← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“Playing with fire”
00:42:37
Nicolle Wallace drills down on the democratic implications of Donald Trump’s removal of a Federal Reserve Governor and looks at the states now contemplating a redistricting fight of their own.
Loading summary
Transcript53 lines
- [00:01]
Nicole Wallace
I think that you have to have faith that in the end it'll all be okay. That no matter who wins a presidential election, we will live in a democracy. The First Amendment will govern what journalists can say and do. The Constitution will protect the rights of everybody if you can agree that most people want those things. Our show is about trying to bend the arc toward that end result.
- [00:22]
MSNBC Announcer
Deadline. White House with Nicole Wallace, weekdays from 4 to 6pm Eastern on MSNBC. Start your day with the MSNBC daily newsletter. Each morning, read sharp insights from the voices you trust. Catch standout moments from your favorite shows.
- [00:40]
Nicole Wallace
The second Trump administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to radically transform America.
- [00:45]
MSNBC Announcer
Stay up to speed with our latest podcasts and documentaries and get fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. It's everything you love about MSNBC delivered to your inbox. Sign up now@msnbc.com.
- [01:04]
Nicole Wallace
Hi there, everyone. It's 4:00 in the east. Donald Trump playing with fire today when it comes to the American economy, a once strong area for him politically that now sees some of his lowest approval marks ever in areas like inflation and tariffs, as well as a majority of Americans now expressing anxiety about how much things cost. So what does a politically vulnerable wannabe autocrat do? Well, he lunges for the steering wheel with an unprecedented and likely illegal attempt to fire a member of the independent Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Lisa Cook. Here's economist Paul Krugman on the Rachel Maddow show last night sounding the alarm.
- [01:45]
Paul Krugman
This is a five alarm fire because it's not just about Lisa Cook. It's clearly, as I said on my substack, this is about intimidation. This is saying no, it's, it's a mess. Is not just, you know, he's, not just that he's claims he's firing Lisa Cook, although he doesn't. We're not clear that he has the right to do that. But it's a message to everybody else on the Fed's board and basically to government officials of any kind that get in our way. Don't act as an obedient minion of Donald Trump and we will ruin you. We will destroy you. If this stands, we immediately become a we become Venezuela, we become Turkey, we become a place where all of this stuff is just at the whims of the strongman in charge.
- [02:36]
Nicole Wallace
Now, Cook is the first black woman to serve on the board of the Federal Reserve. She was appointed by President Joe Biden and her term is not set to expire until 2038. She is one of seven governors. And if Donald Trump succeeds in removing her, he, he will have appointed a majority of the governors on the board, which would give him greater control over the country's central bank. As with many of Donald Trump's moves, there is no precedent or clear legal authority to randomly fire Fed members you don't like. But Cook isn't going out without a fight. In a statement, she writes this quote, president Trump purported to fire me for cause when no cause exists under the law and he has no authority to do so. I will not resign. I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022. And Cook's D.C. super lawyer, Abby Lowell, is taking that fight a step further, announcing today that they will be filing a lawsuit. In a statement, the Federal Reserve weighed in as well, saying this quote, as always, the Federal Reserve will abide by any court decision. The stage is now set for a high stakes legal showdown likely to reach all the way to the Supreme Court. But beyond these legal questions over Donald Trump's moves, experts warn in the New York Times today of this quote, Trump's intervention could compromise an institution at the heart of the economy with damaging results. The Times adding this quote, economists warn that if Trump succeeds in pressuring the Fed into cutting rates, it could lead to faster inflation in the short run and make it harder for the central bank to manage the economy in the long run as businesses, investors and consumers lose confidence that policymakers are focused on making decisions based on evidence rather than politics. Donald Trump's new backdoor effort to tighten his grip on the Federal Reserve is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters in France. White House correspondent for the New York times, author of 2024, Tyler Pager is here. Also joining us, host of the Bulwark Podcast, MSNBC political analyst Tim Miller is here and NPR financial correspondent Maria Aspen is here. Mar just baseline this for us. What is supposed to happen between a president and members of the Fed.
