“Pick your poison”

Summary

Deadline: White House – Episode Summary: “Pick Your Poison”
Released on July 2, 2025
Host: Nicolle Wallace, MSNBC

---

1. Introduction and Legislative Stalemate

At the outset of the episode, host Nicolle Wallace addresses a critical moment in the U.S. House of Representatives. Following a suspenseful Senate showdown, House Republicans confront their own dilemma concerning the passage of former President Donald Trump's comprehensive domestic policy bill, known as the One Beautiful Bill Act.

Key Points:

• Legislative Blockade: The bill has secured a narrow passage through the House Rules Committee by a single vote, but faces significant hurdles on the House floor.
• Republican Uncertainty: Speaker Mike Johnson faces uncertainty about securing the necessary three Republican no votes to advance the bill, amidst unanimous Democratic opposition.

Notable Quote:

• House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries [03:02]:
  “I guess my question, Alicia, is why would anybody vote for this bill, Republican or Democrat? That's what I really believe.”

---

2. Republican Concerns Over the Bill

The discussion delves into the specific reservations within the Republican caucus regarding the bill:

• National Debt: Some Republicans fear the bill will exacerbate the national debt by approximately $5 trillion.
• Medicaid Cuts: Nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid reductions could disenfranchise up to 12 million Americans, a concern underscored by the Congressional Budget Office.
• Impact on Health and Jobs: The bill threatens to strip healthcare from millions, eliminate food assistance programs, and eliminate thousands of energy-related jobs in states like Pennsylvania.

Notable Quotes:

• Mara Gay [02:01]:
  “The other concern? The nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, which could leave nearly 12 million people without health insurance.”

• Hakeem Jeffries [05:40]:
  “This is about tax cuts for the wealthy that will blow up the deficit by $5 trillion.”

---

3. Internal GOP Dynamics and Potential Holdouts

The episode examines the internal dynamics within the GOP, highlighting:

• Hardline Conservatives: Members of the House Freedom Caucus express strong opposition, fearing fiscal irresponsibility and negative impacts on constituents.
• Moderate Republicans: A faction within the party is alarmed by the potential loss of healthcare and job opportunities, reflecting a broader unease about the bill's societal costs.

Notable Quote:

• Mara Gay questioning Congressman Dean [05:24]:
  “Your sense of whether Republicans are going to pass this bill by his deadline.”

---

4. Madeline Dean's Critique of the Bill

Congresswoman Madeline Dean of Pennsylvania delivers a scathing condemnation of the bill, emphasizing its detrimental effects:

• Loss of Healthcare: She outlines the projected loss of healthcare coverage for tens of thousands within various Pennsylvania districts.
• Economic Drain: Dean argues that the bill will decimate energy jobs and stunt economic growth.
• Moral Bankruptcy: She characterizes the legislation as "corrupt, cynical, and cruel," attributing its passage to the influence of former President Trump and his administration.

Notable Quotes:

• Madeline Dean [06:45]:
  “This is a corrupt, cruel bill and it is all at the service of a president.”

• Madeline Dean [16:08]:
  “This would be emperor, not looking at the content of the bill, lying about it.”

---

5. Nonpartisan Analysis and Public Opinion

The podcast incorporates perspectives from nonpartisan analysts and public opinion data:

• Public Opposition: Polls indicate substantial public disapproval of tax cuts favoring the wealthy and cuts to social programs.
• Political Ramifications: Republicans risk alienating moderate and independent voters, potentially facing electoral backlash in competitive districts.

Notable Quotes:

• Mara Gay [09:06]:
  “Reducing taxes on Corporations only has 19% support, 17% support for reducing Medicaid funding, 11% for cuts to SNAP.”

• Juanita Tolliver [09:52]:
  “This is a wealth transfer to the richest Americans who already have the largest share of the pie.”

---

6. Settlement Between Paramount and Donald Trump

The episode shifts focus to the settlement of a lawsuit between Paramount and Donald Trump:

• Settlement Details: Paramount, the parent company of CBS, agrees to pay Trump $16 million to settle claims of voter interference through allegedly deceptive editing of an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes.
• Political Implications: The settlement is viewed as capitulation to Trump’s intimidation tactics, raising ethical concerns about media integrity and the influence of political power on major institutions.

Notable Quote:

• Madeline Dean [25:13]:
  “What they have done here is anything other than paying a vigilante to the bookmaker. That is still a bribe.”

---

7. Wisconsin Supreme Court Victory for Abortion Rights

A significant victory for abortion rights is highlighted through the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision:

• Judicial Change: The election of Judge Janet Protozewicz, who prioritized abortion access, was pivotal in striking down a nearly 176-year-old abortion ban.
• Impact on Women: The ruling restores reproductive freedom for millions, countering the aggressive anti-abortion stance previously upheld by the court.

Notable Quotes:

• Alexis McGill Johnson [33:05]:
  “Elections have consequences... it's a moment where the majority of people in Wisconsin support reproductive freedom.”

• Planned Parenthood Representative Juanita Tolliver [34:10]:
  “This bill in defunding Planned Parenthood puts at risk about 200 health centers... we are going to continue to fight to provide abortion care.”

---

8. Sean "Diddy" Combs' Bail Hearing

The podcast covers the legal proceedings surrounding Sean Combs:

• Bail Denial: Judge Subramanian denies bail for Combs, who was convicted on two misdemeanor prostitution-related charges.
• Legal Analysis: Former Criminal Division Deputy Chief Christy Greenberg explains the rationale behind the decision, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the potential danger Combs poses to the community.

Notable Quotes:

• Christy Greenberg [40:06]:
  “He engaged in abuse... it's hard to see how you could think the answer is no.”

• Mara Gay [41:50]:
  “This is about holding accountable someone who has undermined American democracy.”

---

9. ICE Block App Controversy

The episode touches on the controversial ICE Block app:

• App Functionality: ICE Block allows users to anonymously report ICE sightings within a five-mile radius, leading to widespread adoption.
• White House Opposition: White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt criticizes the app, citing a 500% increase in assaults on ICE agents.
• Developer's Defense: Joshua Allen, the app's creator, argues that the administration’s criticism is fear-mongering and aims to undermine efforts to protect individuals from deportation.

Notable Quotes:

• Joshua Allen:
  “If you can save one person's life or help one person avoid a horrible situation, I've done my job.”

---

10. Conclusion and Forward Look

Nicolle Wallace wraps up the episode by previewing upcoming stories:

• Local Elections: Continued analysis of reproductive rights victories and their broader implications.
• January 6th Developments: Ongoing discussions about pardoned rioters and their roles within the Department of Justice.
• Business Settlements: Examination of Trump's financial dealings and their impact on his political influence.

Notable Quote:

• Nicolle Wallace [22:20]:
  “When we come back, another January6 defendant pardoned by Donald Trump now has a place at the Department of Justice.”

---

Final Thoughts

“Pick Your Poison” offers a comprehensive exploration of the intricate political maneuvers surrounding Donald Trump's policy agenda, internal Republican conflicts, impactful legal settlements, and significant judicial victories. The episode underscores the high-stakes environment within U.S. politics, highlighting the tension between legislative ambitions and public welfare concerns. Through incisive commentary and expert analysis, the podcast provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of the current political landscape and its far-reaching implications.

Transcript

[Alicia Menendez]

Deadline.

[Michael Schnell]

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 [e-mail] to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $744.

[Alicia Menendez]

By new customers surveyed who save with.

[Michael Schnell]

Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023.

[Mara Gay]

Potential savings will vary.

[Michael Schnell]

Discounts not available in all states and situations. Building a business may feel like a big jump, but Ondeck Small business Loans can help keep you afloat. With lines of credit up to $100,000 and term loans up to $250,000, OnDeck lets you choose the loan that's right for your business. As a top rated online small business lender, Ondeck's team of loan advisors can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit ondeck.com for more information. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtibank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

[Mara Gay]

Hi everyone, it is 4 o' clock here in New York. I'm Alicia Menendez in for Nicole Wallace. After a nail biter in the Senate, now Republicans in the House face their own pick your poison moment. At this hour, the House is at a standstill ahead of a final vote to pass Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill. Whether Republicans have the votes to pass it, that is a an open question. Speaker Mike Johnson can only afford three Republican no votes given unified and unanimous Democratic opposition to that bill, here's House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.

[Michael Schnell]

That's what we are going to do. Show up today, show up tomorrow, show up this week, show up next week, show up this year, show up next year, show up until we end this national nightmare in the United States of America and continue our march toward a more perfect union.

[Mara Gay]

The bill passed a key vote in the House Rules Committee last night by just one vote. Two Republicans on that committee voting no over concerns that the bill would add too much to the national debt. That is one concern among Republicans. The other concern? The nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, which could leave nearly 12 million people without health insurance. That's according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Of course, not passing the bill leaves the Trump administration without a signature policy achievement. After all, it was called the One Beautiful Bill Act. Team Trump has told Republicans that failing to pass the bill is not an option. Many of the Republican holdouts met with Donald Trump today. Democrats have spent the day determined that Republicans pay at least a political price for supporting the legislation. In a procedural maneuver, Democrats tried to pass an amendment that would shield Medicaid from devastating cuts. Here's some of what they said on the House floor earlier today. If beauty is in the eye of.

[Hakeem Jeffries]

The beholder, then you gop, you have a very blurred vision. Let us vote no on this shameful bill and throw a punch for the children.

