Nicole Wallace (3:00)

Huge story.

John Heilman (3:00)

Again, not a lot of people are talking about. There is a little current of information.

Glenn Thrush (3:06)

I'm getting that the Department of Justice.

John Heilman (3:08)

Under Pam Bondi may be finally releasing a lot of information as Jeffrey Epstein.

Nicole Wallace (3:14)

Case, which is a huge deal in.

John Heilman (3:16)

This case, in Epstein's case. It is incredibly disturbing. We have flight logs, we have information, names that will come out. We have, quote, information that will come out. Not so much. The Epstein list, though, mattered so much to the Trump base of voters that the Fox and Friends weekend team felt compelled to ask Donald Trump about it in an interview last summer. Would you declassify the Epstein files? Yeah, Yeah, I would. All right.

Michael Steele (3:50)

I guess I would. I think that less so because, you know, you don't know. You don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there, because there's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world. But I think I would, or at.

John Heilman (4:01)

Least do you think that would restore trust?

Basil Smikle (4:03)

Help restore trust?

Tyler Pager (4:04)

Yeah.

Michael Steele (4:04)

I don't know about Epstein so much as I do the others, certainly about the way he died. It would be interesting to find out what happened there because that was a weird situation and the cameras didn't happen to be working, et cetera, et cetera.

John Heilman (4:17)

Yeah, I'd release it on the how he died part at least. I mean, it wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement from Donald Trump, but you can hear echoes of that and how he's trying to wiggle through the questions, committing to at least declassifying information about, quote, how he died. Nevertheless, after Trump won after his election victory, some of the very same people who essentially made a living off amplifying baseless conspiracy theories were appointed to senior posts. Kash Patel becomes the FBI director. Dan Bongino, who you saw in that first clip, becomes his deputy. Alina Haba, who was also in that clip, becomes an acting U.S. attorney. And of course, Pam Bondi became the Attorney General of the United States. Listen to her in February.

Michael Steele (5:07)

This is something Donald Trump has talked about.

Nicole Wallace (5:09)

The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?

John Heilman (5:15)

It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump. It's sitting on my desk to review, quote. Now, in the aftermath of Monday's memo, some of Trump's most prominent Allies in the media are understandably outraged. They're mad at Pam Bondi and others. Conservative talk show host Eric Erickson is right now calling for Pam Bondi to be fired for lying to the American people repeatedly. Laura Loomer, who's amassed a whole lot of power with Trump himself, is also calling for Pam Bondi to resign, calling her a, quote, liar. And here's how Alex Jones took the news.

Alex Jones (6:03)

So now, by coming in and being part of the COVID up, the Trump administration has become part of it. I mean, it's just, you cannot see it any other way. So I'm gonna, I just got to the office, I'm gonna go throw up, actually. And this only happens every few years.

John Heilman (6:20)

When something really, really bad happens or something.

Alex Jones (6:21)

I mean, I'm physically gonna puke probably right now. My mouth is watering right now because, because I have integrity and.

John Heilman (6:35)

You know.

Alex Jones (6:36)

I just really need the Trump administration.

Michael Steele (6:38)

To succeed and to save this country.

Alex Jones (6:40)

And they're doing so much good.

Michael Steele (6:42)

And then for them.

Nicole Wallace (6:45)

Tears my guts out.

John Heilman (6:49)

So that's Alex Jones. His guts are being torn out and his mouth is watering. As for Pam Bondi, who, as we showed you back in February, claimed that the, quote, Epstein list was on her desk for review. Here's how she responded when she was asked about the memo during Donald Trump's Cabinet meeting today. In February, I did an interview on Fox and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said I was asked a question about the client list and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file, along with the JFK MLK files as well. That's what I meant. So we just played it. That's obviously not at all what she said, but okay, good luck with Laura Loomer. Here's how Donald Trump reacted when he was pressed about his team, his administration, trying to put an end to conspiracy theory they invented and fueled.