- [04:57]
Maria Aspen
I think it's safe to say not this. This is indeed pretty unprecedented and extraordinary. And it's unprecedented extraordinary because the Fed is supposed to be, is designed to be independent. The president is not supposed to be able to direct the Fed or put the amount of pressure that President Trump is, has been trying to put the Fed and on its leaders to lower interest rates. And, and to be clear, this is not for political reasons. This is not because it's bad for a President Trump to to. This is not because President Trump has bad ideas. It is because the Fed's independence is kind of the backbone of our economy. And if any political, if any, president is able to pressure and threaten the Fed and its governors into doing what he wants them to do, that is going to decrease overall confidence in our economy and the central bank's ability to direct our economy for the best and to respond to both rising inflation and weakness in the job market, which is what's on the Fed's plate right now.
- [06:06]
Nicole Wallace
And how important is the independence of the Fed to American business leaders, American businesses and international investment in America?
- [06:21]
Maria Aspen
It's pretty crucial, but it's also one of those things that you don't want to have to think about. And it is, again, pretty extraordinary and unprecedented, at least before this Trump presidency, for business leaders and investors to be thinking about. Because, of course, President Trump's attempts to fire Lisa Cook are just the latest in his pressure campaign. This has come after Trump has flirted back and forth with trying to fire Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and has publicly, again exhorted the Fed to lower interest rates. The problem being that if that inflation still is not where the Fed wants it to be, and interest rates are pretty much the main tool the Fed has for combating inflation. And of course, what happens with inflation is going to affect consumers as well as businesses as well as investors.
- [07:21]
Nicole Wallace
Tyler, let me lay out a few more facts since we haven't spent a ton of time on this issue on this show. This is the New York Times reporting today about the lack of legal standing on Donald Trump's part. Quote, under the Federal Reserve act, the law that charters the central bank, Trump may dismiss a governor only if he can demonstrate cause typically defined as professional neglect or malfeasance. In recent days, legal experts have questioned whether the president could satisfy that burden, given the fact that the allegations against Ms. Cook have not been proven in court and involve personal matters. And here's a Republican member of Congress, of all creatures, questioning the absence and the lack of due process. In an interview in Politico, quote, one of the rare Republicans to speak out was Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska. He questioned the motivations for Trump's dismissal and said that at the very least, it is premature. Quote, it would be one thing if she was found guilty, but she is entitled to due process. He told Politico via text quote, this is his way to gain control of the Fed. So, again, from the Wall Street Journal and a Republican House member, hardly elements of the resistance you have, one, no legal authority, Two, no due process for the governor he wants removed. What is this really about?
- [08:38]
Tyler Pager
Yeah, look, as you said, this is about him trying to take more control of the Fed. He was asked about this today at the three hour long Cabinet meeting and he said he doesn't care if Lisa Cook pursues legal action. He's confident in his ability to do this. And this is part of a long running campaign against the Federal Reserve for what he is blaming Jerome Powell for not raising, for not lowering interest rates in making the case that that is hurting the economy. And so this is no, you, this is part of a pressure campaign that is not dissimilar from the sort of campaigns we've seen him run against other institutions, universities, law firms, members of Congress and the Republican Party. This is how Donald Trump is exerting power throughout this, you know, the early months of his second term. And, you know, it's really not a surprise that he has found various people to target. We're seeing the same with John Bolton. This is a wide ranging effort in which the President is feeling more confident in his ability to use executive power to get his way. And we've seen not, you know, unilaterally has he had complete success in the courts. But there are many steps that he's taken that the courts have allowed him to do these sorts of things. And so obviously this one will be the next thing to go through the court process. But Trump today projecting the utmost confidence in his ability to do this. And it'll be up to the judges.
- [10:07]
Nicole Wallace
To decide why does he want, why does he think, Tyler, this will benefit him politically? He has his lowest approval ratings ever since he's existed as a candidate or an elected official or a losing candidate. On the economy, 33% approve of his handling of inflation, 35% approve of his tariff policy. The two hallmarks of what he ran on this time.
- [10:32]
Tyler Pager
Yeah, I mean, it is an interesting position for the president, this particular president to be in, given that, you know, the two issues that were arguably most important to his political victory in 2024 were the economy, particularly persistent inflation and immigration. There were many Trump advisers who really just wanted him to talk about those two issues. That has not been, they were not always successful in doing so, but obviously he won the election. And as we the midterms, we saw him today at the Cabinet meeting talk about the issues that he thought would be most animating for voters, chief among them being crime. We've seen him obviously deploy the national guard here in D.C. and threaten to do so in other cities as part of this, you know, full frontal assault on cities as it relates to involving the federal government in the response to crime. But I think this is part of what he thinks will help the economy. He thinks the, that if he's able to bully Jerome Powell into lowering interest rates, home prices will go down and other sorts of goods will, will follow. You know, there's a lot of, there's clear divide among economists and experts about whether that will actually happen and potential long term ramifications if interest rates are lowered, given that inflation has been a persistent thorn in the US Economy. So it's a risk that the President is taking here, but one that he has as he's with most things, you know, not, not projecting anything but supreme confidence.
