Carol Leonnig (5:06)

Well, what we heard, Nicole, over the last couple of, I guess, days and hours is that a prosecutor who's a supervisor had a job like Mary McCord's was many years ago overseeing criminal prosecution for her U.S. attorney's office. She concluded that there's just not probable cause to bring the case of mortgage fraud or bank fraud or any kind of fraud against Letitia James, based on the documentation and the evidence before her. We're also hearing that in the grand jury, material has been brought forward, witnesses have been asked questions, and her conclusion is the same as Eric Seibert, her former boss, the U.S. attorney of the Eastern District, who said, there's just not a sufficient basis to bring this case. And you know, Nicole, I want to emphasize things, something for people at home who aren't lawyers or don't follow this the way you and I do. It is a prosecutor's job and almost their solemn vow to bring cases where they believe they have a very high likelihood of sustaining and convicting on the charges they bring. And in this instance, now, multiple people have concluded career. Prosecutors, supervisors, Trump appointees have said, we don't have a basis to do this. So that is why it's so stunning that yet another person is still pushing for this Donald Trump. And it's also stunning that another person way down in a small, tiny office of the Eastern District of Virginia is willing to put her neck out there and say, this case still doesn't fly.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (6:49)

Carol, let me read a little bit more of your reporting and then ask you what the response has been to your reporting. You write this, quote, On Friday, the top national security prosecutor in Virginia's Eastern District railed against Justice Department political appointees for carrying out Trump's directives rather than fulfilling their oath to, quote, follow the facts and the law wherever they lead, free from fear or favor and unhindered by political interference. The prosecutor, Michael Ben Ari, had been fired after a Trump ally questioned his loyalty to Trump. In a social media post, Ben Ari wrote in a letter, quote, in recent months, the political leadership of the department have violated these principles, jeopardizing our national security and making American citizens less safe. I wonder, Carol, if you can just speak to how extraordinary all the calls from inside the house are. These are all people that did not leave after last November when Trump won. They're not people who he left after January 20, when he was inaugurated and went to the Department of Justice and gave a speech, which is extraordinarily rare, exceedingly rare, I believe, unprecedented, where he called out people like Mark Elias for prosecution. They didn't leave when he started tweeting at Pam. I mean, they have stayed there to do whatever they could do to protect the institution they love. Most people have these jobs for a very, very long time. A lot of career people don't go there to jump to a law firm to make more money. They are true public servants, especially on the national security side. What do all of these calls? And I just want to put up a list. Danielle Sassoon, former acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, resigned. Hagan Scotten, Sassoon's deputy, resigned. Eric Siebert, the U.S. the former attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia who refused to charge Jim Comey and Tish James, resigned. Elizabeth Oyer, former pardon lawyer who refused to reinstate Mel Gibson's gun rights, fired. Michael Feinberg, now a contributor here. Former FBI assistant special agent who was targeted for being friends with Pete Strzok, resigned. Brian Driscoll, Steve Jensen, Spencer Evans, former senior FBI leadership who filed a lawsuit saying they were dismissed in a campaign of retribution, fired. And the stories we're talking about today, FBI agent who refused to arrange the pertw Comey, fired. What does it say that all these calls are from inside?

Carol Leonnig (9:13)

And by the way, Nicole, when you list all those names, it's kind of devastating, right? But I could add about 25 more that are critical to the, you know, metaphorical security blanket that is wrapped around America. And now those people are no longer inside. You know, you said something so important, and it's about the mission that people have sworn themselves and their lives and their free time to. The mission is so important and motivating for so many of the individuals that you've described, but also thousands more who stay in the Department of Justice despite this amazing and I won't it's not even a tilt, despite this amazing effort to use the power of this institution to basically avenge Donald Trump's anger and his desire for retribution and to meet his specific whims at that time, his political gain, his personal gain. So many of these people remain there hoping, and I've talked to many of them hoping that they will be a bulwark against exactly that, that they will put their bodies essentially in front of the bulldozer as it's coming their way. And as you have reported, as we have reported, as my colleague Ken and I have tried to document, the bulldozer is coming for more and more of them every day.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (10:46)

Well, let's keep the bulldozer going. I mean, is this prosecutor who says there's no case against Letitia James, is her job safe? Is she still working there today?