Michael Steele (7:54)

Could I just interrupt for a second? Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years. You're asking. We have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things. And are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable. Do you want to waste the time and do you feel like answering?

John Heilman (8:19)

You still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? Says the guy. Still talking about his 2020 election loss. Really? Even the conservative leaning Wall Street Journal editorial board is having some fun with this. They write this quote, there's a lesson here for partisans who think they can ride conspiracies to power. They can easily boomerang on you once you're in a position to see the real evidence and then have to convince a public that doesn't trust anyone in power. Welcome to the rotten establishment, Mr. Patel and Mr. Bongino. That great big welcome is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. Puck News chief political columnist, MSNBC national affairs analyst John Heilman is here. Also joining us, former RNC chairman, co host of MSNBC's the Weeknight, Michael Steele is here. And New York Times Justice Department reporter Glenn Thresh is here as well. Glenn, you're here because you've done a lot of the reporting that I turn to to educate myself on how this became such a thing on the right. But just take me through your body of reporting through to Monday and today at this Cabinet meeting where Donald Trump's like, are you asking about a conspiracy theory proving that irony is dead?

Glenn Thrush (9:36)

Well, firstly, I will never forgive you for making me watch that Alex Jones clip. Nicole.

John Heilman (9:43)

Maybe I'll play it again for.

Glenn Thrush (9:44)

You at the and there goes dinner. Anyway. No, look, Cash Patel and Dan Bongino, in their previous incarnation as extremely well paid podcast hosts, promoted it. I wouldn't say they necessarily were out in front on the Epstein conspiracy stuff because really it's a sine qua non of the Trump movement. I think it's kind of the price of admission. You either are for that or you incur the wrath of Trump's MAGA supporters. But they both promoted these conspiracies. Bondi a little bit less so, but she's been on board for this. The interesting moment came early February when Bondi really stepped forward to kind of grab this as an issue in part, I think, because she wanted to prove her bona fides to the Trump people that she was willing to take on a big ugly task. And she immediately, face planted, she made these promises on Fox News. She described it as breaking news. And then there was this infamous scene in mid February in the Roosevelt Room when she sort of crashed this conclave of right wing influencers and handed out, quote, unquote, phase one of the Epstein files, which were these big bulky white binders that as it turned out, had more or less absolutely nothing in them. What happened subsequently was more interesting because she was embarrassed by this because the FBI hadn't really uncovered anything new behind the scenes. Per our reporting. There was this extraordinary effort to scour the files and video out at a facility in Winchester, Virginia. Dozens and dozens of FBI agents were deployed and a bunch of prosecutors from the Justice Department, National Security Division, these are the people who are responsible for looking at, investigating terrorism, foreign interference, et cetera, et cetera. They were diverted there to go through files of a guy who's been dead six years and has no national security implications. So there was this big behind the scenes effort to figure out if there's anything at all that they could find that would justify the assertions that had been made. And I had been told as early as May that there would be no phase two. And I think the memo essentially is their attempt to move past this, because the bottom line is the energy that this conspiracy created, the political, emotional, cultural energy, dovetailed with the Trump movement. Even if the Epstein case doesn't advantage Trump because he hung around with Epstein, but the general sense of a government cover up, the fact that you have faceless cabals doing evil things is very much part of the entire energy of the Trump movement. But its usefulness is over. And just as Trump disposes of people, he is now forced to dispose of the Epstein conspiracy. And I think what you're seeing now is what happens when you go from 100 to zero and slam the brakes. Some Trump appointees are going to go through the window.

John Heilman (13:09)

I mean, I want to ask you about Elon Musk's role in this, though, because I think the first time I covered the possibility of Trump or the belief among someone who basically we all coined the term co president to describe Elon Musk's role. And the Times and others have chronicled the depth of access he had into the federal government, data and otherwise. He posts on social media when he and Trump are breaking up. Spectacular that Trump is in the Epstein files. And it's sort of where the far right meets the far left. And I wonder what the right will believe about something. Musk, who many people on the right also have an affinity for if they don't put out any more information.