- [12:05]
Nicole Wallace
Well, he says a lot of things, Tim, so I don't know that he, I mean, I think he says things with confidence that have no more to reality. He confidently talks about windmills and bleach inside one's lungs. So I, I understand that what he says he says with confidence. But I think he said some pretty stupid and insane things with the same degree of confidence that I heard today. So I guess what I want to press you on is how much these fights fuel are sort of drafted off the fight that came before and then motivated by the fight ahead. I think Tyler makes an important point about this as part of a sweep of retribution that includes the law firms, the universities and John Bolton. I think it's interesting that the capitulators wince and cringe when they become part of a democracy and autocracy story. But to Tyler Pager's reporting, every person that doesn't go to court and fight the illegality of his conduct makes it easier for him to take more illegal retributive action. And I wonder how you see this move against Lisa Cook.
- [13:17]
Tim Miller
And it's definitely an autocracy story. Look, I think it's important to kind of step back and go through the process of how this came to be. As mentioned by my co panelists, obviously a lot of this stems from Trump's frustration with the Fed. The fact that he wants interest rates lower. Whether or not that's in his interests, I think that some economists would dispute. But that's what he wants. And so that is what's at the core of this. But then how do you get to Lisa Cook? What happens here? How is she the Fed board governor? It's I guess important to note that as a black woman, she can be sort of pinned as a DEI target or something. And so I think that's one reason. But then you look at the process and there's this guy, Bill Pulte. Bill Pulte. Is the head of the Federal Housing and Finance Agency. Sorry I had to look down and look at that. Because this is not somebody that's usually a public figure. The head of the Federal Housing and Finance Agency, well within this little random agency in the government, he's running his own cash Patel enemies list. And he's referred now, Adam Schiff, Tish James and Lisa Cook to the DOJ with essentially paperwork accusations of paperwork crimes related to their mortgages. It's important to say that none of them have been charged with anything. And so that is how this comes to pass. This is death of Stalin stuff. Some random apart chick, some random part of the government that wants to get in the autocrats good graces. And so he starts going after, you know, the witches and the dissidents inside the administration to get a pat on the head from Trump. And who knows, maybe he'll be at one of these fawning cabinet meetings in two or three years. And like that's what happens. And so the people who speak the truth, or who at least give their view, their honest view, like Lisa Cook does what the rate should be, or people that speak the truth, like the Air Force chief of staff who got pushed out because he, you know, had said that he thought that the administration was too focused on China versus other threats, like kind of an anodyne thing, or the, the intelligence officials and pushed out because they just said the truth, that Venezuela wasn't invading us. If you're in government, if you're a government service, if you're in public service and you're just doing your job, you can be targeted by these random hacks who see getting scalps as a way to advance in maga. And that incentive structure is awful. And it is a hallmark of not a democracy or a federal system, but of what you see in banana republics.
- [15:53]
Nicole Wallace
Tyler made the point of all of Trump's victories in court. And it's true, a lot of authority does rest with the president and in the executive branch. But what is your sense, Tim, in terms of the lawsuit that Abby Lowell filed today?
- [16:11]
Tim Miller
Look, I mean, I'm not the Andrew Weissman to tell you about whether how that's gonna go. I'll tell you this, he's lost a bunch too. You know, there's a great New York Times story this week about how the DOJ has impaneled three different grand juries against a woman who is protesting against ice. They wanted to target her for going after, you know, inappropriate behavior related to, you know, going after the cops at this protest and had gone from a felony, another marking gender misdemeanor. So, like, there's, there is. Trump has executive, as broad executive authority in this case, you know, his, the only, like the letter of the law is that he can only fire Lisa Cook with cause. Is this alleged having two prime residences on your mortgage a cause for being pushed out of your job as a federal governor? I mean, I wouldn't think so. I don't exactly know, you know, what, how, what judges will say and what folks are going to say. But I think if you look at this, a judge, I guess, approved the John Bolton raid, for example. We don't know on what grounds yet. We don't know on what basis. So Trump is going to get leeway. Trump's put a lot of MAGA judges in there, but he's had a lot of Ls on this sort of stuff, too, on immigration issues in particular. So, I mean, I think that remains to be seen. And I think it's important to kind of, you know, continue to fight this stuff in the courts. And at some level, delay is a victory against Trump, just as Trump used delay in courts as a victory for himself in the past. I mean, that same tactic could be used against him.