Carol Leonnig (10:55)

She is. There are people bracing for her presentation to the U.S. the acting U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan, to have consequences. We don't speculate about what's going to happen. We know what's happened in the rearview to the former U.S. attorney who said there was insufficient evidence to bring this case. And there's a perfectly good reason for her peers and colleagues to be worried about her future. I will remind you that in the Southern District, you mentioned Danielle Sassoon, the former US Attorney, a Republican, a federal society member chosen specifically for that acting position when Trump was first got into office because she was believed to be somebody so called on the team. And, you know, there are a lot of people who are in the Justice Department leadership right now, political appointees, who are trying to avoid the bloodbath that followed Danielle Sassoon resigning rather than dismiss the charges, the corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams in New York. And one after another, a bulldozer came for those individuals, and they resigned rather than give Trump what he wanted.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (12:07)

Mary McCord, your reaction to Carol and Ken's reporting?

Mary McCord (12:12)

Well, you know, I mean, I can't say it's not. I can't say it's a surprise, given everything, the trajectory we've been on for so long. And like Carol, I can name additional sort of fallout from what's been happening. My old office, the U.S. attorney's office in D.C. the criminal chief there had to resign when she was asked to do something that she simply couldn't do. And she was basically told she would be removed or she would resign, and she resigned. So this is happening all over. I think it, it really reflects, I think, well, on the career prosecutors in U.S. attorney's offices across the country and some of them who actually were political appointees. Now, I will note people like Eric Seibert and Danielle Sassoon who were then holding these political positions, they had been career prosecutors, right. Who they grew up with. The eso eth of, you do not misuse your powers. You follow the facts in the law where they lead. If you think you have a prosecutable case and it has a strong federal interest and you can meet your burden not just by probable cause in the grand jury, but beyond the reasonable doubt when you get to trial, you have the admissible evidence to meet that burden, then you go forward. And if you don't, you do not. And so I think you made a good point, Nicole, when you said some of the people who stayed, like, a lot of people left already, right. And some who stayed obviously could stay through a certain amount of things that they might not have been that comfortable with, but they all have a red line. And I applaud the prosecutors are saying, this is my red line and I am not going to go in and seek an indictment when I know the evidence is insufficient. It's not just that they know the evidence is insufficient. It could well be, at least based on Carolyn Ken's amazing reporting about the, the investigation of Tish James, that they actually, there's, it's not just insufficient. Like, they probably don't think that she did anything wrong because the evidence is so weak there. And so you're talking about people that would otherwise be asked to bring a case against somebody who there just is no case against. So what will be interesting here to see is what happens next. You know, back a long time ago, I think you and I even talked to Nicole about what are the safeguards against misuse of the Justice Department for political purposes. And the first one I've always mentioned was, is there a prosecutor who would be willing to present a case to the grand jury at some point, the case just can fall out when there's no prosecutor willing to do it. After that, you do have the grand jury. And we know with respect to James Comey, at least one count they refused to indict on, and the other two, the vote was very, very low. And it's probably because probable cause is not as a high burden. But that doesn't mean that the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, is likely to get a conviction after trial. The hurdle would be a judge who will have to hear motions to dismiss if it looks like a vindictive or selective prosecution that violates due process. And I expect we'll see that in the Comey case. And then ultimately you have the jury themselves. So there are different safeguards. And we're seeing at step one, right. The first hurdle, we're seeing prosecutors say no. So we will see will Lindsey Halligan then put this one in the grand jury herself, like she did with Comey? And is she going to try all these cases? Like, what is then going to happen if the only person willing to go forward is the person who's willing to do Donald Trump's bidding?