[Madeline Dean]

We're here because Donald Trump, Trump wants a fourth of July party to celebrate this garbage bill. He says, close your ears, close your.

[Michael Schnell]

Eyes and, and vote for this bill. Honestly sounds more like a cult.

[Mara Gay]

President Trump, you're either being lied to or you are lying to the American people. And that is where we start today with Congresswoman Madeline Dean of Pennsylvania. Also joining us, congressional reporter for the Hill Michael Schnell. And with me at the table, opinion writer at the New York Times and MSNBC political analyst Mara Gay. Michael, let's start with you. What is currently the state of play in the House?

[Tim Miller]

Yeah, so I'm right now in the basement of the Capitol. I just came from the House chamber where essentially things are at a standstill. The House had a series of votes, three votes that were procedural votes in advance of voting on the final passage of this big beautiful bill. Now, the third procedural vote in this series was the key one that would officially allow folks to open up debate and tee up that final vote. Now, in the lead up, a number of these hardline conservative critics of the bill were vowing to vote against that procedural vote. And if they were sitting successful in tanking it, it would have brought the House floor to a standstill. So right now, as you can see on your screen right there, the House is still voting on that second of the three votes. But because the votes aren't there, Republicans don't yet have enough support. Leaders are leaving this vote open. It was supposed to be just a five minute vote. It's been running for more than an hour and a half at this point. And it's going on as lawmakers are behind the scenes with House GOP leaders and other members of the administration, with folks trying to get these hardliners on board. This is the hardline conservatives, several members of the House Freedom Caucus who we so often speak about, who are concerned about the deficit impact that will have that will that the deficit impact of this piece of legislation. Now, aside from those hardline conservatives, as you mentioned, Alicia, there are also a number of moderate Republicans who are really concerned about the impact these Medicaid cuts and the rollback of green energy tax credits could have on constituents in their district. So right now, to sum it up, leaders are behind the scenes trying to pick off these holdouts in an effort to clear this procedural hurdle and get on to Deb and then a final vote on the legislation.

[Mara Gay]

Congressman Dean, you know, July 4th, that is an arbitrary deadline set by the President of the United States. There is no reason this has to be jammed through right now. Your sense of whether Republicans are going to pass this bill by his deadline.

[Hakeem Jeffries]

I guess my question, Alicia, is why would anybody vote for this bill, Republican or Democrat? That's what I really believe. I don't know what they're going to be successful in doing. But I brought with me the bill, which I assure you, most of the Senate did not read and the House is struggling to read. But why read it? Because why would anybody vote for this? After all, it steals health care from 17 million Americans. I'm in touch with my governor, Governor Shapiro. He is pointing out exactly the harm this will do to Pennsylvanians. It is taking food away from children, from families. 42 million Americans who would ever vote for this. It kills jobs, right in Pennsylvania, energy jobs. 26, 27,000 jobs will be killed. So this is an economic drain as well. But let's remember what it's all about. This is about tax cuts for the wealthy that will blow up the deficit by $5 trillion. Take a look at these volumes. As I said, why would anyone vote for Trump's terrible, big, ugly bill?

[Mara Gay]

As a producer, I just want to salute whoever created the prop because I understand the production value that goes into making sure that that message is clear and that that does not get lost. And to your point, they were writing this and redlining this as they were voting on it. Do you get the sense that Republicans in the Senate, in the House, even fully understand the implications of the legislation they have put forth?

[Hakeem Jeffries]

Of course they don't. As I said, and as you pointed out, this is more than a prop. It's to say it is our job to understand what is in these bills. The senators voted on this, not knowing exactly what was in the bill. I bet they love the part about no sales tax on silencers. Really, folks, we want to make silencers more plentiful in this country at the behest of somebody like the representative who owns gun stores. Conflicts of interest abound. The taking away of health care, rural hospitals will suffer, I think of nursing homes. My own in laws in their final years were in a very humble nursing home supported by Medicaid because they had worked hard their whole life. Think of the anxiety this will put on our seniors, who in their final years that deserve dignity. That's what they deserve. But instead, the callous folks who put this bill together, they're corrupt. Cruelty is the point. But how can these folks vote for it? I want to point out specifically in Pennsylvania. I asked my representatives in Pennsylvania, my delegation in the Pennsylvania first, Mr. Fitzpatrick, an estimated 19,000 people will lose healthcare. In the Pennsylvania seven. Mr. MacKenzie, an estimated 24,000 people will lose healthcare. In the Pennsylvania eighth, Mr. Brejnahan, an estimated 28,000 of your constituents will lo. That's something you want to vote for. And in the Pennsylvania 10th, Mr. Perry, an estimated 21,000 of your constituents will lose health care, not to mention what's going to happen with food and agriculture and farmers. This is a shameful set of proposals. Many of my colleagues who have been here longer than I have said they've never seen a more morally bankrupt bill ever.

[Mara Gay]

Maura, Very early in this process, someone said something to me that distilled the axis on which Congress is making its decisions, which is what are the rest of us willing to sacrifice in order for millionaires and for billionaires to get these massive tax cuts? And it does seem to me that that point has broken through with American voters. You've seen all the same polling that I've seen on this bill. But I want to underline something that seemed a little new. This is from the Washington Post. Today, reducing taxes on Corporations only has 19% support, 17% support for reducing Medicaid funding, 11% for cuts to SNAP. You don't have to dig too hard. You don't have to look too many polls. They're all saying the same thing. Republicans know this. They have Thom Tillis screaming it on the Senate floor. So what? So why?

[Juanita Tolliver]

Well, there's a couple, couple things to say about that. First of all, poll of Americans last month showed a 2 to 1 opposition among Americans for the bill overall. So there's no question that this is deeply unpopular. Also, if you think about the kind of populism and support for the middle class that is popular, we see that nowhere here. And that's something that drives the politics right now, both in Trump's space and among Democrats, that's nowhere here. So this is a wealth transfer to the richest Americans who already have the largest share of the pie, to a historic proportion already. So, you know, there's no question that this bill is not something that Republicans Especially in competitive districts, want to go home and run on. I think it is an inflection point though, for several reasons. One is that Congress has largely been kind of a do nothing Congress, a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. The Republicans have so far. But this is a moment where the President is actually asking them to betray people who actually voted for them and for Donald Trump. I mean, the impact on rural America is stunning. And you see that in the coverage. Anybody who's paying attention knows this Medicaid, these Medicaid cuts are going to hurt Trump's voters. They're going to hurt all Americans, but they're going to hurt Trump's voters. An end to Medicaid expansion in certain areas. I mean, this is going to be brutal. And so I think one of the questions too is who is paying attention because the media environment is so diffuse right now. And so the Democrats really, it's incumbent on them to make sure that the American people know who is to blame when they are suffering. You see kind of some daylight around that, I think Thom Tillis decision to retire out of North Carolina, you know, and kind of waving his arms, as you said, saying there's something rotten here that kind of helps. You know, you've seen videos of just individual Americans and groups of people who depend on Medicaid coming onto Capitol Hill asking Republican members of Congress, you know, are you going to turn away these children, people who have disabilities, people who are rely on this health care coverage and just being ignored, that kind of will break through. But ultimately, whether or not the Republicans pay a political price, you know, that's incumbent on Democrats. It also depends on whether these Republican members of Congress believe that they're going to pay a higher price with their own constituents or with the man in the White House.

[Mara Gay]

Correct. I mean, I think there is the messaging congresswoman, then I think there's the lived experience of people as they start to realize they no longer have access to access to some of these benefits, in many cases by attrition, because they've changed deadlines and they've complicated paperwork and they've made it harder for people to access services they should be able to receive. I want you to take a listen since you referenced farmers to something that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on CNBC about the bill.

[Christy Greenberg]

But what about the Medicaid cuts?

[Mara Gay]

I mean, the Democrats have obviously made a lot about that politically, but just.

[Christy Greenberg]

In reality, Secretary Rollins, there is concern.

[Juanita Tolliver]

About what it means for rural communities. I know the Senate really leaned into that as well.

[Hakeem Jeffries]

But here's what I know, and I've.

[Juanita Tolliver]

Got many, many years of working in.

[Mara Gay]

Public policy, not just in agriculture.

[Hakeem Jeffries]

The Medicaid program itself is very broken.

[Mara Gay]

You have states that under the weight of Medicaid are going bankrupt.

[Hakeem Jeffries]

You have big, huge parts of the.

[Mara Gay]

Program that are unworkable.

[Juanita Tolliver]

There will never be a time in.

[Hakeem Jeffries]

This country where people won't have access to health care.

[Mara Gay]

Can you help me make sense of that? Congresswoman Dean?