Glenn Thrush (13:58)

Glenn, well, he pulled that back, remember when they had their sort of rapprochement. And I think today I haven't been able to monitor X as closely as I would like, but I think he.

John Heilman (14:11)

Leveled some threats should no one ever.

Glenn Thrush (14:15)

I think he leveled the thread at Steve. I think we're looking. This client list is joining the very long, the very long litany of infamous lists in American politics that people aren't willing to show. Right. Look, I think the Epstein thing is the Swiss army knife of conspiracy theories. You can use it for anything you want. Trump used it to kind of generate, to energize the base. Patel, Bondi and Bongino used it to kind of get their current jobs and now Musk is seeking to turn it back on all of them in his quest for vengeance. So I mean, I don't think the Epstein conspiracy case cultural phenomenon is going anywhere because frankly, too many people benefit.

John Heilman (15:04)

From it being around John Heilman. Your thoughts on any piece of it?

Nicole Wallace (15:13)

Well, Glenn is mad at you because you made him watch the Alex Jones thing. I am mad at you for the words that are about to come out of my mouth, which is that I stand with Laura Loomer. You know, I never thought the day would come when I, when I was, when I was with Laura Loomer. If you look at her Twitter feed, she made a lot of really strong points about Pam Bondi over here. I mean, she really is. And just in terms of breaking news, I don't believe that Elon Musk has tweeted about this today, but Laura Loomer has tweeted about the fact, as she says here. I had a very brief tweet. She says it looks like the America Party, which is the Elon Musk third party effort, is going to be running on Jeffrey Epstein and the Epstein files. Now I think that probably means the end of the America party because I can't hard to imagine in the real lives of real people that this is a thing. And I'm not talking about the far right maga nut base. I'm talking about, you know, real people who have to like, you know, worry about their, their, their, their medical bills and their kids education, so on. They could really care less about this. But I do think that it's important to not lose sight of one thing which is Jeffrey Epstein was a scumbag and a lot of the stuff that he did. You know, I understand the power of this conspiracy theory and the list, the talismanic quality of the list, but I don't, we don't want to be in some situation. I'm not saying anybody's doing this here, but there is this thing where there's not a list. There's not a list. Well, there wasn't a list. He didn't really have clients, but he hung around with some of the most powerful people in politics and business. And in some cases those people were guilty of doing things that were very unseemly. And in some cases, in his case, as you said, Nicole, a disgraced businessman and convicted sex trafficker were actually illegal. But the web around Jeffrey Epstein, bipartisan Democrats and Republicans, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, you could make a long list of people who have been really embarrassed and really nervous about the court cases around Jeffrey Epstein. Glenn knows this better than I do. But these people in politics who have been like, maybe there's not a client list, but there's going to be a deposition, there's going to be someone who's.

Alex Jones (17:28)

Going to say something.

Nicole Wallace (17:29)

Going back all the way to 2015. The Clinton family and the Trump family were equally nervous about this. They both trying to. Both try to use it to. As their advantage and also trying to parry the possibility that they might be vulnerable on it. And I just, you know, I think the talismanic quality that the list is something that the far right seized on and capitalized on is 100% true. It's a symptom of what's wrong with our politics and what's wrong with our culture today, frankly. But I will also say that the fact that there's not a list does not mean that there are not a bunch of people who could have been on a list if just Jeffrey Epstein had bothered to make one or if he'd been a little bit less prudent and decided to do that. All good criminals know that you don't put things down on paper.

John Heilman (18:15)

Quoting Stringer Bell now. Right?

Nicole Wallace (18:20)

Well done, Nicole.

John Heilman (18:22)

Right, right.

Nicole Wallace (18:25)

I thought you were just all bare all the time at this point. I thought, well, you should put your door.