Nicole Wallace (Host) (15:33)

Speaking of red lines, another person who found a red line was an agent, according to Reuters, asked to arrange a perp walk for Jim Comey. Now, there are a million things that are wrong with that one. In white collar cases, it's not the practice, but that agents, or at least this agent refused to be a prop. I think is two things, One, good for this agent, but two, really ominous about the ease and cavalier nature of casting agents as characters in Donald Trump's sort of sick, fetishized political prosecution of Jim Comey.

Chris O'Leary (16:13)

Yeah, it's really alarming and certainly credit to. He's a supervisory special agent on a violent crime squad at a Washington field office. I don't know him personally, but I know many people who worked with him, worked with him and worked for him. Said he's an outstanding agent and really a model for what the FBI is supposed to be. But he just conducted himself with the kind of courage and integrity and trustworthiness that you would expect out of an FBI agent and that you're also seeing demonstrated by the prosecutors and doj. There's a standard that's been carried out by people who believe in service over self, believe in the rule of law and believe in doing the right thing and not cutting corners. But this was intended to be just some more political theater at the expense of these agents. And the report was that they wanted beefy agents wearing all their tactical kit. And I can tell you I was on tactical team, FBI SWAT and the FBI. I also deployed overseas with military special operations and I wore that kit quite often against high profile terrorists or when there was an elevated threat going against armed and dangerous individuals. Trying to demonstrate that level of militarization or tactical optic. To go arrest the former director of the FBI is inappropriate. It's not needed. There's no justification for it. And I can't think of any agent that would be worth their salt that would follow through with it.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (17:52)

Just for the non sort of FBI fluent, just explain what that means, what the kit is, what is it?

Chris O'Leary (17:57)

So it's your what you actually see all the people from DHS wearing regularly because it's been championed by the DHS secretary. I mean it's. By the way, I'm also a former US Marine. It's what I wore in Fallujah. It's a tactical plate carrier. It's got all of your ammunition you're carrying, your M4, your ballistic helmet, your ops core helmet. This is to defeat a really heavily armed adversary. And the reason for the plate carry is somebody is carrying a long gun that has certain capabilities that will penetrate a normal police level vest, which is only for handguns. Most FBI agents would never have to wear that on a daily basis. And really they all get issued it, but really only high threat special occasions. Would you break that out? And going back to ICE and other DHS members in my career and I worked closely with ICE over the years and had a terrific partnership with, with them, seeing them deployed in that every day in every corner of the country is just unusual. It's also, I would argue, inappropriate. And I've Heard from many former ICE agents who I never saw a single time wear any of that. There are times where they absolutely should be justified wearing that. Going against a high threat target, somebody who's considered armed and dangerous. It's not the routine and it's, you know, if you look at the totality of it, the militarization of federal law enforcement should concern people. But you combine that with the deployment of actually military troops to US Cities, it's fundamentally un American. It's not who we're supposed to be, and it's not carrying out the rule of law.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (19:44)

It's not what you would wear to Jim Comey's house.

Chris O'Leary (19:46)

It was not what you would wear to Jim Comey. And it's also the standard would be Jim Comey's attorney, Pat Fitzgerald, would arrange for his surrender, which is done in most high profile cases, certainly most white collar cases. And whether you like Jim Comey or not, he's trustworthy enough that you believe that he's actually going to surrender himself the day that he's supposed to on Wednesday morning.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (20:10)

Of course he is. Of course he is. All right. No one's going anywhere. There's much more in this bucket of news to tell you about. The legal fight to keep Donald Trump from sending National Guard troops to Portland is ahead for us. Local officials say they're not wanted there and they're not needed there. The Oregon attorney General will be our guest this hour. And later, what we are learning about the fire that destroyed the home of a South Carolina judge who just happened to have ruled against the Trump administration. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Talkspace Sponsor (20:44)

This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself, talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace. Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences, and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship, or if you want some counseling for you and your partner or just need a little extra one on one support, Talkspace is here for you. Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers and most insured members have a zero dollar copay. No insurance, no problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code space80 when you go to talkspace.com match with a licensed therapist today at talkspace.com save $80 with code space80@talkspace.com Saturday, October 11th from New.