[Hakeem Jeffries]

No. But that seems to be the very failed playbook of this administration. They claim an institution that so many Americans rely upon for so many different needs is broken and therefore they're going to shutter it. That is simply not true. Medicaid is an extraordinary support for so many, for children, for folks with disabilities, as I said, for folks in nursing homes. The other programs regarding SNAP and supporting our farmers, as we make sure that no American goes hungry. This country is plentiful and yet we have people going hungry. This will make people more hungry. So I don't know what the secretary is talking about. She's absolutely wrong. And I want to tell you from my constituents, they get it. They know exactly what's going on here. Our phones have been ringing off the hook. So much so that we all pitched in. I was answ phones today and people were surprised to get me. And they said, I'm calling just to say mad, I know you're going to vote no on this bill because it's going to hurt us. It's going to make our costs higher. It is corrupt, it is cynical, it is cruel. And I said, you're absolutely right. You're onto it. My constituents see it by a vast majority. This is a corrupt, cruel bill and it is all at the service of a president. He has a bunch of courtiers here, Republican members of the House who are not doing their job. They are acting, acting as courtiers to this emperor. This would be emperor, not looking at the content of the bill, lying about it. When they talk about we're going to do work requirements, that is nonsense and they know it. Kaiser Family foundation shows that more than 90% of those on Medicaid are working. What are they doing? They're putting in paperwork requirements because they want to trip up anybody that is taking good care of themselves and their family through the use of Medicaid. They want to have people trip so that they get tossed off by cynical comments like what you just showed from the Agriculture Secretary. I'm extraordinarily troubled by this. I hope that today the predictions are that this bill could fail of its own weight, that there are at least 10, 11 Republican members who are a no on this for whatever reasons they're a no. I hope it falls of its own disastrous weight. But if it should pass, I think this spells the end of this Republican cult because we will make sure that these members are held to account for these votes that directly harm their constituents.

[Mara Gay]

Mike, can you just talk me through your reporting as it relates to what Congresswoman Dean just said there, both your reporting around the likelihood that this could in fact fail, that there are not enough Republican votes votes to get it over the finish line. And if it does in fact fail, what then happens next?

[Tim Miller]

So your first question, and really the answer to both of those, is that it's a moving target and this is a moving story by the minute. Earlier this morning, I had spoken to a handful of House Republicans, including Chairman Andy Harris, he's the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, who said he planned to vote against this procedural effort for this Trump mega bill and that others were going to join him. And as a result, that procedural hurdle was going to fail. And if that happened, then the House floor would come to a standstill because you can't debate and vote on a bill unless you clear this procedural hurdle. Now, as I had mentioned before, we are over officially the two hour mark of one of these procedural votes remaining open because House Republican leaders do not have the votes. Now I'm listening to reporting from my colleagues who are outside the room. I'm talking to folks myself and it seems as though some of that opposition appears to be softening a little bit. Take for example, somebody like Congressman Ralph. He's a Republican from South Carolina. Earlier this morning I had spoken to him. He said that he needed changes to the Senate bill in order to win over his support. By the way, change is highly unlikely in this scenario. House Republican leaders have no appetite to change the bill and that would require it going back to the Senate for a final stamp of approval. And we know how that process just went down over the weekend. So Ralph Norman saying he wasn't going to support the bill unless he got changes. He popped out of that room with other holdouts and leadership just a few minutes ago and said he had a positive meeting, meeting at the White House with President Trump, that he and other administration officials had walked folks through some parts of the bill that they didn't understand initially or they weren't aware about initially. Sort of starting to change his tune a little bit. Now he said that he can't say that he's going to be a yes on this effort or a no on this effort just yet. But the fact that he's opening up the possibility without changes shows that some of that opposition may be softening. Now, that's just one individual. That's just one person in this conservative group. There are still a number of moderate Republicans who, who are concerned about those Medicaid cuts and about that rollback of green energy tax credits. But really, at this moment, it's unclear what the fate of this procedural vote will be. I just reported a few minutes ago that House Republican leaders told members that they can actually leave the chamber and head back to their offices because they don't expect this logjam to be solved for a little bit. So things are very fast moving right now. Slow moving also a lot up in the air. But if this procedural vote were to fail, that would be a seismic blow for Speaker Johnson, House Republican leaders and President Trump, as I mentioned, bringing the House chamber to a standstill. You can't do anything unless you clear this procedural hurdle. And also an embarrassing blow for folks as they're trying to muscle this legislation through by Friday, July 4th.

[Mara Gay]

Okay, we only have about 30 seconds left, but I have to say, Mar, I've sort of seen this movie before and we generally know how it ends, where at the end of the day, these folks, folks get bullied, cajoled, threatened with primaries, and they come around and they vote for Donald Trump's agenda. But I have found watching this process play out interesting because the fissures within MAGA world are becoming clear. Even if that doesn't change their votes, they do seem to be more willing to articulate where the points of differential are.

[Juanita Tolliver]

Well, that's right. It's a roadmap to their vulnerabilities outside their relationship with Donald Trump. So you can tell that they have looked at polling in their districts and they've looked at the races they're going face and they're looking at this bill saying this is a problem.

[Mara Gay]

Congresswoman Madeline Dean, Michael Schnell, thank you both so much for starting us off. Mara, you are sticking with me. When we come back, another private business settling a lawsuit with the president of the United States, a suit deemed by most experts completely baseless and without merit. A closer look at this latest capitulation from yet another private industry. Plus, a local election in Wisconsin ushered in a liberal majority to that state's Supreme Court. And now voters there are being rewarded with reproductive freedom for millions. That story just ahead. And later in the show, a pardoned January six rioter called on the crowd storming the Capitol to kill police officers is now reportedly working at get this, the Justice Department. We're going to get to all of that and more when Deadline White House continues after this.

[Michael Schnell]

Building, A business may feel like a big jump, but On Deck small business loans can help keep you afloat. With lines of credit up to $100,000 and term loans up to 250,000, OnDeck lets you choose the loan that's right for your business. As a top rated online small business lender, OnDeck's team of loan advisors can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit ondeck.com for more information. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtibank. On Deck does not lend in North Dakota, all loans and amounts subject to lender approval. As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious.

[Alicia Menendez]

Agenda, follow along with MSNBC's newest 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.

[Juanita Tolliver]

The American people are basically telling the.

[Mara Gay]

President that they are not okay with any of this.

[Alicia Menendez]

Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at msnbc.com project47.

[Michael Schnell]

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

[Alicia Menendez]

For early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace, why Is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows. Ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

[Mara Gay]

There is yet another capitulation by a major US Institution to Donald Trump. This week, Paramount, the parent company of CVS, has agreed to pay Trump a whopping $16 million to settle a voter interference lawsuit over alleged deceptive editing of an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes. Paramount says that as part of that settlement, the money will go towards Trump's Future Presidential Library. 60 Minutes will release transcripts of future interviews with presidential candidates. As the New York Times describes it today, quote, the deal is the clearest sign yet that Mr. Trump's ability to intimidate major American institutions extends to the media industry. Many Lawyers had dismissed Mr. Trump's lawsuit as baseless, believed that CBS would have ultimately prevailed in court, in part because the network did not report anything factually inaccurate, and the First Amendment gives publishers wide leeway to determine how to present information. Despite the questionable legal merits of that case brought by Trump, the Times reports that according to two people familiar with the negotiations, quote, some executives at the company viewed the president's lawsuit as a potential hurdle to completing a multi billion dollar sale of the company to the Hollywood studio Skydance, which requires the Trump administration's approval. Joining our conversation, voting rights attorney and founder of Democracy Docket Mark Elias Mara is also back with us. Mark, your reaction to the settlement?

[Madeline Dean]

So we've gone in the last six months from Disney paying about $16 million and there being a patina. I mean, it was nonsense then, but a patina that they were settling a meritorious claim. Again, it was not a meritorious claim. They were just putting money into the pocket of Donald Trump's library to now everyone admits that that's what this is like. There's not even a, there's no longer even a fig leaf that what CBS is doing here, what Paramount is doing here is anything other than paying a vigilant to the, to the bookmaker. Right to the, to the bookie. And they want a, they want the government to take an official act which is approved, a merger, and they are willing to pay money. You know, in the old days, not that long ago, we would call that a bribe. It is still a bribe. And so this is an absolutely disgusting move by Paramount. It is one that Democrats on the Hill have already said that they're going to look at and see whether the law has been violated here. But, you know, it is also a clarion call for the media itself. You know, when I was asked by 60 Minutes to appear on camera and speak in clear moral terms about what the legal industry was doing when Donald Trump was threatening it, I was willing to go on camera and do that. It is now time for journalists to have the same moral clarity and call out exactly what CBS has done.

[Mara Gay]

What do you see as the consequence of Paramount's decision here? I mean, what is the message it sends to the media industry, which you just talked about a little bit, but also to Donald Trump?

[Madeline Dean]

Oh, the message it sends to Donald Trump is that he can get away with anything. You know, Donald Trump has managed to get billionaires to fly their private planes to Mar a Lago and then to his inaugural and bend a knee and kiss the ring, he has been able to cow four very large law firms to kiss the ring and to bow down. He has now caused a second one of the major networks to do the same. You know, abc, Disney, and now Paramount, CBS to do the same. The message he is sending, is that, is that there is that that he can, through fear and intimidation, cause anyone to bow down and kiss the ring. That is why you see Republic, you know, your last segment, she's talking about Republican members of Congress, they are bowing down to kiss the ring. And so those of us who are unwilling to do that need to stand tall. But we also need call out with clear messaging those folks who are not meeting their ethical or civic obligations.

[Mara Gay]

Mara, what does a decision like this mean to a newsroom?

[Juanita Tolliver]

Well, that.

[Mara Gay]

Sigh sort of is the answer.

