thought through. You should have legal advice. You shouldn't have to be doing something like that. But that kind of does fit with what we've seen happen with, with our military over the last last nine months. We've seen many of our leaders replaced. We saw the Judge Advocate Generals of our services dismissed. And we've seen a greater politicization of the whole process. So it does make much more likely to me that we would have that kind of ad hoc intervention in the middle of an operation.
- [12:49]
Claire McCaskill
General Hertling, we have been lucky enough to have your voice on our program now through many tragic news cycles and worrying news cycles. But I think one of the first times I got to talk to you was when that happened, when Trump, one of his earliest moves as an inaugurated president in the second term was to fire ad hoc. The JAG officers, they were targeted for firing, they were purged. It was one of the first things Pete Hegseth did after he was confirmed. And it was a decision that made a lot of people who could speak out publicly very nervous. And my understanding of the people who do speak out is they are usually the voice for thousands of people behind them who cannot speak out. But I know there's a lot of concern from the people who were around in Trump 1.0 about who would be protecting the men and women of the military who aren't shielded by the immunity decision from the Supreme Court from exposure or liability if an illegal order came in. And I want to ask you how you, how you process this story. And we'll get to the White House. They're sort of shifting explanations. But just tell me your initial reaction when you saw this story break.
- [14:03]
Mark Hertling
Yeah, well, when I saw the story break, it was expected. Truthfully, Nicole, you know, what we've been watching for the last couple of months is, first of all, the relief or the forced retirement of not only the staff judge advocates of several services, but also the inspector generals of several services. There's also been the forced retirements or the release of key leaders in each one of the forces, Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. So there is this pale of retribution over the military from the Secretary of Defense. So when you're asked about following either unlawful or illegal orders, in a normal situation, a military commander would just say, no, I'm not going to do that, much like Mark Kelly did in the interview that you just showed. But when you're talking about that pale of punishment or that pale of if you don't do what I'm going to tell you to do, we're going to fire you, it brings a whole different perspective to it. But I'd go back even further and I, you know, we've got Bill Baumgartner on here, and I got to tell you that I have great deal of respect for the United States Coast Guard. This is their kind of mission. What the interdiction of drug boats is what they do, and they do it very well. And, and when you do that, if you interdict, you can actually get prisoners and find out more intelligence and find out where the true cartels are and not kill anybody. I mean, good Lord. But instead, we've chosen this path where a military commander, reportedly a SEAL team commander, was told to do this by the Secretary of Defense. That's another aspect of this. You've got the Secretary of Defense playing squad leader for boat strikes. You know, President Obama and others watched as Bill McRaven's captured and then killed Osama bin Laden, but they didn't interfere in the mission. If we actually have a Secretary of Defense telling people during a mission or before a mission, kill everybody, he's acting as a commander on the scene. That's not what they get paid to do. So all of these things kind of resonated in my head before this all occurred. Why is the Navy involved in this? What is going on? What is the true mission? Is it counternarcotics, narco, terrorist strikes, or regime change in Venezuela? And then you talk about killing people. There have been many people killed in these strikes who may not have been drug runners. They may have been. And I saw this from my own experience in Iraq, where civilians are paid to do something, to plan an IED in Iraq or perhaps to drive a boat off the coast of Venezuela. So you're talking about killing civilians that may not be part of a cartel at all, but are just taking money to feed their family. Does that put them in a criminal act? Sure it does. Okay, then arrest Them not conduct these kind of extrajudicial killings. So, Nicole, I'm sorry for going on for so long, but there are so many things wrong with what has been happening, not just since this boat strike. The double allegedly double tapped people that were orders to combat, which means outside the fight that should be protected under Geneva Convention. There are so many other things that we could be talking about, and Congress should have become involved in this much earlier than today.