Nicole Wallace (21:46)

York City, it's MSNBC Live 25. Join your favorite MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow.

Mary McCord (21:54)

Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Nicole Wallace, Ari.

Nicole Wallace (21:58)

Melber, Alicia Menendez, Simone Sanders Townsend, Michael.

Mary McCord (22:02)

Steele, Chris Haynes, Jen Psaki, Lawrence o'.

Nicole Wallace (22:06)

Donnell, Stephanie Ruhl and more.

Mary McCord (22:08)

Visit MSNB.

Nicole Wallace (22:12)

To buy your tickets today. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Mary McCord (22:18)

For early access, ad free listening and.

Nicole Wallace (22:20)

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.

Mary McCord (22:32)

MSNBC shows ad free and ad free.

Nicole Wallace (22:35)

Listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (22:46)

We're back with Carol and Mary and Chris. I mean, Carol, let me come back to you on the Comey indictment. I mean, that was certainly a Rubicon crossing moment. And we were talking in the break about how so many of my sources, and I'm sure yours, felt like US Intelligence, US Department of Justice norms, all the things that restrain the military, the relationship between the military and civilian leaders that all those things could strain for four years and not break, but not eight. And you're sort of seeing that analysis from 1.0 come true in that a lot of those people used to tell me, we can handle four years, not eight. You're seeing less than one year into a second term. Some of these things break. And the Comey indictment seems to represent that absolute break of the rule of law inside the Department of Justice. How do you see the desired sort of casting of this is from the reporting, quote, beefy agents to wear their combat gear, to dress the way Chris did in Fallujah, and perp walk the former director of the FBI.

Carol Leonnig (23:52)

You know, I really enjoyed, in a sad way, Chris's description because it was so crisp and detailed. And I was thinking with some irony about how my reporting back in 2023 and 2022, how careful the FBI were when they decided that they had probable cause and a judge agreed that they had good reason to go and search Donald Trump's home at Mar a Lago for possible classified records. Indeed, not only did they have probable cause when they searched it, they found hundreds of documents and Pages of records that are among the country's most carefully guarded secrets. And the reason Chris's description of that description of the perp walk and the tack gear now being used is how different that was in the prior administration. I'm not saying, wow, the other guys were so much better. I'm just saying, wow, they were so careful to not even wear their FBI rain jackets, their sort of iconic outfit that they wear on a surprise search, an unannounced search, they decided to wear khakis and white polo shirts so as not to appear as if, you know, they were coming in heavy into a former president's home. They wanted to be, to the degree they could be deferential. And Donald Trump has really flipped the script on that. You know, using Fallujah like tactics or proposing them for collecting the former FBI director, his list, his target list, the people that are on it, in his view, they're all, to quote Donald Trump, guilty as hell, and they deserve whatever they get. The problem is the facts don't stack up to, to prosecute Jim Comey. I know the details of that allegation very well. I know they've been investigated before by the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General. That is well documented, what happened and what Comey said. And it's in conflict with the indictment. There are no facts that have been presented to the grand jury yet, according to my sources, that suggest Letitia James engaged in any fraud and certainly not knowingly or intentionally engaged in any fraud. So this pressure to decide that they are guilty as hell, as Donald Trump says, means they deserve anything that he wants to throw at them. And it's quite a turnabout from a couple of years ago when the department was so gingerly investigating ample evidence of a crime involving Donald Trump.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (26:44)