[Juanita Tolliver]

Yeah. I mean, as a journalist, it's something that obviously all of us are worried about. You know, the problem is that newspapers are also businesses. And so just like every other institution in the United States, all of us are living in a country where the President has shattered all norms and has shown himself to be willing and eager to use intimidation to get his way. And so it's really important that institutions from all sectors of society stand up to that. I mean, we haven't seen that. We've seen law firms capitulate, we've seen universities capitulate. And the problem with that, and now a media company, obviously, and the problem with that is not only is it dangerous for democracy, but I think what we're seeing, we're already seeing this with Harvard, with Columbia, is it's never enough for Donald Trump. So you don't strike one deal and you kind of kiss the ring and then you move on and you get to act independently. Once you have signaled to the White House that you are not willing to stand up against this president, in his mind, he basically owns you and so he's always going to ask for more. It's not going to stop there. So I wonder about the long term business strategy here and not just for today's news, but also just for law firms, for universities, for Congress. I think people are really engaged in a lot of short term survival thinking. But this also tells us that ultimately it's going to be up to the voters and to the American people through votes, peaceful protests, organizing, and people driven politics to hold this president accountable. One of the most disappointing aspects of this kind of story too is you really have wealthy people, people who already have plenty of money making decisions to kind of bend the knee, where you have ordinary Americans who are really the ones who have been standing up, whether it's the associates who've quit, the firms who've struck deals with Donald Trump and with that White House, whether it's people at the CDC who have spoken out and said that the Doge cuts are going to hurt average Americans. You know, it's ordinary Americans who are willing to put everything on the line. And it seems to be that powerful Americans are less likely to do that. I mean, listen, companies are beholden. They answer to shareholders. That is part of how capitalism works. The problem is we're not dealing in ordinary times. So they are not meeting their civic responsibility at the moment. It's a higher calling. And, and institutions across the country are failing, many of them. Some of them are not, but too many of them are.

[Mara Gay]

Let's talk, Mark, about two things that Mara just touched on there, which is accountability and institutions. You had a group of senators sending a letter to Paramount's controlling shareholder Sherrie Redstone last month urging her not to settle. Paramount appears to be trying to settle a lawsuit that it has assessed as completely without merit and moderating the content of its programs in order to obtain approval of this merger. Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act. If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other administration officials, they may be breaking the law. Let's be honest, it is likely that Paramount's attorneys looked at that letter and said, we've got a solid defense. What do you make of that claim as an attorney?

[Madeline Dean]

I sort of think the attorneys probably didn't say they had a solid claim. I think the attorneys probably said there is safety in numbers, which, which is not the same thing as saying you didn't do it. I mean, think about it this way. You know, there's a federal law that says TikTok can't be operating. And for a few days when Donald Trump first was taking office, Tick Tock, you know, App, Apple and Google took them out of the App Store. And then Donald Trump just basically said, oh, just, we'll ignore that law. Don't worry. Go ahead and tick tock, TikTok will operate. And I doubt it's because the lawyers said to Apple and Google and the other companies, oh, don't worry, this is totally safe. They just said, well, like, look, this is just you go along, get along, and, and probably nothing happens because it's, it'd be too big of a deal to go after you. And I suspect that's what. What the lawyers are advising cbs. I mean, like I said, what's remarkable about this instance is that almost no one disagrees with the facts that the Democrats laid out in that letter. Like, we all know what's going on here, which is that a payment is being made in order to influence official action. And so like, the lawyers can't magically wave that away. They can just say, look, $16 million is sort of what the going rate is right now. You know, although Jeff Bezos did a movie for Melania Trump life story for $40 million, you know, but, but, but in any event, $16 million seems well in the in the ambit of what folks pay for baseless lawsuits these days. And so, you know, that with that risk, you know, go forward safety numbers.

[Mara Gay]

Interesting that that is a concept that works in both directions. Mark Elias, thank you so much as always, for joining us. And up next, why elections Matter, a huge win for abortion rights activists and women throughout the state of Wisconsin. What that state Supreme Court just did. That's next. The other thing I want to say is that when we filed this case.

[Alicia Menendez]

The makeup of the state Supreme Court was different. At a time when the rights of Wisconsinites and Americans are under threat. This case is a stark reminder of how important it is that we fight.

[Mara Gay]

For our rights, that we advocate for.

[Alicia Menendez]

What is in the best interests of the people of our state, and that we stand on the side of freedom.

[Mara Gay]

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kahl after that state's Supreme Court struck down its near total abortion ban, a ban from the year 1849, in a 4, 3 decision. As the attorney general noted, the victory for abortion rights at the state Supreme Court today was a direct result of the election of Janet Protozewicz to the court in 2023. Protozewicz had made resorting abortion access in the state a central part of her campaign. The ruling could not come at a more critical time for women's reproductive freedom as abortion rights opponents emboldened by the reelection, who has repeatedly taken credit for the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe, have expanded their attacks on women's health access. Joining us now, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Alexis McGill Johnson. Alexis, what does this victory mean for women in Wisconsin?

[Juanita Tolliver]

Oh, well, Alicia, it means that elections have consequences, right? We saw Wisconsinites show up incredibly proud in 2023. They elected Judge Predace, which and and in spite Elon Musk's best effort to also install one of his judges in they also were able to elect Susan Crawford, who will take the bench in the fall. It just underscores how important it is for people to show up and invest in their democracy so that we can have wins where we know the majority of people in Wisconsin support reproductive freedom. And it is Wonderful that they are able to strike this 176-year-old ban down. And at the same time, we also know that elections have consequences, as we have seen the defund effort right now in Congress. So, you know, we're balancing both a win and a celebration. And also the reality of what is happening in this big betrayal of a bill.

[Mara Gay]

Let's talk, you and I, Mara, about, about that, which is very often if somebody, someone is on Medicaid and they are going to Planned Parenthood for any number of non abortion related services, it is because Planned Parenthood is the provider who is willing to take Medicaid. It is simply a question of access. So to cut off that funding is to say that you simply will not have access to health insurance. This issue was so front and center during the campaign, and it feels as though very quickly the contours of this have changed.

[Juanita Tolliver]

Well, I mean, first of all, one of the tragedies of last November's election was that for women who were really hoping to restore their rights to see a president who supported Roe v. Wade, I think it was devastating just on that issue alone. It was not necessarily a repudiation of that. You see that Roe v. Wade is very popular still in the American public, but, but other issues eclipsed that. Immigration, affordability. And so meanwhile, American women have fewer rights than they did 50 years ago. And women who live in states where abortion access is restricted are already paying the price. We're seeing signs that maternal mortality rates are up as well and that there may be some relation there. I mean, you know, that's not that surprising. So I think the interesting thing about what happened in Wisconsin today is that the fall of Roe v. Wade was preceded by decades of Republican activism in state and local elections around abortion as an issue to rally their voters who were in the minority but made great gains in stripping women of abortion access. And now we have the inverse situation where it's clearly driving Democrats to the polls and others, not just Democrats, but Americans in general, are very activated on this issue. And I think when you see, when you see this access restored in part today, some small piece of it, what that means is that voters are going to be more motivated to keep showing.

[Mara Gay]

Up because they can win.

[Juanita Tolliver]

They can win. But it is a long way back to where we were even a few years ago for women in this country.

[Mara Gay]

Alexis, I would describe it as two steps forward, one step back. When you think about what we're watching out of Wisconsin, and then what we're currently watching on Capitol Hill unfolds, this is how the Times described the effort to defund your organization. The bill imposes a one year ban on state Medicaid payments to any health care nonprofit that offers abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023. The restriction jeopardizes Planned Parenthood's ability to keep operating in some states. Though not all individual Planned Parenthood locations provide abortions. The legislative language could knock them out of Medicaid if they are part of a regional network that does offer the procedures. Can you just talk us through what your what Planned Parenthood is doing to prepare for the possibility that the House and number of hours days could pass this legislation?

[Juanita Tolliver]

Well, first of all, I do want to underscore the fact that we are in this for the long game. It just as the point was just made that it is two steps forward and one step back. But at every turn, we are able to galvanize people and help them understand and make the connections between the fact that the people who are determining the future of their healthcare are people who work for them and that we have to ensure that elections have consequences not just a few years ago, not just in the last set of ballot initiatives, but moving forward so that people understand that at every turn we are going to be playing the long game to restore access to care. This bill in defunding Planned Parenthood is, you know, puts at risk about 200 health centers, the majority of which are in states where abortion is actually legal, states like Wisconsin now. And so it is really important for us to, you know, help people understand that this is a backdoor abortion ban. My colleagues across the country are engaged in many conversations with their governors and with their lawmakers to ensure that their state budgets can continue to support them. And we're going to explore all options at our levers that we have in order to continue to fight to provide abortion care and also fight to get the reimbursement that these providers so deserve for the care that they are providing, just like any other healthcare provider in this nation. That is really what is most important, that patients understand we are going to continue to open up doors and serve them and we're going to continue to ensure that they get the care that they need.

[Mara Gay]

Alexis McGill Johnson, thank you so much for joining us on this big news day. Up next, the story that was breaking at this hour yesterday taking a dramatic turn at a courtroom in New York City today. We're going to bring you that next. We are just moments away from Sean Diddy Combs bail hearing after he was acquitted this morning on racketeering, conspiracy and sex trafficking charges. He was found guilty on two lesser counts of prostitution related charges. Combs appeared to celebrate the verdict in the courtroom, though he still faces considerable prison time. The prostitution transportation charge carries as much as 10 years in prison per count. But he could walk free today after more than a year in federal detention. His legal team has offered a $1 million bond. Let's bring in former Criminal Division deputy chief at sdny, MSNBC legal analyst Christy Greenberg. Christi Greenberg, what is going through Judge Submaranian's decision making here? What is it that he's weighing?