- [17:50]
Nicole Wallace
You know, Tim, I keep thinking of all the control he had over Covid, and it's why he loses reelection. Like, Trump thinks he wants to be in charge of big consequential stuff, but when he does, he does such an incompetent job with those things that it hurts him politically. And I mean, there's sort of a bare political analysis where he's better served with someone to blame. And it's the same argument for having Democrats in control of Congress, that he's better served if he doesn't own anything. Right now, Trump, MAGA Republicans own all branches of government. And I wonder if this is the sort of thing that, that you wake up after. Everyone in America sees you as solely responsible for the cost of everything, the price of everything, the inability to buy anything that used to be. I mean, the prices are already going up on everyone out doing back to school shopping is already seeing the impact of Donald Trump's economy, and it's terrible. What is your sense of the buyer's remorse they could end up experiencing right around the time of the midterms?
- [18:53]
Tim Miller
I agree with that assessment. I don't think it's in Trump's nature. Right. I think that he's a bully, wants to have power, said he can intimidate people, and that is kind of an end in itself for him. But politically speaking, it seems to me that having Jerome Powell as a boogeyman, that he smears something that he's also good at, is probably a better political space to be in than what could be an economic calamity if Fed independence is completely obliterated, which is the possible trajectory that we're on. But this is one step. It. So I agree with that assessment. At some level, we could say it's about a lot of issues. Nicole, if Trump had just golfed and renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America and done one or two other things right now, his approval ratings would probably be better than having done everything. I don't know the actual. But maybe he doesn't care about that.
- [19:46]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, Tyler, I'm real quick guessing he doesn't care about that.
- [19:51]
Tyler Pager
Yeah, I mean, it's, it's hard to know. It's, I think, fair. He, he, what he cares about is what we saw today at the cabinet meeting right as you walked. I mean, that was the perfect distillation of what's important to him is one, people praising him and two, he has these grievances that each cabinet secretary was able to speak to and say we're solving it, we're addressing it, we're fixing it. I think that tableau for three hours where these senior officials spent, you know, just time telling him all the things they're doing to address his personal grievances that he's, you know, gathered up over the course of his 10 years in politics, that is what's motivating him most.
- [20:34]
Nicole Wallace
Most importantly, it's so amazing that the thing that most clearly conveys his weakness is the thing that he most covets. It's just at a human level. We'll be studying this forever. Tyler Pager, Maria Aspen, thank you for starting us off today. Tim sticks around for the hour. When we come back, the House Oversight Committee will sit down with a pivotal player, a really important key character in the Epstein case, the former US Attorney behind a so called sweetheart deal for Jeffrey Epstein. Plus, the Trump administration turns gerrymandering into a political arms race, pushing lawmakers in the state of Indiana to redraw their maps just as a new poll provides a flashing red warning sign for the gop. And later in the broadcast, a blunt warning for Republicans from one constituent at a town hall in deep, deep red Missouri as Trump ramps up what can only be described as his authoritarian agenda with threats to deploy troops in Democratic run cities. All those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [21:43]
MSNBC Announcer
Saturday, October 11th from New York City, it's MSNBC Live 25. Join your favorite MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Nicole Wallace, Ari Melber, Alicia Menendez, Simone Sanders Townsend, Michael Steele, Chris Haynes, jen Psaki, Lawrence O', Donnell, Stephanie Ruhle and more. Visit msnbc.comlive25 to buy your tickets today. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of NBC'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.
- [22:46]
Vicki Ward
So I am skeptical.
- [22:50]
Nick Corsini
That we're ever.
- [22:51]
Vicki Ward
Going to know how Jeffrey Epstein made his money and how he used what I call soft power to evade justice. One solution would be to subpoena Alex Acosta, the US Attorney in Florida who gave him the sweetheart deal in 2009, meaning he could evade the state charges, the federal charges and take a deal with the state instead of.