It's such a good point. It's such a good lens. I want to stay on that with you, Mary. I mean, in terms of the affiliation of those who have attested to what Carol just said, that in addition to Eric Siebert, who's a sort of a Republican in good standing with maga, with the Republican governor of Virginia, with the Trump appointees at the Department of Justice, John Durham, who was, you know, you talk to sort of the Trump 1.0 folks and you ask a question about Mueller, and the answer was anouna verb. And John Durham, you know, this was going to be the answer to everything they feared that Robert Mueller was going to uncover. Here's what John Durham found about Jim Comey, who he spent more than three years and $7 million looking at, quote, John Durham. This is from abc. John Durham, the former special counsel who spent nearly four years examining the origins of the FBI investigation into Trump's 16th presidential campaign and its alleged ties to Russia, told federal prosecutors investigating Jim Comey that he was unable to uncover evidence that would support false statements or obstruction charges against the former FBI director. Federal prosecutors in Virginia met remotely with Durham in August of this year to understand the findings of his investigation, according to sources familiar with the meeting. And Durham's conclusions raised the prospect that Durham, who was once elevated by Donald Trump and other Republicans believing he would prosecute high level officials involved in the investigation of the president's 2016 campaign, could now become a key figure aiding Jim Comey's defense. You know who else said there was nothing? Bill Barr. He writes in, I think his book is called I don't know, all the Damn Things or something said, quote, everyone at DOJ agreed there was nothing there to charge Jim Comey. So all of Trump's old friends looked at this because Trump made them look at this and found nothing.

Mary McCord (28:42)

Yeah. And, you know, I mean, kudos to the prosecutors who were asked to look at this again that they said, well, let's go talk to John Durham.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (28:49)

Right.

Mary McCord (28:50)

And let's, by the way, talk to the U.S. attorney's office in D.C. because they looked into this too. Right. So they did their own investigation and they looked to see what other prosecutors had found when they put resources into this. And John Durham, talk about resources. Three and a half years versus the two months, apparently, according to reporting that Comey was investigated by the Eastern District of Virginia. So these are the things that you would expect prosecutors to do, particularly if you're going to be doing something so unusual as to kind of dredge back up something old that had been pretty much put to bed and said, there's nothing to see here. If you don't have some sort of new revelatory evidence, what are you even, why are you even reinvestigating? Well, you were doing it here because Donald Trump told you to and wanted you to. And so good on them to talk to those who had done even more thorough investigations. But it also just totally, you know, rips off any type of shield or curtain. And we're seeing the wizard, right? Is not a wizard because there's no there there. And yet there was a prosecution that is being brought, an indictment that is, that is being brought, and a man who is now charged, who's going to have to go defend himself in court. And that could happen to others. And Donald Trump is saying that it will happen to others. Now, again, I'm going to go back to having confidence that many prosecutors will say no. And of course, that's what happened here until we had Lindsey Halligan. I'm hoping more grand juries, if the evidence is not there, we'll say no and that the safeguards will work. But no one should have to go through that process because, I mean, Jim Comey has lots of resources. He has lots of friends, lots of associates. He even has people who are not his friends who are sticking up for him right now. But not everybody has that. And it is expensive and it is psychologically damaging and it is just very harmful to people, not only to be targeted by the president, but then have the vast power of the Department of Justice mobilized against you.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (30:46)

Carol Lennig and Chris o', Leary, thank you so much for this conversation and for starting us off today. Mary will be back later in the hour. When we come back, the attorney general of Oregon will be our guest. He is fighting the Trump administration and its plans to send troops to the city of Portland. That's next. A legal standoff over the weekend, of course, having to do with Donald Trump's wish to send federal troops into states in the cities led by elected Democrats that resulted in, as we've been covering, the late night Sunday ruling by a Trump appointed judge which temporarily blocks the Trump administration from sending any National Guard units into Oregon at all. Yesterday's order expanded on the judge's Saturday ruling that prevented Trump from sending Oregon's National Guard into Portland. The administration tried to sidestep that by sending the California and Texas National Guard in, but the judge took the administration to task and accused the Trump administration of, quote, direct contravention of her Saturday order. Trump has asked an appeals court to lift her order by today because he claims the troops are needed in Portland to quell violence. But here's the reality, the facts on the ground, if you will, in Portland, Oregon. This is not war torn.

Mary McCord (32:05)

This is Portland.