John Heilman (18:31)

Everything. Everything in my being not to talk to you about the Bear right now, but yeah, I watch the Wire. I love the Wire, too. Let me get back on track here. It feels like a summer Friday, but I think it's only ungodly Monday or Tuesday. Michael Steele, let me ask you this question. Just putting a political lens on this. As a student, I mean, I think we're all students at maga, right? I mean, and you and I especially have this obligation to understand it because we were in the party that it replaced. And I think that's more accurate than saying it hijacked. Right. It replaced the Republican Party. But one of the places where the most heat was in that replacement of the Republican Party was around distrust of institutions and elites and whatever combination of moves that Glenn has chronicled and dynamics of the powerful that John has articulated. All I see is evidence that Trump is now on the side of the elites and the establishment, and that seems like a weak political place to be.

Chris Hayes (19:37)

So, Nicole, this is why you're my sister in this journey, because you went exactly where I was going to go. I was talking to a couple of MAGA folks when this news started to circulate and percolate and the bottom line was, as one put it, Patel, Bongino, Bondi, Haba, they are now the deep state. So when you have that kind of reverberation that the folks who were all about draining the swamp, all about going after the deep state further add to the swamp and become that deep state, that's what you hear the loomers and others out there reacting to and responding to. The other question that pops up is, okay, so if none of this is real, if none of this is what, as Glenn has aptly reported, that there's no there, they're on a list, and et cetera, then what was Elon up to? Because people forget Elon went into the deep state. He took his little 20 something year olds and they got up, broke out their computers and they started downloading all kinds of ish. There is a reason why Elon Musk sent that tweet out about Donald Trump and Epstein. There is a reason it wasn't just a one off. Oh, I'm going to poke you. It's no, no, I seen the files. I know what I can connect dots. He backs off when all of a sudden his government contracts become a little bit under fire, if you will, from Donald Trump. They're back at it again. So this is what's percolating in this space right now. Those who distrust it, the system, now distrust those who are currently running the system, who happen to be the very people they put in power. Their expectation is, you promised to deliver. We fought hard based off of what you said. We got you in the position where you can open up and bring the fresh air of this new American century to light and to bear on some of these big pushing questions, burning questions we have about the corruption. And Trump is basically saying, why are you asking about Epstein? You know, he's just, he's a loser. And their response is, you partied with the loser. You're seen on video having a good time with your boy. What are you denying him for? So there's a lot of this going on and you know, I'm, I'm all in it with my popcorn, but there's some real underlying, there's some real underlying issues that I think to both John and Glenn's point, are going to play out even more as this thing goes on.

John Heilman (22:41)

Yeah, I have to sneak in a break, but this is the part of it that's infinitely fascinating to me. Donald Trump is politically weak right now. His immigration policy is unpopular with more than half of the country. His economic approval is at 33 and 35% around inflation and tariffs. You bring into the equation one of the things that used to distract and entertain his base, and you pop it and you leave mud all over the face of your biggest cheerleaders. And I think in some ways that represents more political treachery for Trump than any policy debacle. But I want to press all of you on that on the other side of this break. Also ahead for us, the relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Putin also appears to be at a low point, the strongest language we've ever heard from Donald Trump when it comes to the Russian leader for keeping his war against Ukraine raging as the US Pledges more military aid to Ukraine. We'll look at this about Face from Donald Trump and why it's happening later in the broadcast. Donald Trump's former criminal defense lawyer is now Donald Trump's nominee for a lifetime judicial post. And now a group of former federal prosecutors who have served for Democratic and Republican presidents are warning the United States Senate against confirming him. Two of the people leading that effort will be our guests later in the broadcast. All that and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Michael Steele (24:21)

As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda.

Nicole Wallace (24:25)

Follow along with MSNBC 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.

John Heilman (24:39)

The American people are basically telling the President that they are not okay with any of this.

Nicole Wallace (24:43)

Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter.

Michael Steele (24:45)

At msnbc.com project47.

John Heilman (24:50)

Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes.

Nicole Wallace (24:52)

This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening? Bloomberg News reporter Zeke Fox on what.

John Heilman (24:56)

The heck's happening with crypto?

Chris Hayes (24:57)

What crypto is good for is crazy gambling. And there's a very big group of people around the world who've realized this.