- [17:39]
Claire McCaskill
Interesting when their rationale is that they're using the definition of narco terrorists, but you're talking about civilians who would be guilty of crimes but would likely not fit that description. I just, while I have everybody here, I just want to focus everyone in on what this looks like, what the men and women were ordered reportedly, according to the Washington Post, by Pete Hegseth, to do so. I'm going to read this graphic explanation or detail. Quote, A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, the commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt. Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck. The special operations commander overseeing the September 2nd attack, the opening salvo, and the Trump administration's war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere ordered a second strike to comply with Pete Hegseth's instructions. Two people familiar with the matter said the two men were blown apart in the water. Hegseth's order, which has not been previously reported, adds another dimension to the campaign against suspected drug traffickers. Some current and former U.S. officials and law of war experts have said that the Pentagon's lethal campaign, which has killed more than 80 people to date, is unlawful and may expose those most directly involved to future prosecution. Claire, we talk a lot about what's broken in Congress. Do you think that it still functions that Republicans and Democrats will care enough? The first responses from Admiral Baumgarten make clear that it is knowable. The answers are available. The military doesn't operate in a way, in any, in any other way. So it is a chain of command organization. It is for its own sort of integrity and standing in the world. A commander or a secretary of defense can monitor in real time, and it is knowable. If the Congress wants to know the answers. Do you think they do?
- [19:49]
Andrew Weissman
Remains to be seen how much they want to see the answers. And having had the opportunity first, let me just as an aside, say it's a privilege to be on this panel with these two military leaders having been in the room during a drone Strike on a targeted enemy in Iraq and watch what happens during that sequence, how many checks there are up and down the line before the command is given to actually make a deadly attack with a drone. What I don't understand is why this has taken so long to come out. Both of these leaders on this panel certainly are very aware of the military education that everyone that was on that line had about survivors in an attack. It dates back to 1944, the Pulias massacre, where you had a German U boat commander that there were survivors that were in the water and he instructed everyone to kill them all. You know what happened to that commander? He was executed along with other officers. And that precedent has been taught ever since. That happened to military leaders that want to play by the rules of a civilized society. And we have the finest. I mean, I can get emotional about this. We have the finest military in the world. We have honor and integrity. We are professionals. The idea that this joke, who wants to focus on lethality, thinks this is some kind of video game. Kill them all and it will come out. There will be evidence. The question is, and keep your eyes on the southern commander. The southern commander is retiring. Keep your eye. And that retiring, I don't think is coincidental in terms of the timing here. I'm guessing that I don't know that. But watch him under oath. Watch what he tells you under oath. Because I guarantee you there are men like the two on this panel that are very uncomfortable about what's going on on these strikes in the Caribbean, which frankly are not warfare. They're not going after narco terrorists. If they were, as Mark said, they would be gathering this evidence. They would be getting the bad guys. You think these mules are the bad guys? No, they're desperate people trying to make some cash to move drugs, if in fact drugs were even on these boats. This is an embarrassing chapter in American military history. And it's one that Jack Reed and Roger Wicker and Turner and Smith, they have to go after this with everything they've got and expose every single person who has set silently since the first week of September.
- [22:52]
Claire McCaskill
Well, and if that story that we started with didn't move them off their current positions, which have been extremely passive in both confirming Pete Hegseth and really saying very little other than Rand Paul, frankly. I want to show you how the White House is throwing the military under the bus today. I have to sneak in a break before I do that. Also ahead for us, the administration continues to be asked and have to answer for this reporting the Washington Post reporting that they, Pete Hagseth ordered killed the men suspected of carrying drugs on boats in the Caribbean. Trump himself at the same time in the same news cycle actually is pardoning a convicted drug trafficker a very high level one. You couldn't make this up if you wanted to. Plus, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee will join us on what happens next and what they expect to get from Pete Hegseth in terms of transparency on these deadly strikes, if anything. And later in the broadcast, the White House declaring Trump, quote, perfectly normal. His questions about his stamina and age continue to bubble. We'll have all those stories and much more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [24:07]
Andrew Weissman
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. Our name is new, but you'll find the same commitment to justice, progress and the truth that you've relied on for decades. We'll continue to cover the day's news, ask the tough questions and explain how it impacts you. Ms. Same mission, new name. Learn more at Ms. Now.