Nicole Wallace (32:06)

We don't need help.

Carol Leonnig (32:07)

We've got it under control.

Mary McCord (32:09)

Take a look.

Carol Leonnig (32:10)

The thing that's harming us is the escalation tactics that Trump's trying to use to create a narrative that, you know, Portland is this boogeyman that requires further militarization and we just don't.

Chris O'Leary (32:22)

I'm hopeful that the courts and I'm hopeful that ultimately common sense prevails and, you know, we continue to be peaceful.

Nicole Wallace (32:27)

And not allow these things to happen.

Chris O'Leary (32:29)

In our cities and states.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (32:32)

During our coverage, Oregon's Attorney General Dan Rayfield, thank you so much for being here.

Nicole Wallace (32:38)

Absolutely. Thanks for having me.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (32:39)

Take me inside. What is happening right now legally, in your efforts to stop Trump from sending in the National Guard?

Nicole Wallace (32:49)

Well, this all starts when you have a president that bases his impressions of the world on social media, gossip and trolling. And so last Sunday, we got an order that said, hey, they're going to bring in or federalize the Oregon National Guard. We were in court within six hours, filed a lawsuit, and then sought what we call a temporary restraining order, which effectively would just pause the President's actions. On Saturday, we were successful. At 4:30 4:30pm we get this order that says, hey, President, you gotta stop. Within hours, we hear that the President is now trying to bring the National Guard from California into Oregon. We filed another temporary restraining order several hours later. The next day, we hear that he's trying to bring the National Guard from Texas into Oregon. And ultimately yesterday you had an exasperated judge who effectively said, hey, you can't do this. There's no justification for using the US Military in Oregon in the very stringent standards that Congress outlined and gave power to the president. So that's kind of where we are. Federal government has appealed this and we're waiting to hear back to see whether the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is even going to listen.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (34:02)

Let me show you what Trump said is happening in Portland, and I'll give you a chance to fact check him on the other side.

Mary McCord (34:09)

Portland is burning to the ground. You have agitators, insurrectioners. All you have to do is look at the, look at the television, turn on your television, read your newspapers. It's burning to the ground. The governor, the mayor, the politicians are petrified for their lives.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (34:26)

So these are the facts that we have. And I just want to give some police data. Two arrests were made at protests over the weekend and 36 arrests at protests in four months. What do you think? I think a judge theorized that maybe he was looking at some old newsreels. I mean, what is he talking about and what is really happening?

Nicole Wallace (34:48)

Who knows what he's talking about most of the time, Right? I can say I'm a Michelin star chef, but it doesn't make it the case. He says things and that's why the courts are here, because this is a president that is known for making his living on saying inflammatory things on social media, impromptu. Some things that feel very unhinged from reality. But that's why our court systems are so darn important. Right? We're able to come in present real facts, as you've noted. And a judge, a judge that was appointed by President Trump sat there and said, hey, the facts that you're presenting in court just aren't true, Mr. President. In fact, it's always a bad sign. And I think it's actually a little bit embarrassing that the lawyers for the federal government came in and we're actually citing the president's quotes on Truth Social. That's how far they've gone down the hill in the federal government, in the court system. So that's why we won the case. As we're moving forward, I should say we won the motion and we intend, if those facts stay the same, we expect that result to continue.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (35:55)

Let me read you from the judge's ruling Saturday. It's about resisting government overreach. Quote, this country has a longstanding foundation tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs. This historical tradition boils down to a simple this is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power to the detriment of the nation. How would you describe to people outside of your state the stakes of the state, this standoff?