- [23:19]
Nicole Wallace
That was investigative journalist Vicki Ward on this very program 24 hours ago on some of the major questions as someone who's covered this story for years that she still has surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein case and she name checked one person who could help answer some of those questions. Well, last night the House Oversight Committee announced that that person, Donald Trump's former Labor secretary, Alex Acosta, will appear voluntarily. He has not been subpoenaed before the panel. On September 19, as part of investigation into the Epstein case, Acosta, as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, reached a secret non prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, who instead pleaded guilty to state charges in the state of Florida involving a single underage victim. He served 13 months in a Palm beach county jail where he was allowed to leave almost daily through a work release program and have his own private security detail. Joining our Coverage is former U.S. attorney and professor at the University of Michigan Law School, MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuaid. Tim is still with us. Barb, just explain why a deal like that was such a notorious and heinous child sex trafficker is such an outlier. Why it's so important to understand how that deal came to be.
- [24:38]
Barbara McQuaid
Yeah, there are a number of red flags, Nicole, on this plea deal. It's not uncommon for federal prosecutors to work with state court prosecutors and come up with some sort of global resolution so that justice is done. But in this instance, it doesn't feel like justice was done first. We know that that state deal was for 18 months in prison at a halfway house where Jeffrey Epstein spent most of it in home confinement at his own private office. But even aside from that, there are a lot of irregularities about the plea deal that Alex Acosta agreed to. Number one, no consultation with the victims as required by federal statute. That is a real red flag in a case that has real victims like this one. Number two, that is so strange here. The reporting is that Alex Acosta negotiated this on his own as the U.S. attorney and circumvented the input of the FBI agents working on the case and the line prosecutors working on the case. I'll tell you, based on my experience in the U.S. attorney's office, from time to time, a defendant would appeal to the U.S. attorney and ask for an independent review of the disposition of the case because they believe that the line prosecutor was being unfair or biased or exercising poor judgment. But it was always done through the chain of command. First you went to that person's supervisor, then to the Chief of the Criminal Division, then to the first assistant and ultimately to the firstto the U.S. attorney for review if the issue could not be resolved along the way with everyone's full knowledge and involvement. The idea that this was done in secret by the U.S. attorney is incredibly irregular. It's bad practice. It isn't the way things are typically done. And I think for those reasons, people are concerned about what was really going on here.
- [26:21]
Nicole Wallace
You centered it on the victims again, that the victims and their lawyers were not consulted. Julie K. Brown is a journalist who has done some incredible work on the victims and I want to read from some of her reporting to you. Barb. This is from her reporting in the Miami Herald how a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime. This is from 2018. Facing a 53 page federal indictment, Jeffrey Epstein could have ended up in federal prison for the rest of his life. But on the morning of the breakfast meeting between then U.S. attorney Alex Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz, a deal was struck. Not only would Epstein serve just 13 months in the county jail, but the deal, called a non prosecution agreement, essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims than other powerful people who took part in Epstein's sex crimes. According to Miami Herald examination of thousands of emails, court documents and FBI records, the pact required Epstein to plead guilty to two Prostitution charges in state court. Jeffrey Epstein and four of his accomplices named in the agreement received immunity from all those federal criminal charges. But even more unusual, the deal included wording that granted immunity to quote any potential co conspiracy conspirators who were also involved in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. As part of the arrangement, Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims. So the deal was based on this reporting illegal. Right. There's a law, despite a federal law to the contrary, the deal would be kept from the victims. This is the beating heart of what the Trump coalition members who care about this issue believe is the COVID up. To the Trump MAGA folks who are so animated by this issue and have been since 2018, but especially over the last two years, as Trump ran a third time, this deal is sort of the beating heart of the conspiracy. How important is Acosta and how likely is he to tell us how this deal came to be?
- [28:31]
Barbara McQuaid
Well, I don't know what we're going to hear from Acosta, but I will mention one of the things about this that I think is a really flashing red light is the deal. The provision you just mentioned about providing immunity to any of Jeffrey Epstein's co conspirators. Now, it lists some individuals it says, including but not limited to those names. It suggests that there is some goal afoot in this deal to protect the interests of other people. And I think the key question I would be asking Alex Acosta is who else did you have in mind there? You name some individuals who were sort of victims of this crime in an effort to protect them from prosecution. But who else did you have in mind when you entered this plea deal? So I think that would be important. It may be that Alex Acosta says, I rely on executive privilege, deliberative privilege and other kinds of things and choose not to answer these questions. But I would want to know what was the basis of this deal? Why did he believe it was in the best interest of the United States to take this deal? Why did he believe it was in the best interest of the victims to take this deal? And why did he decline to consult with them or the prosecutors and the agents who were involved in this case? All of those facts are very suspicious. I think the other thing that I would do if our members of this committee is I would want to subpoena the line prosecutors who were on this case. What do they know about potential co conspirators who are granted immunity even though they were cut out of this deal?