[Christy Greenberg]

Well, one thing he's looking at is what are the sentencing guidelines that apply here? The prosecutors and defense attorneys have each put in their submissions. Prosecutors, conservatively, they are looking at, he is looking at a prison sentence of anywhere between 51 to 63 months. That's their calculation of what the guidelines are. Of course, the judge can go below or below that, above that. It's really up to the judge what to do. But that's what the guidelines come out to. And the defense is really saying, look, there's no mandatory minimum that applies here anymore. The judge can do whatever he wants. The more serious crimes he's been acquitted of. And so he should be released so that, that based on, again, what amounts to really transportation for prostitution. Those, those offenses didn't involve violence. Prosecutors saying, well, Judge, you don't have to just ignore everything you heard. You heard about lots of violence, lots of coercion, and all of that is relevant to the consideration here, which is, is he a danger to the community? And it's hard to see how you could sit through this trial for six weeks and think the answer to that question is no. So we'll see what Judge Subramanian does. But I think the prosecutors have made a strong case for him to be detained pending sentencing.

[Mara Gay]

Kristi, you were present for a lot of this trial. Sometimes you and I would, would sit in green rooms together and I would hear your analysis live as it was happening. Your sense of where there may have been weaknesses or holes in the process, prosecution's case, where they didn't necessarily meet the burden of proof for, for some of those most serious charges or what you think happened in that, in that jury room.

[Christy Greenberg]

You know, I'm not, I do think there were certain, certain areas where maybe the government was a little too aggressive. Some of the predicate offenses that they considered racketeering activity seemed to be overcharged. But I hate to say that because, you know, just yesterday I was on this program saying I felt very confident that they were going to get convictions, and I felt the evidence was strong enough for them to get convictions. Certainly, as to sex trafficking of Cassie Ventura there, I really, I, I didn't see a weakness. I think the other victim, Jane, did present some novel theories on sex trafficking based on fraud and coercion that, that were. They were novel. It was a, it was a. It was a weaker case as to that victim. But, but Cassie Ventura, I mean, it's on video. All the jury had to do was believe their eyes, even if they didn't believe what she said, believe what you saw, and believe all the witnesses who came forward and corroborated not just that he was violent towards her, if she did anything other than what he wanted, but believe that not only was she afraid of him, but they were afraid of him. And so if you're living in this climate of fear, the idea that, that she could say no and that she had such freedom of choice, you know, that that just wasn't her reality. And I think she made that very clear over the course of four days. So, yes. Were there some missteps or were there areas where the defense certainly presented a stronger case and took advantage? Yes, but on the whole, given what I saw in the courtroom, it's hard to understand how the jury came to this verdict certainly as quickly as they did. Usually when you get a quick verdict in a day and a half of deliberating, usually that's a good sign for the prosecution, and here it was not.

[Mara Gay]

Christy, I've only got about a minute left, but I know that there are folks who think that this is just a story about a famous person or that that is why there is so much attention on it. There's a bigger question here about how sex crimes are tried. There is a bigger question here about where we find ourselves in the aftermath of the MeToo movement. I just wonder, so more broadly, how you see this moment.

[Christy Greenberg]

The backlash against the MeToo movement is real, right? You see Harvey Weinstein, the poster child for the MeToo movement. He was convicted of rape and assault in California, but just last month, he got a mixed verdict in New York. Bill Cosby's sexual assault conviction in Pennsylvania was overturned. And then you have today's acquittal of sex trafficking for Sean Combs. Donald Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, but that, that didn't stop him from becoming president again. And we've seen sexual assault accusations be nothing more than a speed bump on the road to powerful positions like Secretary of defense and Supreme Court justice. It really feels like the pendulum has swung back and that rich and famous powerful men who are accused of sex crimes continue to avoid accountability and the women who accuse them are the ones who continue to be blamed. We really went from me too to too bad.

[Mara Gay]

Christy Greenbrook, I'm going to ask you to stick with us for when that bail hearing gets underway in the next hour. Mara Gay, thank you so much for spending the hour with us. A quick break. When we come back, ICE agents step up enforcement tactics around the country and a new app is getting a lot of attention. We're going to explain that next. ICE Block, the free app now getting backlash from the White House that gives users the ability to anonymously report ICE sightings within a five mile radius has climbed to number one for social networking apps in the Apple App Store. White House press secretary Caroline Levitt singled out the app on Monday, alleging that agents are facing a 500% increase in assaults. But Ice Blocks developer Joshua Allen told NBC News the administration's recent criticism is, quote, another right wing fear mongering scare tactic. Allen said he felt like he was watching history repeat itself when he saw things like five year olds in courtrooms with no representation and college students being disappeared for their political opinions. Quote, when I saw what was happening in this country, I really just wanted to do something to help fight back. I think if you can save one person's life or help one person avoid a horrible situation, I've done my job. Up next, another January6 defendant pardoned by Donald Trump now has a place at the Department of Justice. The next hour of deadline. White House starts right after this quick break.

[Michael Schnell]

Building a business may feel like a big jump, but On Deck small business loans can help keep you afloat with lines of credit up to $100,000 and term loans up to 250,000. On deck lets you choose the loan that's right for you. Your business as a top rated online small business lender, OnDeck's team of loan advisors can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit ondeck.com for more information. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by On Deck or Celtibank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

[Alicia Menendez]

MSNBC's Jen Psaki, host of the Briefing.

[Juanita Tolliver]

We'Ve never experienced a moment like this in our country and it leaves us all with a are we gonna speak out or are we gonna be pressured into silence? I've worked for presidents. I'VE faced the tough questions from the press and even threats from the Kremlin. And if there's one thing I've learned, it's that you can't cower to bullies.

[Hakeem Jeffries]

You don't need to be hopeless.

[Mara Gay]

We have our voices, and I will continue using mine.

[Alicia Menendez]

The Briefing with Jen Psaki Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC. Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust, standout moments from your favorite show, and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up [e-mail].

[Tim Hafey]

Yesterday, the Capitol of the United States was taken over by domestic terrorists that are not patriots. The people who attacked the Capitol Hill.

[Mara Gay]

Police need to be charged with attacking a police officer.

[Tim Hafey]

We are approaching a solemn anniversary this week and it is an anniversary of.

[Mara Gay]

A violent terrorist attack on the Capitol.

[Tim Hafey]

We're all we're here, we're here. We saw what happened. It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

[Mara Gay]

Hi again, everyone. I'm Alicia Menendez Wallace. It is five o' clock here in New York used to be agreed upon from those who experienced it, Republicans included, that the January 6th attack on our Capitol was a violent assault on our democracy. That the angry mob, especially those who attacked the police officers, should be held to account. Yet that shared assessment quickly faded as Donald Trump and his party whitewashed the events of that day. Members of the mob were held out as prisoners, martyrs, even heroes. Then all their wrongdoings were erased when Trump pardoned the 1500 plus defendants that had been charged by the Department of Justice. Now one of those defendants has been chosen to join the very DOJ that charged him. According to new reporting in the New York Times, a former FBI agent who was charged with encouraging the mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6th to kill police officers has been named as an advisor to the Justice Department task force that President Trump established to seek retribution against his political enemies. Former agent Jared L. Wise is serving as a counselor to Ed Martin, the director of the so called Weaponization Working Group. That's according to people familiar with the group's activities. Wise was charged with two felonies and four misdemeanors in May of 2023 for his actions on the 6th. It was in the middle of his criminal trial at the time Trump issued his pardons. The Times calls Wise's new appointment a remarkable development. Quote, his selection meant that a man who had urged violence against police officers was now responsible for the department's official effort to exact revenge against those who tried to hold the rioters accountable. The original complaint of Wise's charges reveals what exactly prosecutors uncovered about him. Quote, review of Metropolitan Police Department body worn camera footage reveals Wise engaging with police officers at approximately 4:21pm on the Upper West Terrace. Wise tells MPD officers, you guys are disgusting. I am former, I am former law enforcement. You're disgusting. You are the Nazi. You are the Gestapo. You can't see it. Shame on you. When violence against law enforcement began in front of Wise, including officers being knocked to the ground directly in front of him, Wise turned in the direction of the violence and shouted, yeah, F them. Yeah, kill them. A few seconds later, as assaults continued, he shouted in the direction of the rioters attacking the police line, kill him. Kill him. Kill him. That man now being a part of the United States Justice Department is where we begin this hour with former lead investigator for the January 6th select committee, Tim Hafez. Plus MSNBC political analyst, host of the Bulwark podcast, Tim Miller. And with me at the table for the hour, Democratic strategist and professor at Columbia University, MSNBC political analyst Basil Smichel. Tim Hafey, let's start with you. You spent a lot of time investigating what happened on that day. What does it feel like? What goes through your mind when you see people who stormed the Capitol, called for law enforcement to be killed, be rewarded for that behavior?

[Alicia Menendez]

Yet another new frontier, Alicia. Really shocking and disappointing that someone who would literally be charged by the Justice Department with aiding and abetting assault on police is now working in that very department. Let's be clear. Mr. Wise was charged for conduct, not speech. He was charged because he went into the Capitol climbing over broken glass and entering a building, clearly without authorization. And then more seriously, as your intro just pointed out, the charge is that he encouraged violence against police officers by literally inciting the crowd in the midst of a struggle between law enforcement and other people. Kill him. Kill him, kill him. That's not simply speech. That goes beyond speech into conduct. So the notion that he is a victim, the notion that he has somehow been prosecuted by a weaponized department for his political views, it's just not borne out by the facts. He's charged and prosecuted for conduct, not his beliefs about the election or President Trump or anything else. So I'm extremely discouraged that someone like that would be in any position of authority.