Nicole Wallace (36:35)

I think we all have to take a deep breath and then look at all of the things that are going on in our country right now. The first thing that you should grapple with is you have a president who leads through fear, right? His own party can't even stand up to him because they're so fearful of what he's going to do to them in a primary. You have a president that is normalizing the use of the military in our cities. That's un American. And he's talking about doing it where he's going to be a police force in our communities with the United States military. That's wild. You haven't talking about rigging our elections like they're doing in Texas so that they can maintain power in Congress. And then a couple weeks ago, he said and pressured the free press so much that even Senator Ted Cruz was saying, hey, that's too much for me. These are all hallmarks of a very effective democracy. These are the things that other countries strive to obtain. And he is attacking the core of these things. And that is where I think we all have to be concerned. And that's where, just as Americans, we have to stop. We have to push back, draw a line in the sand. And then while he's doing all that, he's yanking health care away from people. He's passing regressive taxes, including tariffs, and also stripping people of food systems. It's a very bizarre world that this president wants to live in, and I think we have to look at the totality of what he wants America to be and say no.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (37:59)

Attorney General Dan Rayfield, thank you very much for joining us. I hope we can call on you often as this battle goes on. Thank you for your time today, Ashley.

Nicole Wallace (38:09)

Thank you.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (38:11)

When we come back, what we're learning about the fire that destroyed the home of a South Carolina state Circuit Court judge who faced criticism from Trump officials after a ruling she made against the Trump administration.

Mary McCord (38:27)

Hey, this is Jeff Lewis from Radio Andy Live and uncensored. Catch me talking with my friends about my latest obsessions, relationship issues and bodily ailments.

Carol Leonnig (38:35)

With that kind of drama that seems to follow me, you never know what's going to happen.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (38:39)

You can listen to Jeff Lewis live.

Mary McCord (38:41)

At home or anywhere you are. Download the SiriusXM app for over 425.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (38:46)

Channels of ad free music, sports, entertainment and more. Subscribe now and get 3 months free.

Mary McCord (38:53)

Offer Details Apply CIDP can make your.

Chris O'Leary (38:59)

Daily routine feel not so routine.

Nicole Wallace (39:02)

The good news? With a self injection for chronic inflammatory.

Chris O'Leary (39:06)

Demyelinating polyneuropathy, you have the option to treat at home. Discover more@cidpselfinjection.com and talk to your doctor. That's cidpselfinjection.com brought to you by Argenics.

Talkspace Sponsor (39:23)

This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself, talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship, or if you want some counseling for you and your partner or just need a little extra one on one support, Talkspace is here for you. Plus Talkspace works with most major insurers and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance, no problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code space80 when you go to talkspace.com match with a licensed therapist today at talkspace.com save $80 with code space80@talkspace.com.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (40:25)

Officials are investigating the cause of a massive fire that destroyed the home of a South Carolina judge who has reportedly faced death threats after a high profile ruling against the Trump administration. The fire happened Saturday afternoon about an hour south of Charleston. Flames engulf the home owned by Circuit Court Judge Diane Goodstein, who, according to several reports, was out for a walk at the time. But the local NBC affiliate is reporting that three people were injured and hospitalized, including the judge's husband, former Democratic State Senator Arnold Goodstein. And with little details known at this time, law enforcement has been asked to provide extra security after the incident. It comes amid a surge in hostility and threats against judges, as well as criticism directly from the Trump administration, including for Judge Goodstein, after she temporarily blocked the Justice Department from accessing the files of millions of registered voters in South Carolina. Mary McCord is still with us. Mary, what questions do you have based on what we're hearing so far?

Mary McCord (41:29)