- [29:58]
Nicole Wallace
Tim how does Alex Acosta end up in Trump's Cabinet after this?
- [30:05]
Tim Miller
Well, it wasn't exactly a competitive category, I think. I think Trump was scraping the bottom of the barrel for a couple of these positions. And you know how Trump is. Nicole, if you came out right now and said, you know, the scales have fallen up from my eyes, I'm going to put on a red hat, Trump might make you his press secretary next year. So, you know, I think that he is very amenable.
- [30:26]
Nicole Wallace
I don't doubt it.
- [30:27]
Tim Miller
I think he would. I'm just saying that's Trump. If you suck up to him, he'll go for it. So I think that that is probably the simple answer to the Alex Acosta question, how he got in the Cabinet. I think, look, Alex being in his Cabinet does tie Trump to this story in a way that's unflattering. But I think that probably what I worry about is that his voluntary decision to testify is because the questions that people would have of him and of that plea deal, which in retrospect and based on everything I've read, just looks unbelievably shameful and misguided and who knows, maybe corrupt. But that doesn't really. None of that has to do with Trump. The fact that Trump picked him for Labor Secretary is bad optics for sure. But the COVID up part of this about Trump's relationship with Epstein and what, what may or may not be in those FBI files that FBI agents flagged for Pam Bondi, who then flagged it for Trump, that now they're suppressing, Alexa's not gonna have anything to say about that. So in some ways I think this might be something where like they feel like they're throwing some chum in the water that does not directly address Trump's actual vulnerability on this. Does that make sense?
- [31:49]
Nicole Wallace
I mean, for me, I feel like the Trump question has been answered by the Trump Cabinet who confirmed in multiple news organizations that Trump's name appears in the Epstein files a thousand times. I mean, that's the answer to the Trump piece. What I don't understand is how the MAGA base, which is so upset about the COVID up, the Epstein conspiracy, again, ferments on the right. And it is a conspiracy theory about a cover up that spans multiple administrations, Democratic and Republican presidents to keep things secret. And I just want to read this line again. Epstein and four of his accomplices named in the agreement received immunity from all federal criminal charges. So the Feds dropped it. Right? And then we've had Republicans, Democrats and Republicans in charge of the federal government. But even more unusual, the deal included wording that granted immunity to any potential co conspirators who were also involved in Epstein's crimes. I want to read one more piece from this story because this is, if you listen to Joe Rogan's early episodes about this, it's about, you know, I don't know, what is it called? Gigabytes and gigabytes of videos and evidence. So here's the evidence piece. Not only would Epstein serve 13 months in county jail, but the deal called a non prosecution agreement, shut down an ongoing FBI investigation into whether there were more victims and other powerful people. The Miami Herald examined thousands of emails, court documents and FBI records. So somewhere in a deal that Acosta does, there are thousands of emails and court documents. I wonder if turning those over will be part of Acosta's testimony.
- [33:30]
Tim Miller
I mean, again, that goes way back and whether Trump would be involved with those, I don't know. And conceivably, I guess at least with Virginia Giuffre because of Mar a Lago and this, that was Acosta's region at the time. So our district rather so I think potentially so, yeah. And I think there are questions about that. I know a lot of weird coincidences and objects for the conspiracy theorists to chew over with Trump's first cabinet. You know, Bill Barr has some connections there as well to Epstein through his father. So, you know, and I think that all of that would be interesting and I don't, and I think that it will give fodder for the MAGA base. I just don't, I don't think that, I guess my point is I don't think a constant would be volunteering to do this if he was going to say something bad about Donald Trump.