- [24:39]
Claire McCaskill
We are back with General Hertling, Admiral Baumgartner and Claire McCaskill. So I want to fast forward to today and I want to do that by showing you what Pete Hegseth said the morning after the strike on his former place of employment, the Fox and Friends morning program on Fox News.
- [24:59]
Nicole Wallace
That was definitely not artificial intelligence. I watched it live. We knew exactly who was in that boat. We knew exactly what they were doing and we knew exactly who they represented. And that was Trende Aragua, a narco terrorist organization designated by the United States trying to poison our country with illicit drugs.
- [25:18]
Claire McCaskill
So Pete Hegg says, confirming a central piece of the Washington Post reporting, quote, I watched it live. We knew who they were. We knew what they represented, says who they are designated by the United States. So we've established him in the room. Post has reported it. Eleven people were on the call. Two people with direct knowledge speak to the Post. Pete Hegg says on live TV corroborates it. So I found this amazing. This is the White House spokeswoman at her briefing today.
- [25:47]
Nicole Wallace
To be clear, does the administration deny that that second strike happened or did it happen and the administration denies that?
- [25:54]
Mark Hertling
Secretary Hegg.
- [25:57]
Claire McCaskill
The latter is true. Abe and I have a statement to read for you here. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war with respect to the strikes in question on September 2, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes.
- [26:20]
Nicole Wallace
To clarify, Admiral Bradley was the one.
- [26:21]
Claire McCaskill
Who gave that order for a second strike and he was well within his authority to do so. Did Admiral Bradley order that second strike because there were still survivors after the initial strike? Again, as I read for you, Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority in the law. He directed the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat of narco terrorists to the United States was completely eliminated. General Hertling, do you know Admiral Bradley?
- [26:50]
Mark Hertling
I do not, Claire, but I do know his position in the military. Right now I don't know him personally, but it kind of appears like he just got thrown under the bus. And this kind of information is critical. I did not hear that press conference today. But it's critical because if there is, and there should be an inquiry by the United States Congress, this is going to turn into a very interesting inquiry, not only from what the Secretary of Defense says, but what from the SEAL team leader says. The individuals who reportedly gave the information to the Washington Post, the lawyers, the southcom commander and anybody else that was involved. And if it was an open line and there were no written orders, but it was a verbal order by anyone, it will more than likely be recorded just like the strike was recorded. And by the way, this probably, in my view, I don't know this for certain, but I'm going to use a little conjecture here. If they were firing something from an island in the Caribbean, this was not a drone strike. This was more than likely some type of artillery piece or a rocket that was laser guided. That's what it appeared to look like from the strike to me. If it's laser guided, you have to keep the pilot with the laser on the target until the round hits. So there are going to be films of exactly what happened. So as Carolyn Levitt tries to explain in a non military way exactly what happened, it appears like she's only digging a deeper hole.
- [28:23]
Claire McCaskill
Yeah, I mean, Admiral Baumgartner, Caroline Levitt is saying Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority in the law. His authority in the law is inconsistent with striking survivors from an initial strike. And again, I just want to tell everyone what the Post has reported happened. A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed which was recorded. We can go back and look at that if there's a real investigation. I know that's an if as the smoke cleared, they got a jolt. Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck. That appears inconsistent with what Caroline Levitt said today. Quote, as I read for you, Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority in the law. It would seem that if the system is still working, that someone would have sought guidance or would have wanted to know what to do. The White House throwing Admiral Bradley under the bus seems totally inconsistent with Pete Hegseth's appearance on Fox News the morning after the operation, which, again, I'll quote that for you. Quote, I watched it live. We knew who was in the boat and what they represented. That is Trend Aragua, designated by the United States for trying to poison our country with illicit drugs.
- [29:48]
Nicole Wallace
Well, I would say here several things are consistent, and the consistency being that it isn't consistent with reality. So when you start here, first of all, There were supposedly 11 people on this vessel. No one that's experiencing this area would think that this is a major shipment of cocaine to the United States with 11 people on the vessel. Entirely inconsistent. Second, the drug. That's because.