Well, you know, first and foremost is, is get, you know, the, what the investigation will reveal about who did this and what their motivation was. I mean, you know, when you just put together the facts you showed in your intro, I mean, I think the first thing many of us think is, was this intentionally done because of that ruling? But we don't know that yet. Right. That would be speculation. You know, could there be other causes for this? Could there, I mean, the, the footage is devastating. I mean, it's just rarely have I seen a house, just one house in such flames like that. And then the, the, you know, the charred remains, it's just shocking how fast this happened and how many people were injured and, and could have been killed. And so it's a horrible, horrible, heinous crime if it was a crime and not something that was done by accident. And I know it's looking like arson, but getting to that cause. And if it turns out that this was motivated because of a judicial ruling that went against the Trump administration, this will be another escalation, of course, in what we're seeing when it comes to political violence. And I think it is bad always. It's bad no matter who it's directed to. But when it, when it is a judge, I mean, the judges, their job is to rule in the cases in front of them based on the facts and the law, and to do that without fear or favor, to do that out with, without any notice of, or any consideration of politics. And so this is the kind, again, we've talked today already about crossing Rubicons. Right. And when you're starting to attack judges because of their rulings, we're in a very, very dangerous position in this country. And it makes judges fearful, it makes prosecutors fearful, as we know, it makes others in positions where they could be criticized by Donald Trump fearful and needs to know the power of his voice and how people respond to that. We've been saying this for years, Nicole, but, like, if this is what this turns out to be, some sort of politically motivated act of domestic terrorism, then, you know, the importance and significance of the things that Donald Trump says about a person just, again, will be demonstrated in this instance. But I want to get ahead of myself.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (43:50)

Well, I want to ask you what would be a normal response from the FBI and what, if anything, you've seen?

Mary McCord (43:58)

Well, I don't know the latest details, but I think a normal response. You know, usually there's a lot of caution in the immediately aftermath of something like that. And we get the arson investigators in there right away. And, and, and the first thing that they can determine usually is, was it an. Is there indication it was arson versus is there indication that it was, you know, a fire that started from natural causes or for an ex, from an accident or something like that? And after that, it usually gets fairly quiet while they work on the investigation and determine, you know, are there any suspects and what is the motive? And, you know, we've seen things treated very differently recently. I mean, if you think about the immediate statements by Keshe Patel in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's shooting, I mean, he came out very, very early with a, you know, statement about someone being taken into custody that turned out to be wrong. And the FBI does. FBI doesn't want to make announcements and have them be wrong. So it's reasonable to me to be cautious in what is provided to the public. And also to the extent that they're looking, you know, for suspects, you don't want to flag that for the suspects, what you might have about them. And so there's just a lot here that hopefully we will be starting to see in the coming days.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (45:14)

We'll stay on top of it with your help. Mary McCord, thank you for spending the hour with us. When we come back, voting is underway on an issue that could go a long way in determining who will control the House of Representatives. We'll explain next. Voting is now underway in California as of today, where voters will decide on the newly redistricted map that could determine control of the House of Representatives. It's part of the Democratic attempt to blunt Texas's gerrymandered map Fighting fire with fire. It has already become one of the most expensive ballot measures in California history, with more than $200 million spent and still more than four weeks to go until election Day. In a pitch to supporters, California Governor Gavin Newsom said this quote, heaven help us if we lose. This is an all hands on deck moment for Democrats. We'll keep an eye on that for you. One more break. We'll be right back. If you were to seek to engineer the perfect insider to help defeat Trumpism and aid the pro democracy movement, you'd want someone with firsthand knowledge of Trump's real vulnerabilities, the things that drive him crazy. Someone who is not afraid to stand up to bullies. And you'd want someone who knows his history. Lucky for us, Anthony Scaramucci ticks all of those boxes. Watch.

Nicole Wallace (46:34)

We have to explain to the American people how they are better off in a democracy. Because, Nicole, there are always going to be people that believe in oligarchy or an aristocracy can run the country better, Right? Because they're the elitists. They think they're smarter than everybody else. But Lincoln, you know, Lincoln said to Douglas in the debates, he said, hey, you know, people think the American people are not smart, but let me tell you something, they have a very good nose. They can smell a rotting cadaver in their basement. That was literally the quote. And we have a rotting cadaver in the basement right now.

Nicole Wallace (Host) (47:09)

Anthony Scaramucci understands Donald Trump. He understands the economy, and he's putting politicians on both sides of the aisle on blast right now about the urgent need to save our democracy. He's my guest on this week's episode of the Best People podcast. You don't want to miss it. Scan the QR code to listen to our conversation right now or download it. Wherever you get your podcast, let me know what you think on Instagram or bluesky. Thank you for letting us into your homes. We're grateful.