[Mara Gay]

Well, Tim Miller, first came the rhetoric where they tried to pretend we didn't all watch what happened on January 6. Then came the pardons. And now, Tim Miller, comes the lionization the placing not just in the public domain, but in an actual position of power, a person who has undermined American democracy. What does that say to you?

[Tim Hafey]

Well, look, Alicia, those of us who've been watching this closely have seen this trend for a couple of years now. There's a brief period after January 6th where Republican politicians felt like it was the right thing to do, at least some of them. Them to speak out about this. But we've seen what Republican voters wanted in the ensuing midterms in 2022, and then by nominating Trump in 2024, and by nominating a lot of insurrectionists for office. You know, it isn't just this is an appointed position, but, you know, across the country, people that were there on January 6th or participating at various levels, you know, ran in Republican primaries for offices that were supported. And I had a friend working on a campaign in West Virginia against one of those. One of those candidates. And it was like it was a plus for them with the electorate, according to all of their polling. So, I mean, this is kind of the dark heart of what we're seeing in the MAGA movement. So it's not particularly surprising that some of these folks will have positions in the Trump administration. I mean, the degree of outrageousness of the behavior of this particular individual, you know, is alarming. And it's not just this particular individual. There are others in this administration who are horribly unqualified, who have been advanced horribly extreme views on a variety of issues. So I think that's what we know. I guess the other thing that we could learn politically is that the whole back the blue element is very selective. It's back the kind of police we like. We'll back the ICE cops, and we'll back the folks that are, you know, on the streets in Los Angeles, but that doesn't extend to everyone.

[Mara Gay]

Well, let's pick up right there, Basil, because you watch what has happened with Representative McIver, you watch what happened with Brad Lander, you watch what happened with Ras Baraka, Senator Padilla. You put that side by side with a person who has actually been criminally tried for his conduct. It gets to the point that Tim Miller was making about what they say when. What they mean when they say back the blue, what they mean when they say hold people to account.

[Michael Schnell]

Yes. And it also means that for us, by any means necessary, meaning that if you were to engage in that kind of insurrection, insurrectionist behavior on behalf of anybody else, you would be in prison right now. But for the fact that it is for Donald Trump or the Things you think he believes in, it's okay. And you use the correct terms, whitewashed and rewarded. That's exactly what's happening. And I can't help but think about the over 4 million people who've lost their voting rights because they were formerly incarcerated. If they had been able to vote, we wouldn't be talking about this potentially right now because they would have that ability to exercise that right, and there would be folks bringing them to the polls to say, you now have the ability to change the course of this country. And to Tim's point, a lot of Americans did have that right. And they made a conscious decision to look away from all of this bad behavior because somehow that made them feel like they were a part of something special and bigger than them that was gonna take the country forward. But all that it did do is bring us more stories about how, as was said before, people who are dramatically unqualified have positions of power in this country. And this gentleman is part of a weaponization office. Yes, right. Whose purpose, I think, is to go after people who they believed weaponized government against the administration. How unbelievably ironic and crazy is that, right?

[Mara Gay]

A lot of I'm rubber your glue. Tim Miller, let's talk about the retribution goals and this weaponization working group that Jared Wise is going to be a part of, specifically who it's being run by. Ed Martin, I want to read you a little bit more from that Times reporting. Just reminding us and our viewers who he is. Mr. Martin, a longtime supporter of January 6th defendants, was put in charge of the weaponization group in May after Mr. Trump withdrew his name for a Senate confirmed position as the U.S. attorney in Washington. His nomination faltered in part because of the work he had done as an advocate and defense lawyer for people charged in connection with the Capitol attack. Talk just a little bit to Miller about Ed Martin and what it is he plans to do.

[Tim Hafey]

Yeah, Eagle Ed Martin on social media. Well, for folks who don't destroy. As a refresher for everybody. So, as you mentioned, he was the temporary U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. and during that period, he went after Congressman Robert Garcia for a metaphor or a figure of speech. This is the Free Speech Party, right? Saying that the office was going to investigate him. That didn't go anywhere there. I went after Georgetown University for, like, minor, you know, issues related to curriculum. You know, said that he was going to be. This was back when Elon Musk was in good standing. You know, the person fighting for, you know, on behalf of Elon Musk against those that were attacked, that were attacking Tesla. He went, it is just deeply, you know, an example of just the Orwellian false speak, the idea that this person will be in charge of a committee that's supposed to look into the weaponization of government. He wants to be a weapon of government when he's in the U.S. attorney's office. His whole objective was to use the power of government and weaponize it against political foes of the president. And so, and this is a person that's been unabashed about that. There's some that are more, how shall we say, more casual about it than others are more willing to use weasel words or not exactly be so blunt about their goals. Goals like eagle. Ed Martin wants retribution like that. That's what he's going for. So to put him in charge of this office is basically to say, let's do more. We want more retribution. We want more revenge. And you listed out all the Democratic politicians that they've already targeted and I would expect to see more of that.

[Mara Gay]

Well, Tim Hafey, the weaponization group, like, at least they are very clear and explicit about what they are doing, at least if you are willing to read their subtext. But in addition to that, you have NBC reporting three federal prosecutors who worked on the cases against January 6th riders were fired Friday by the Justice Department. That's according to more than a half a dozen current and former officials. Where is DOJ headed? Tim Hafee?

[Alicia Menendez]

I fear that a lot of good people are hollowing out, Alicia, from the Department of Justice, because they went there understanding that the historic tradition, whether it was a Republican attorney general or a Democratic attorney general, has been we make decisions based on the facts and the law, not on any political motivation. But simply do the facts presented suggest the violation of federal criminal law? If so, is it of a magnitude that we should expend resources? That has been the guiding principle, this notion that this Weaponization Working group is going to look at whether that standard was violated, have at it. They will not find evidence of weaponization. And the irony, as Basil and Tim are both saying, is that by spending time looking for no MAGA left behind, I think was Ed Martin's term, that is in effect, weaponization, looking for weaponization that did not exist. That's the rich irony here. But to your question about justice, the heart and soul of that place is career men and women who turn the wheels of the system, them based on facts and law, not on improper motives. If they're being fired or they're leaving voluntarily because they don't want to participate in weaponization, then I worry that down the road that has huge consequences for our public safety and our national security.

[Mara Gay]

Tim Hafey, you and I have spoken many times about the precedent this sets and the permission structure that it opened up for a future January 6th. You and I talked about it first when we witnessed the whitewashing of what happened on January 6th. We spoke about it again during that spate of pardons. And now, as you said, it feels as though we are in a new frontier where people who were convicted of these crimes are now being put in decision making capacities. When you look at it as a through line, as not simply retrospective to what has already happened, but, but the possibility of what could be, what does it say to you? What does it tell you?

[Alicia Menendez]

Yeah, look, if you believe as I do that criminal consequences and accountability deters bad behavior, then the excuse of criminal behavior encourages it. And when you elevate somebody like Jared Wise, who was charged with, let's be clear, he wasn't yet convicted, he was mid trial when the pardons occurred, but charged with the very serious offense of aiding and abetting assault on law enforcement. If he is not only forgiven but elevated as a result of that conduct, then that is an encouragement, Alicia, for other people to engage in vigilantism or unlawful behavior because they think that they have a backstop or a get out of jail free card. That is why this is so dangerous. Right. It's not just about this individual situation. It's about the message it sends to other actors to take action that they believe will be excused.

[Mara Gay]

Well, and Basil, I think the message is the point.

[Michael Schnell]

Sure. Yeah, I can, you know, everything that folks have said, I just can't help but think about this as sort of the gamification of America, meaning that the rules don't matter anymore. And there's one side that is going to win because they're in charge and another side that is destined to lose because they don't have power. So the question is, how do people without power get that power? How the folks that have power seed some of it to make sure that there is some justice, which is not going to happen in this case because as I said, it seems like the rules don't matter anymore. Why should anyone play by the rules, particularly if you're in support of Donald Trump, because you're gonna get pardoned anyway, you're gonna be forgiven anyway. As long as you turn around and show fealty, then doesn't matter. All of those folks who and I talked about the 4 million who couldn't vote. How many more Americans who have been incarcerated can't even find a job, let alone have one at one of the highest levels of our government, with so much of a bureaucracy and power at that person's disposal to go after other people? When do we do that? How do we do that? It's almost like it doesn't matter. It's all a big game to some folks, as long as a certain sign and a certain group of people consistently win.

[Mara Gay]

TINDLER I think sometimes it's easy to talk about this as the which. It's important to talk about the consequences for what it means in this period of time, the permission structure that it opens up in the not so distant future. But I'm also obsessed with the Humpty Dumpty of it, all, right? Like, this is being deconstructed. And if we are able somehow, as a country to live and survive our democracy past this moment, it is going to fall to someone to put it back together. And the putting back together of these institutions will not be easy, especially because all the career folks, lots of the career folks, have left. They have undermined the value and the mission of the institution. If there is another side of this, if we all return to Earth one, what is it going to require to put these institutions back together?