- [30:12]
Claire McCaskill
Because they leave all that room for drugs. Right. If they're running drugs, they're never more than two people. Explain that.
- [30:18]
Nicole Wallace
Yes. Yeah. If you're running drugs, especially a major load of drugs, you want room for cargo, you're not going to take it up with extra people. Also, you're concerned about security. The more people you have on that boat means, the more families that might know about that boat going someplace, the more possibility for leaks. You want as few people on that boat as possible and as much drugs on the boat as possible. 11 people is just not consistent with carrying a major load of cocaine. The other part of it is to pretend that this is the drug that is causing overdoses in the United States. The drug that is killing people in the United States is fentanyl. Fentanyl does not come from South America. There's no fentanyl in that boat, despite the statements that the administration made in October saying there was fentanyl seen. Fentanyl is very small, small quantities in it, and it just is not coming from South America. Everybody in the business knows that. So what you're seeing is a consistent deviation from the facts and reworking of the facts, which is very troubling. And it kind of leads to the fact that this whole operation is not lawful. And you notice that the White House was using within his authority. So you can say somebody has authority if you tell them they can go do something. That doesn't mean that it's lawful or that he's within the bounds of the law. So I think they were careful to say those things. So here. First of all, we should keep in sight that the original strike itself, it doesn't appear to be lawful. There isn't any legal basis for it. In international law, calling somebody a terrorist or a foreign terrorist organization is not fairy dust that immediately you sprinkle on them and they're now a legitimate target to go out and kill them every time you find them. That's not the way international or domestic law works. It simply is not. I think the other thing that's kind of consistent and troubling here is we've seen our brave professional military that wants to do the right thing, wants to follow the law, wants to be the good guys in the world dangling here for months. We don't know what this real legal justification is other than kind of a trust me, it's legal, I call these people terrorists so we can kill them kind of thing. That's not the way the law works. And our military shouldn't be sitting out there wondering whether the orders are being given are. Are lawful or not. You go out there, if they're lawful, prove it. Man up, prove it. Put your cards on the table, show it. Show people your evidence, let them pick it apart. And that's how you really support your troops, is by giving them a legal, lawful mission and standing behind it and putting yourself on the line if you have to.
- [33:02]
Claire McCaskill
Admiral, let me ask you an uncomfortable question. If you're in the military, what should you do if you now have questions from the video urging them not to follow illegal orders and from the Washington Post reporting making clear that a second strike, that if it happened the way the Post says it happened, the way Pete Hegsest comments the next morning are not inconsistent with it happening. The way the White House now seems to be throwing a member of the military under the bus is not inconsistent with it happening? What should you do?
- [33:40]
Nicole Wallace
Well, I think the Department of Defense Law of War manual is pretty clear on this. They have a section about what to do in case you're given a clearly unlawful order. And the exact example that's given in that manual is an order to fire on shipwrecked people, people clinging for survival in the water. That is the example they give of what is a clearly unlawful order. So I think the Department of Defense has answered that themselves.
- [34:12]
Claire McCaskill
Rear Admiral Bill Baumgartner, thank you so much for joining us today. Consider yourself warned. We will be needing you in the coming days and weeks. Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, we are patiently awaiting your new book, if I Don't Return A Father's Wartime Journal, we will be needing you in the coming days and weeks. Thank you for joining us again today. Claire isn't going anywhere. After the break, Donald Trump again looking to disregard the legitimacy of the rule of law in a US Court which sentenced a notorious. You can't make this part up. Drug trafficker to decades in prison. We'll bring you that reporting next.
- [34:52]
Nicole Wallace
As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda. Follow along with the Ms. Now newsletter Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.
- [35:09]
Claire McCaskill
The American people are basically telling the President that they are not okay with any of this.
- [35:13]
Nicole Wallace
Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at Ms. Now. Project 47.