- [34:13]
Nicole Wallace
Barbara McQuaid, thank you for being part of this conversation. Tim sticks around a little bit longer after the break. Trump wants Indiana to redraw its congressional map in order to help preserve the Republican majority in the House. Not exactly a cry of political confidence, but Republicans Indiana aren't even sure they want to do that. We'll bring you that story next. Fresh off a pressure campaign against Texas Republicans who complied and redrew their maps. Today, Donald Trump hosted Republican lawmakers from Indiana. Indiana appears to be the next target in the Trump administration's very transparent but shameless power grab to shield Republicans from being accountable to the will of voters in the 2026 midterm elections. But there's some new polling from Indiana that has a bit of a warning light for state Republicans. There Politico reports this, quote, 52% of registered voters in Indiana, which Trump won by 19 points last year, said they are against Republicans revising their maps with 43%, quote, strongly opposing that effort. Nearly 2/3 of the survey respondents said gerrymandering should be illegal. And a full 2/3 expressed opposition to Washington politicians meddling in their state's politics. Voters discomfort with gerrymandering not lost on at least a few Indiana Republicans. New York Times reports at least 10 state legislators have chosen Defiance even as pressure from the White House has ramped up those lawmakers. A small fraction of the roughly 110 state legislative Republicans from Indiana have expressed opposition to rare mid decade redistricting in social media posts, interviews and formal statements, quote, if we do that in but now the rule book gets tossed out the window. That was State Representative Jim Lucas, a Republican from southern Indiana. Besides, he said Republicans already hold seven of Indiana's nine congressional seats. We have a saying, the pigs get fat, the hogs get slaughtered. Mr. Lucas said we should be happy with what we have. I was just trying to figure out who the slaughtered hogs are. Joining our conversation is New York Times political reporter Nick Corsini. Jim is here. Nick, where is this going in Indiana?
- [36:34]
Nick Corsini
I think Indiana is the first state that we're going to see some real resistance to this whole effort by the President to force Republican states to redistrict in mid decade. And there's a couple reasons for that. One is the ask coming from the White House is pretty extreme even by what we've seen already. When Vice President Vance went to meet with leadership like the governor and the state legislative leaders in Indiana, they asked for a nine zero map meaning wipe all Democrats off the congressional delegation. And that's a far reach for a state that has, you know, 39 or 40% Democratic voters in the last presidential election. So I think that instantly puts some resistance in state leadership. Then there's just the dynamic of Indiana Republicans aren't necessarily as big on culture warrior kind of, you know, immediately MAGA politics. There's a lot of business oriented Indiana Republicans who just don't like this stuff. You know, businesses have come out and said we don't like the political instability created by things like mid decade redistricting. So they're going to be against it. And then you know, there's the wrinkle of this is the former vice president's home state, Mike Pence, and there's people who are still loyal to him and don't necessarily appreciate some of the things that the current president has said or done to the former vice president. So there's a lot of political wrinkles at play here that are leading to some, you know, pretty entrenched opposition. It's certainly not a DOA deal there, nor is it a guaranteed, you know, likelihood that these res, these legislators who are resisting are going to come around. We're going to see a real fight in Indiana.
- [38:09]
Nicole Wallace
What about just the absolute telegraphing of political impotence? I mean, it just screams, we suck so much, we have to cheat. Are any of them worried about that, Nick?
- [38:22]
Nick Corsini
I think there's some who are a little concerned about that. There's some who are also worried about a nine zero map. Doesn't mean that they'll win all nine seats. Even in this age of computers helping to draw really specific maps, there's still a lot of Democrats in the state. They'd have to break apart. Indianapolis, which is located in the center state, theoretically could be cracked and then eat into the northwestern part of Indiana. But there is a political risk that they could lose here. But what you hear from Trump and a lot of the Republicans who are pushing this is that embrace of politics and that we're doing this for politics, simply because that's the best legal argument they can put forward. If they were to go anywhere, but then they'd probably run AFOUL of the 14th Amendment, the Constitution, the Voting Rights act, of which there are lawsuits that are saying that already what they're doing is doing that. But I think one of the reasons you hear so much political justification and the statements that, you know, this is all for the benefit of Republicans is to kind of insulate themselves as best they can from future legal challenges.
- [39:24]
Nicole Wallace
I mean, just walk around a town hall and people are mad. People are pissed in, like, some of the deepest, reddest parts of the country. I think it's going to be pretty easy to argue that this is from a place of extreme political weakness and a crappy MAGA brand. I'm going to ask you guys to stick around for a quick break. We'll all be right back.