John Heilman (25:05)

Is kind of fun. I like gambling on crypto.

Chris Hayes (25:08)

I know somebody who made a lot.

John Heilman (25:09)

Of money on it.

Chris Hayes (25:10)

Maybe I should try to find the next bitcoin.

Nicole Wallace (25:13)

That's this week on why Is this Happening?

John Heilman (25:15)

Search for why Is this Happening wherever.

Alex Jones (25:16)

You'Re listening right now and follow subscribe.

Nicole Wallace (25:19)

To MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for.

John Heilman (25:22)

Early access, ad free listening and bonus.

Nicole Wallace (25:24)

Content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace, why Is this Happening?

Michael Steele (25:33)

Main justice and more.

Nicole Wallace (25:34)

Plus new episodes of all your favorite.

Michael Steele (25:36)

MSNBC shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Meadows original.

Nicole Wallace (25:41)

Series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News.

John Heilman (25:44)

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. We're all back. Heilman, let me come back to you on the politics of this. As someone who I think has labored a alongside me to understand why the base tolerates all the destruction of norms, of institutions, of decency. What they get back from him is this fellow journeyman in sticking it to the libs, sticking it to the media, sticking it to the elites. And this seems very politically perilous for Trump to side with the institutions, the elites, the establishment, and the last Justice Department.

Nicole Wallace (26:26)

Yeah, I mean, I think it's, I think it's perilous. I, look, I don't know, Nicole. You know, I swear, you know, I, I, I just went on the, on the, on the interweb over here and I typed in Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein photos. And like, on the Getty site alone, there's like 220 of them or something. Now, I'm not sure those are actually pictures of the two of them together, but there's a bunch, there's a bunch of them together. You know, these pictures have been circulated. You know, the Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump connections are. And again, I want to be clear, I said before there were. There have been noted business people, Democrats and Republicans, who have all spent unseen, seedy, unseemly, and disturbing amounts of time with Jeffrey Epstein during his, during his heyday. But Donald Trump for 20 years went back and forth between New York and Mar a Lago with Jeffrey Epstein. They shared private planes together all the time. They hung around together all the time. They eventually had a falling out over a real estate deal in Florida. You know, those pictures are on Twitter. They're everywhere, the pictures. There's video of Trump dancing, doing that, you know, white man's overbite and doing his disco funky chicken or whatever he thought it was, you know, right next to Jeffrey Epstein, surrounded by all these women. And so it's not like, it's not like there's nothing, not evidence out there to see and yet how it could be that all of that exists. And yet somehow the far maga right, not only embraced this theory as if it were Trump was able to stoke it, and they were able to embrace it as if it were somehow advantageous to them and as if it somehow exonerated Trump. And all of these people we just were talking about have been elevated to these jobs, senior jobs in the Justice Department and so on. So I guess I'm just trying to say I don't understand. I have never, I understand. I think I understand what Jeffrey Epstein was all about. I do not understand how the politics of all this has played out at all. And I have spent a lot of time thinking about it over the course of the last nine years and I just, it boggles my mind that anybody has been out there thinking, hey, let's let you know, other than potentially some truly civic minded people who would like to know if there are victims that haven't been accounted for yet in the Epstein crimes. Other than that among the partisans, how any of them think that there's a clear wedge to be here where there's political advantage here? It just eludes me.

John Heilman (28:50)

You know what's interesting to me, Glenn, is that there are no red lines for this Justice Department. I mean, we're going to start the next hour with former federal prosecutors who were coming out arguing against the confirmation of M.L. bove. And a lot of what we know about M.L. bove, Bovey, I feel like we go round around on this too, comes from Federalist Society attorneys, lifelong conservatives who saw the department being corrupted before their eyes in the demand that they dismiss the Eric Adams case. I mean, this is what has been promised and this is what has been operationalized. A political department of Justice. I wonder how they are going to narrate around even in their sort of propaganda ridden information ecosystems, people that up to this point have tolerated just about anything and everything in service of Donald Trump.