- [35:24]
Claire McCaskill
So it goes without saying that Donald Trump's entire pretext for everything that's happening in the Caribbean is his so called war on narco terrorists. It is the pretext for the extrajudicial strikes on alleged drug boats. Extrajudicial, according to Rand Paul, who's been upset about them since they started happening. And yet Donald Trump's pardon power has now extended to to make perfectly clear to everyone in this country and around the world that he doesn't actually care about combating drug trafficking. Because if he did, or any person take Trump out of it, any person who cared about drug trafficking and thought drug traffickers were the worst of the worst, to borrow a phrase, would never contemplate using the extraordinary power of the presidential pardon for one of the world's most prolific drug traffickers. But Donald Trump did. On Friday. He said that former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez will receive a full and complete presidential pardon. Hernandez was convicted on drug trafficking and weapons charges and sentenced to 45 years in prison just last year. It was one of the most sweeping drug trafficking cases to come before a US court in 30 years. As the New York Times reports, the pardon would be a, quote, head spinning resolution to a case that for prosecutors was a pinnacle striking at the heart of Anarcho state. Prosecutors said Mr. Hernandez was key to a scheme that lasted more than 20 years and brought more than 500 tons of cocaine into the United States of America. When asked about pardoning one of the world's biggest narco terrorists, here's the explanation that Donald Trump offered. You've made so clear how you want to keep drugs out of the U.S. can you explain more about why you would pardon a notorious drug trafficker?
- [37:25]
Mark Hertling
Well, I don't know who you're talking about.
- [37:27]
Claire McCaskill
Which Orlando Hernandez?
- [37:28]
Mark Hertling
Well, I was told, I was asked by Honduras, many of the people of Honduras, they said it was a Biden setup. It was a terrible thing. He was the president of the country and they basically said he was a drug dealer because he was the president.
- [37:44]
Claire McCaskill
I was told. We're going to bring into our coverage our friend Andrew Weissman, former top official of the Department of Justice, now an ms, now legal analyst. Clara is still with us. Claire, let me come back to you on just the tie, the unavoidable, can't look away from connection between the first story and this one. Anyone who knows that the rationale is on very thin ice politically with Democrats and Republicans questioning the legality of the strikes in the Caribbean might say to Donald Trump, maybe don't pardon a convicted drug trafficker. What do you make of Trump's response?
- [38:27]
Andrew Weissman
Well, you know, frankly, I think what's really important to look at what this case actually was, and Andrew can speak to this, but this was a laboriously put together investigation loaded with evidence, I mean, chock full of evidence, factual evidence that this man, I mean, he famously said in front of a number of witnesses, we're going to stuff this stuff up the gringo's noses. They won't know what hit them or something to that effect. He and his brother both were paid significant bribes to allow the free flow of cocaine through Honduras from Venezuela. And here's the kicker, Nicole, one of the investigating US Attorneys, assistant US Attorneys on this case that was involved in the investigation and putting the case together was none other than Bove.
- [39:29]
Claire McCaskill
Donald Trump's.
- [39:30]
Andrew Weissman
Personal lawyer, who he now has put on the federal bench. He this wasn't Biden that cooked this up. This was one of Trump's lawyers that cooked this up. And of course, it wasn't cooked up. It was the gathering of evidence in a way that is very difficult with these large narco states. And, you know, hats off to all of the law enforcement personnel that put this together. And keep in mind, he was sentenced to 45 years and he's letting him out after a year. This man is not serious about dealing with drugs coming into this country. He is serious about doing favors for friends that he thinks is going to benefit him.
- [40:10]
Claire McCaskill
Andrew Weissman.