- [39:45]
MSNBC Announcer
Saturday, October 11th, from New York City, it's MSNBC Live 25. Join your favorite MSNBC hosts, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Nicole Wallace, Ari Melber, Alicia Menendez, Simone Sanders Townsend, Michael Steele, Chris Haynes, Jen Psaki, Lawrence o', Donnell, Stephanie Ruhle and more. Visit MSN to buy your tickets today. Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Each morning, read sharp insights from the voices you trust. Catch standout Moments from your favorite shows.
- [40:25]
Nicole Wallace
The second Trump administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to radically transform America.
- [40:30]
MSNBC Announcer
Stay up to speed with our latest podcasts and documentaries and get fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. News. It's everything you love about MSNBC delivered to your inbox. Sign up now@msnbc.com.
- [40:47]
Tim Miller
What this is really about is an effort for the federal government to take over the way we conduct elections in this country. It is a solution in search of a problem.
- [41:00]
Nicole Wallace
This is all about consolidating power, a national power grab to take away the voices from our local elections officials and our state elections officials.
- [41:10]
Mitch McConnell
You think about the way that we've been doing elections in this country for over two centuries. The states have always been primary. They've been the principal entities when it comes to conducting elections across this country. This would consolidate, federalize, nationalize elections in this country and Washington, D.C. and that is not something, when the American people find out about it, that they're going to be for.
- [41:35]
Nicole Wallace
But what they want is a federal takeover of the elections. I do not want a federal takeover of our election system. I oppose it. How about them apples? That was Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, who has like 11 jobs in the Trump Cabinet, Joni Ernst and John Thune railing, railing against exactly what Donald Trump is doing right now. She was on the other foot. Republicans were attacking in 2021 and 2022 Voting rights legislation championed by Democrats. We're back with Nick and Tim. Tim, it's amazing that none of those guys thinks that, like, we have the tape or I guess more amazing that none of them cares that all the principles, all the positions, everything is disposable at the altar of what Trump wants. A guy with a 35% approval rating.
- [42:34]
Tim Miller
For one second there, I got my hopes up that that John Thune clip was for this week. And I was like, there's John. John Thune is back. No, we don't. Is he still on vacation? I think he's still on vacation, actually. No.
- [42:45]
Nicole Wallace
These guys, he's looking for the Epstein vial somewhere.
- [42:48]
Tim Miller
Yeah, I mean, they, I don't even think they get humiliated by it anymore is really the sad part. I just think that they've accepted and rationalized that this is what they need to do for survival, just go along with whatever Donald Trump wants, even if it is in stark contrast with everything they've argued for before. It's the one thing, and obviously we've had all of our disagreements, Nicole, with Mike Pence over the years, but it's one thing that's been refreshing about Mike Pence, obviously, January 6th, but then continuing to do it over the next four or five years that he is out there. I thought that was interesting in Nick's reporting that Pence being from Indiana, maybe he's having some conversations behind the scenes, I don't know. Or maybe you're just loyal to him, that that has an impact. I think that's interesting. And he was out criticizing the tariffs this week. I think that Mike Pence is existence is a mirror up against these guys, that that's what they would be saying if it was not for the fact that they've decided to sell their soul for whatever power or position they have with Donald Trump. And I don't think that unfortunately we're going to see any of them change unless they like Mike Pence get pushed out.
- [44:01]
Nicole Wallace
Nick and Tim, thank you so much for joining us and having this conversation with us. We'll stay on top of it. Quick break for us. We'll be right back. A Trump appointed federal judge today threw out the Trump administration's lawsuit against the entire federal bench in Maryland. They had sued over the judges stopping the immediate deportation of migrants who were challenging their removals. Judge Thomas Cullen noted how truly abnormal the lawsuit was, pointing out they had to be brought in from Virginia because all of the district judges in Maryland were forced to recuse themselves. And he slammed the Trump administration for its continued attacks on the judiciary. From his ruling, quote, over the past several months, principal officers of the executive and their spokespersons have described federal district judges across the country as, quote, left wing, quote, liberal, quote, activists, quote, radical, quote, politically minded, rogue, quote, unhinged, quote, outrageous, overzealous and unconstitutional, crooked and worse. This concerted effort by the executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it is both unprecedented and unfortunate. Coming up in the next hour of Deadline, White House a town hall attendee rip into a Republican congressman for his support of Trump, adding, quote, the man is a dictator. We'll show you his PG rebuke next.