[Tim Hafey]

I think it's easy to give, like, happy talk to this answer and kind of say, well, we're just going to have to work, can do it and join hands, and it's going to be hard. Elysian Some of it is not going to be. Is irreparable, I guess, just the reality, you know, I had Nick Kristoff on the Borg podcast last Friday, I think, and he's talking about usaid, which got shut down officially on Monday. The harm is done, right? Like a future president could come back in and restart usaid. But, like, things change, the world moves on, you know, and it becomes hard to these complex systems, it becomes very challenging to put them back together in a way that they worked before. And so we're not gonna be able to save as many people's lives as we were before. I think that's true about everything. It's certainly true about the Justice Department. Just thinking about the people that are checking out, the career people, you focused on the folks that were fired, rightly think about the people that are just choosing to leave, right? And then think about what types of people are being attracted to go into the government right now. Who wants to go work for Kristi Noem and Kash Patel and, and Pam Bondi. And, you know, like, it is going to take a generation to unwind all of that stuff. And you know, like, in the just as one example of the people that are going back in versus those coming out, you know, there's a CNN story by a friend, Andy Kaczynski, about this Paul Ingracia, who's going into the DOJ this week. And here's a sentence. He has a year of government experience. He just passed the bar. He has a history of racist invective, conspiratorial rank and an affinity with a well known Holocaust denier. That's what's Andy Kaczynski's reporting. These are the types of people that are going in. Good people who are trying to do the work are either getting fired or leaving. It is going to be a long time before we can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

[Mara Gay]

You know, I never come to you for happy talk. Tim Miller, Tim Hafey, I wanted to make sure you were a part of this conversation, given all the work you did on the January 6th committee. So thank you so much for taking the time. Basil. Tim Miller, you're both sticking with me. We have some breaking news out of New York. The judge in the trial of Sean Diddy Combs has just ordered that bail be denied and that the music mogul will be detained until sentencing. We're going to unpack that ruling with our legal analyst Christy Greenberg after a very short break. Stay with us. Just moments ago, the judge in the trial of Sean Diddy Combs ordered that bail has been denied and that Combs will be detained until he is sentenced. Let's bring in former criminal division deputy chief at sdny, MSNBC legal analyst Christy Greenberg. Christy, are you surprised? No.

[Christy Greenberg]

Look, the prosecutors made the case and the judge agreed that actually in these circumstances, given what he is convicted of, that detention is mandatory. And yes, there is an exception, but you don't meet that exception by saying what Combs did, which is, is, look, I'm a father, I'm a son. I, I really need to get back to my life. Most defendants can say that. And he really couldn't meet what his burden was, which was to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a danger to the community. And remember, the overwhelming evidence that was established at this trial, which was not in dispute by either party, was that he was violent, that he engaged in abuse. Both parties admitted to that and he did that over years. The other thing that I think must have weighed on the judge is the fact that it's at least one witness, but I believe possibly more than one trial witness who has opposed Combs release and saying look, I feel like there's a threat to my safety here. If you let him out, if judge you are considering letting him out, we would need to be heard on that. And so the judge I'm sure took into account the victims in the various ways witnesses safety when making this determination.

[Mara Gay]

And there is an additional element. I'm reading a rough transcript, so forgive me from the bench but this is the judge explaining his decision, talking about that video that we have all seen, that 2016 hotel video regarding Cassie. The judge saying the video is horrible. The video is very much domestic violence. This type of violence sparked by anger is impossible to police with conditions impossible for the defendant to demonstrate that he poses no danger to the community after the searches that had taken place and when he was under investigation. One of the government's evidence came in June 2024 with assault of Jane where he should have stayed clean even before his offer of self surrender. He demonstrated a disgrace for the rule of law. Talk to me about how that may have factored in.

[Christy Greenberg]

Absolutely. The fact that he knew In June of 2024, just a year ago that he was under federal investigation and nevertheless he brutally assaulted Jane. She had injuries that were visible for days after she was assaulted. I mean it's really the fact that, that usually when people know they're under investigation that would cause them to be deterred, to stop be on their best behavior and that didn't happen here. The fact that he continued to engage in violence even while being on notice that he was being looked at, that shows that if he is let out on release during this time, he really is not somebody who can show that he can abide by the terms of any, any release. So again, I think the judge did absolutely the right thing here and the thing that is required under the law and to keep everyone safe until sentences.

[Mara Gay]

Chrissy, do you anticipate that his attorneys will appeal that ruling?

[Christy Greenberg]

I do because they, they tend to appeal everything. He has an extensive team and he has an appellate specialist on that team. So I do think they will appeal. I do think that statute is clear here that this is one of the, one of the offenses where detention is mandatory and it is such a limited exception to be able to get out out and be released from that that I don't think he will be successful on any appeal.

[Mara Gay]

We are waiting to hear about a sentencing date. I did want to talk to you about the timeline the amount of time that he could remain in detention. But can you give us a sense of the sentencing that he could be looking at, Christy?

[Christy Greenberg]

Well, so both sides in their submissions have provided different information as to what they believe the guidelines that apply are. So the prosecutors are saying, look, he's facing between 51 to 63 months in prison via our calculations. Defense is saying it's far less than that. He's already been in for 10 months. And he's looking more in the range, if I believe it was anywhere from 21 to 27 months roughly. So they're at different calculations for the guidelines. Really what the judge is going to do is go to a probation officer, have that officer do a report, prepare the probation officer's review of what the guidelines are that apply here as well as the probation officer's recommendation. Both sides will make their arguments. Usually those sentencings happen within three months or so of a conviction. Again, given the fact that he is detained, I would expect you they will want to combs his team would want that sentencing sooner than later. So don't, don't expect it to go much longer than three months from now.

[Mara Gay]

Now, Christy Greenberg, thank you so much for being with us during this breaking news. When we return, Donald Trump says his big, beautiful bill will lead to big, beautiful economic growth, but so far, not so much. We're going to show you what happened when a FOX Business host who was touting the bill came face to face with some pretty bad jobs numbers. That's next.

[Hakeem Jeffries]

Of course, President Trump is talking about this bill leading to growth in the economy. We are waiting any moment now to get the jobs numbers for the month of May. The expectations call for the ADP numbers to be up 95,000 for the month of June.

[Mara Gay]

Rather, it's the June jobs data and.

[Hakeem Jeffries]

Will of course, right now seeing seeing the number actually show a decline in.

[Mara Gay]

Jobs down 33,000 on on ADP live television could throw you some curveballs every now and then, as Maria Bartiromo learned on air this morning. This morning, the FOX Business host was reacting to the news that private payroll jobs significantly missed expectations for the month of June. According to the payroll processing firm ADP, private payrolls lost 33,000 jobs in June. The ADP report showed the first decrease since March 2023. Economists polled by Dow Jones forecasts an increase of 100,000 for the month, just another sign that Donald Trump's economic promises that he campaigned on might be falling through. Joining our conversation, MSNBC political analysts Juanita Tolliver. Tim and Basil are back with us as well. Juanita, there was one job fix. The American economy, 90 deals, 90 days, still waiting for like 88.5 of them. How do you diagnose what we're watching, Alicia?

[Tim Miller]

It wasn't broken in the first place, especially pointing back to that date. You just emphasized this is the first decline since, since March 2023. So Donald Trump has no one to blame but himself. And I think it's part of a lot, a larger theme that we've seen with him running the economy into the ground through his tariff standoffs that were completely unwarranted with his big announcement back in April with the 90 deals in 90 days promised. That is clearly something that he is also not going to realize. But also the additional impacts of those actions, aggravating inflation, further disrupting supply chains and systems, continuously seeing increases in the cost of goods for regular people. Like he has no one to point to but himself because each of his actions have precipitated this moment. And I think we'll see the same when and if this bill makes it across the finish line in Congress.

[Mara Gay]

Juanita gets it so right there, which is it did not need to be fixed. Perhaps the perception of it needed to be fixed because there were clearly people who felt that it was not where they wanted it to be. And yet the eye does not seem to be on the prize. Right? Doesn't seem to be about actually delivering whatever it was that that promise was. And the president, perhaps the administration can't seem to decide whether it is Donald Trump's economy when it's a good day, or if they are still considering it Joe Biden's economy on a bad day.

[Michael Schnell]

Well, as we all know, it's important to remember that he is not a policy person. He doesn't care about the policy. He cares about the sort of bravado. He cares about the language. He cares about the call and response. He says something. What do his supporters kind of respond with? And everything he said, you know what, I need to laid it out very well. Everything he said, he got a great response from his supporters. But that's just not how policy works.

[Mara Gay]

It's not call and response.

[Michael Schnell]

It's not call and response. You actually have to do the work. You have to understand how the economy works. You have to understand what the bureaucracy actually does and does not do. And he's not really interested in those details. And so I do think you're going to see this situation get worse and worse when you not just consider the job loss, but the prices that are layered on top of that and just the fear that individuals have because they have this uncertain economic future ahead of them. So I do think there is some worsening of this and one wonders that. We've already seen independence starting to sour even more on Donald Trump and the economy and the administration. I imagine that that also gets worse. Now the question is, how do Democrats capture that? There are a couple of ways that we could talk about, but this isn't over. And I think that's what Americans feel and are girding for.

[Mara Gay]

I am intrigued, Tim Lawyer, that when you look at the polling, a good number of Americans know about this legislation. They're also a number of Americans who do not fully understand what it is right now that the House is currently debating. So they will come to learn. But I can't help but looking at the numbers, wonder about the number of people who are going to say, wait a second, where's my tax cut? Like they've talked so much about tax cuts with very purposely not being clear on the Republican side about who those tax cuts are for. You just hear about extensions of Trump's tax cuts that it some point it has to become clear to a lot of folks in his base that assets and values they once have have been cut and they are not getting that tax cut that they've heard so much about.