- [40:13]
Bill Baumgartner
I think it's important to note that the pretext that you're talking about is a pretext for using the military overseas to kill people as well as using the military on our shores internally. The Concern about crime and drug dealing and violent crime, and yet he is using his pardon power to free people who have committed violent crime. And with respect to this particular defendant, let's just do the math here. I don't do math in public very often, but the judge found that it was over 400 tons of cocaine that he brought into this country and transported. We're not talking about a low level person. And 400 tons is over 800,000 pounds of cocaine. 800,000 pounds of cocaine. And we're supposed to believe that it's okay to kill scores of people in the Caribbean because of concern about drug dealing where. But since we think it's true that the reason that we have the military in LA, in Portland and Chicago and Washington, D.C. and threatened in other places is because of concern about crime, this is a man who's using his pardon power in ways that are completely contrary to the rule of law. It completely belies the bona fides, the good faith of what he is doing. And it really puts, I think, the courts, but also the military in a tough position because it is what they, what is going on in the Caribbean is, many lawyers have said, is tantamount to murder and is tantamount to a war crime when you are ordering the killing of people without a true reason to be doing that. And now the reporting is killing people who are stranded after the boat was killed, which is, you know, just remember, Nazis were tried for that. This is, this is what, this is what we are now being reduced to with this president.
- [42:34]
Claire McCaskill
It's really important, I think when we cover the rule of law, we cover what we can see, right, which is these cooked up cases against prominent critics of Donald Trump. The military is largely something we can't see. And the things that we're talking about are things we've covered now for nine years about his assault on the rule of law that sort of comes to a crescendo in courtrooms and sort of one by one, judges strike them down. But I think you're picking up something really important. I have to sneak in a break, but I want to press you on that. Andrew, on the other side. No one's going anywhere. Rebecca with Andrew and Claire. Andrew, you weighed in on the strike story, and I'm glad you did, because I want to ask you a question as a former general counsel at the FBI, what should a person working in an intelligence agency, I mean, obviously a strike, there's intelligence capabilities inside the Pentagon, but traditionally, and I don't know how much of this holds when we're talking about Trump, but the intelligence agencies are part of that as well. I wonder what advice you would give to the men and women in the government about their legal well being at a moment like this.
- [43:51]
Bill Baumgartner
So lawyers have a very special role here, as Claire knows, because lawyers, if they bless this and say that there's a basis for it when there isn't, are kind of giving a pass to the people who follow that advice. And it's really important for lawyers to stand up and obey their oath of office. You know, there was a judge who's 101 years old in the Eastern District of New York who was honored at the end of last week. And he spoke about the profession of being a lawyer, not the industry, the profession of being a lawyer. That's Judge Leah Glasser. And he spoke about what he was seeing in this idea of a war on judges. And it's really important. And he was saying it's really important for lawyers to understand their obligation to their profession here. There are many, many military lawyers who have some the reporting is that are still in the military. There are many who are now out of the military who are saying that what is happening in the Caribbean is unlawful, both because of the initial strike, but also the reporting that the Secretary of Defense said that you should kill everyone, even the people who were shipwrecked. In other words, the people who were stranded. That is the thing that there were people during World War I and there were again, as I mentioned, Nazis in World War II who were tried for that. I'm just going to quickly read from the Department of Defense own manual that says that those are the given order to kill those people is clearly illegal. And they specifically say, for instance, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked. Shipwrecked would be clearly illegal. And they describe it in their own manual as being disappointed, honorable and inhumane. Dishonorable and inhumane. And I can't think of a better description for this administration in terms of what they're doing and the way they're treating people. Whether you're talking about Mr. Abrego Garcia, who was illegally taken from this country and removed and put in a prison without due process. The Supreme Court has said that it's not me. The Supreme Court has said, has said that his due process rights were violated. The way that we're treating immigrants in this country without due process and the way we're sending the military in. And now what we're seeing in the Caribbean, it violates their own manuals about being dishonorable and inhumane.
- [46:42]
Claire McCaskill
Really, really solemn. I don't even know what point to call it in covering the Trump story, but I'm really lucky to get to do it with both of you. Andrew Weissman, Claire McCaskill, thank you. You up next for us. We'll talk with one of the senators who is right now today demanding that Pete Hegseth speak and testify about the deadly strikes under oath. The next hour of deadline White House starts after a very short break. Don't blame.
- [47:07]
Andrew Weissman
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. Our name is new, but you'll find the same commitment to justice, progress and the truth that you've relied on for decades. We'll continue to cover the day's news, ask the tough questions and explain how it impacts you. Ms. Now. Same mission, new name. Learn more at Ms. Now.