[Tim Hafey]

Yeah, right. An extension is not actually a cut. So for those folks that aren't paying attention that closely, they're going to be at status quo. There are a few other things. There's no tax on tips, etc. And there's some parts of the economy that are doing, doing well. The private prison industry, for example, is really crushing right now. But overall, this bill, the economic part, is what people are going to feel quicker than the health care part for good reason. There's a lot of focus on Medicaid, but that stuff doesn't really actually come into effect till 2027. And on the economic side, what you have here is a ballooning of the national debt, which is going to keep interest rates high, which affects everybody. If you have a home mortgage, if you're looking to move a car mortgage to a and that affects everybody. If interest rates stay high, they are stopping jobs that had been in place for stuff from the Biden administration. A lot of those green energy construction jobs, a lot of which are in red states, they're just shutting that down. And you've seen the trade unions talk about how this is going to be a job killer of a bill. So those are two tangible things that you have on this bill and you put on top of that the uncertainty with tariffs. He announces this so called deal today with Vietnam which has I think a 20% tariff from Vietnam. One of the economic econ guys I followed, Joseph Politano, said that like five years ago, if you said we were putting a 20% tariff on Vietnam, that would have been the craziest, biggest trade war we've had in a half century. And that, like he's saying, is a win because it looked like it was going to be a greater disaster before that. And then you have all the doge cuts to the public sector industry. So you put all that together and there are a lot of people that are feeling real tangible pain and like not nearly as many that are feeling any offsetting gains.

[Mara Gay]

Right. Let's talk about that, Juanita, because I'm not like a math in my head person. I actually have to write it down on a piece of paper, see it on the abacus. So this is according to a consumer survey from 2023. You got about 30% of American households making less than $50,000. So USA Today broke down how these tax Trump cuts would. Trump's tax cuts would actually cost them money. Americans making $17,000 to $51,000 lose about $700. Those with an income of less than 17,000 would lose more than $1,000 on averages. Those losses are mainly a result of cuts and assistance programs, including Medicaid, health insurance marketplaces, the SNAP program, student loans. I just Republicans in red states, they have to be aware and they have to have seen this math and understood the way in which it is going to affect their constituents and affect members of their base. A big part of their argument was to working class voters, they sold themselves as faux populists. Where is that faux populism now?

[Tim Miller]

Well, Alicia, the reality is they do not care about the people. The reason why they're brushing this bill through Congress is to appease Donald Trump. He is their audience. He is exclusively the stakeholder. They're trying to impress us, not their constituents, not the people that they have to go home and try to explain this to. When, as Tim said, they're going to say, what about my tax cuts? Why is my life doing worse off than it was before President Trump took office for his second term. That's the answer they're not going to be able to give to their constituents. And to Basil's point, that's where Democrats have an opportunity to cement in the minds of voters who is to blame for this? Because even though there is a lag between the moment a bill is signed and when it's implemented and the effects are felt. You can tell an explicit story about why we are here in this moment, why you are going to have less and why you're going to continue to be in pain. And the reality is, unless you're a millionaire, you will experience some degree of comfort under this bill.

[Mara Gay]

Math is right there on the paper. Juanita Toliver, Tim Miller, thank you both so much for spending some time with us. And when we return, the reporter behind a comprehensive story in the New York Times about Donald Trump's finance, finances, the types of businesses he turned to when times got tough. Rather quietly, but in no less alarming fashion, Donald Trump's business has transformed from real estate development of questionable profitability to something else, something new, a business focused on monetizing the family name and perhaps the presidency itself. That is the basis for extensive new forensic financial reporting in the New York Times that catalogs the business's dire straits during the campaign, the deals Trump struck when he won, and the moves he's made or not made since he returned to office. Quote, today those moves are seen by Mr. Trump's detractors as a money grab of historic proportions. But an analysis by the New York Times of thousands of pages of internal Trump Organization documents filed in one of the legal actions against him suggested suggests a more urgent motivation for Mr. Trump's behavior, a need rather than simply a desire for easy money to keep his empire intact. Joining us at the table, New York Times investigative reporter Russ Buettner. Can you first tell me what a financial forensic investigation actually entails?

[J]

It's an excellent question. It's not my line of work, but what it usually means is looking at just a ton of records in a different kind of way, right. To try to figure out what really happened in a place rather than the way they represented it.

[Mara Gay]

This is your reporting, though. Talk me through it. What happens during the campaign, after the campaign?

[J]

Now, what's interesting is that you remember back in the fraud, fraud trial against him where his business was accused of lying to their lenders in order to hang on to low interest loans. He said during his depositions and that that he had 3 to $400 million in cash. And he had that because he ran, was a great rank. He had these great businesses that no one recognized. But what had really happened, what he built that up with was by selling off parts of his businesses because they weren't doing very well. And a lot of his businesses were sucking up cash and required infusions. And he filled that gap with money from entertainment and celebrity endorsements. That money went away as the Apprentice went down in popularity and in politics. And by the time he was got to the end of 2023 and into 2024, he was facing very large judgments. His businesses generally needed cash historically to survive. And so they needed new lines of money, new, easy money to get. And they were approached by some cryptocurrency people who told them, we can get you votes, we can get you campaign contributions. And all of a sudden, the family just leapt into this new line of thing that is yielding tens of millions of dollars already.

[Mara Gay]

Let's stay on that exact point. In response to your reporting, Eric Trump, who runs his father's business, told the Times his company is stronger than ever, largely debt free, thanks to, quote, the most iconic properties. And this is where I'm going to pick up on what you were talking about, Cryptocurrency ventures on Earth. Some of your colleagues at the New York Times put together a snapshot of Trump's portfolio, his financial portfolio, his assets, his fees payouts, his liabilities. And. And there's one number that really pops out there. I don't know if you can see it, as much as $7.1 billion in cryptocurrencies. What does your reporting tell you about the Trump family's relationship with cryptocurrencies? Why that investment?

[J]

Well, first, it's very new, and they've basically kind of replicated their old licensing business, where they're not actually running businesses that do that. They just have other people who invested money and are using their name to promote it. And Donald Trump ran on making cryptocurrency easier to deal with and basically lowering regulations and enforcement on old regulations, which made the cryptocurrency very happy. So they have something called World Liberty Financial, which has sold tokens, electronic digital currency, for millions of dollars. They've sold some meme coins, which are basically have no real value at all. Some of them can't be traded yet, but has yielded tens of millions of dollars in fees for them. And they've joined forces with a bitcoin mining company. Mining is an old term for a new thing, which basically just means creating bitcoins on big, expensive computers that use a lot of power. And through those lines of work and just attaching themselves to that, they are yielding like tens of millions of dollars, perhaps close to a billion already.

[Mara Gay]

There are the legal questions here and ethical questions. I'm also intrigued, though, by the fact that he has so moved the Overton window on this question, that there are folks who just sort of in the public give it a pass, like, well, yeah, we've watched him do this. There's nothing new here. This will never get old to me.

[Michael Schnell]

That he's monetizing the White House and that he's. I mean, he's selling cologne, I think, right now. Right. Or perfume or something like that. It's. It doesn't matter to him. And going back to the call and response I said earlier, there are a lot of Americans that want this, that want to see him do it, that thrive off of his ability to market himself. And to your point about the French, the using of the name. Right. It was a revelation to so many people that his name was on so many buildings in New York, but they weren't really his. They was just his name. And you think about that and you say, wow, this, you know, there is nowhere that he won't find an opening to find a way to make himself money. And as we think about, you know, the bill, as we think about, you know, people going into his administration that might otherwise be in prison right now, it's this. It's this veil, it's this tricky almost playing on Americans. It feels like that I'm gonna use whatever I can to find a way to make money and protect the folks that are close to me. But otherwise, everybody else just keep you where you are.

[Mara Gay]

You do reporting like this, sometimes you walk away with more questions than answers. I wonder. I got about a minute left. Top question you have after doing all.

[J]

This reporting, I think top question right now is will they make better choices with these businesses than they have with businesses in the past? Will these things survive? They've really rushed into this business, which they don't know very much about, awfully quickly. There's a lot of ways it could go bad, both for the people who are investing in them and for the Trumps themselves, and then the ways that they're going to monetize presidential actions to help their businesses. Those are kind of the things that are open questions at this point, I think.

[Mara Gay]

Rasputt, thank you so much for bringing us your reporting, talking us through it. Basilisk. Michael, as always, thank you for spending the hour with us. We're going to sneak in one more quick break. We'll be right back. It's one thing to report on the sheer number of families and children being dragged into immigration court by the Trump administration. It is another to hear gut wrenching firsthand accounts of what is happening inside those courtrooms here's best selling author Clinton Doyle. We were sitting, there was a little four year old girl sitting right next to me like her knee was against mine and she was playing with this little pen with a flower on it. Also, the woman who was doing the translating, who was sitting beside the judge, she was translating for these babies. She had to translate the very harsh things that the judge was saying to these children. And she kept leaving the courtroom and I felt very annoyed with her. I felt very annoyed. Were you annoyed? Yeah.

[Juanita Tolliver]

Because the proceedings had to stop until she came back.

[Mara Gay]

Yeah. And I was like, God, do you have something more important to do? I just was very it turned out she kept leaving because she was bawling. She had to look at these children and say these things and she could barely take it and so she kept leaving it. Glennon Doyle and Abby Wambach are Nicole's guests on this week's episode of the Best People Podcast. Scan the QR code on your screen to listen or download wherever you get your podcasts. We're going to take one more quick break and we'll be right back. Thanks for spending part of your Wednesday with us. We are, as always, so grateful.