Glenn Thrush (29:50)

Well, you know, I was just talking to somebody about this today and that the Epstein thing was getting in the way of them doing the other stuff that they want to do. The reason why the Epstein case is getting closed is because it's a, it's an encumbrance at this point in time. I don't think Trump is going to pay anything in terms of a political penalty for this. I don't think this is going to register at all. I do think it's going to, it will ultimately harm the human shields who, who signed along, you know, signed the dotted line, knew what they were getting into, that they would play the role of, of shock absorbers for this sort of thing. Trump never has to hold on to these positions. He doesn't have to own them. He's got other people to do that for him. There's a general, you know, there's a general sense, as has been said a million times before, of his cabinet is hired help. And if you don't believe that Emil Beauvais was one of his defense lawyers and the guy who's really running the department day to day is Todd Blanche, who is his lead defense counsel. So I think one of the really important things that we're watching in plain sight, let's push away all these cases, all this nuance, if you look at the Cabinet meeting today, tells you all you needed to know about whatever institutional barriers and protections that exist now between the Justice Department and the White House, they are non existent. Bondi views herself as somebody who serves Donald Trump in a very direct fashion. And really what occurred today at the Cabinet meeting in which Trump dismissed the Epstein, the Epstein case as a distraction was very important political theater for Bondi. She needed Donald Trump to at least tacitly say that he still supported her. It's been a very rough 48 hours for her cash. Patel and Dan Bongino are pretty sophisticated operators in the social media space and have done a pretty good job of protecting themselves from the fallout. Bondi, less so so she, I think, really needed that meeting today to at least project the image of somebody who still had Trump support.

John Heilman (32:09)

Michael Steele I accept that analysis, that this isn't a political problem for Trump, I guess in the middle of America, I don't know that I accept that it isn't a political problem for Trump if Elon Musk is going to put his money where his mouth is and at least mess around with an America party. I mean, I think that if you look at how incompetent autocracies crumble, we'll have Anna Applebaum in a minute. She can fact check me if I have this wrong. But it's the same way democracies fail. They splinter. Hapless autocracies sometimes stumble. If they splinter and they don't have to advance a candidate that becomes a president, they just have to peel away some of the most devoted, the most animated, the people who listen to the lies about Trump's election defeat in 2020 and travel to Washington, D.C. to try to stand, I guess between whatever they thought they were there to do, to, quote, hang Mike Pence, to, quote, think taking some of the heat away from his movement is of political detriment to Donald Trump.

Chris Hayes (33:18)

Yeah, I think that's right. The America Party is an interesting beast because a, we don't know what shape the beast is. We don't know how big it is, how sharp its teeth are. And so that's still to play out. I think the fact that Elon has leveled this up says that he wants to gear up for a fight. And I see that fight on two levels. One is the bigger, broader national fight that the America Party would come to represent. It's an echo chamber of noise and tweets and things that displease Elon. And if it gets some high powered folks from something like this or some other event that happens in Trump or Trump's orbit that align themselves with Musk, that's fine. But where I'm watching for this America Party effort is on the ground. How does this metastasize inside Republican primaries? How does it level up and throw off kilter Republicans who are Trump acolytes? If Elon Musk wants to go at maga, that's where he needs to go. So I see this coming in two waves, one over the top, big national noise. But what you need to watch is what's happening on the ground.

John Heilman (34:57)

It's so interesting. Like if Elon Musk decides to give some air cover to Republicans who oppose the big beautiful bill at a point where they don't retire, it could be interesting. Michael Steele and Glenn Thrush, I never thought I'd say this, but thank you so much for being part of my education of the dark underbelly of some of these, some of these information echo chambers. Thank you so much. John sticks around a little bit longer. We're not quite done with him. Up next for us, the US today with a 180. Now, now unpausing the Pentagon's freeze on military aid for Ukraine. A positive development in the war for sure, but why is it happening? We'll also look at Donald Trump's very sudden, very public rebuke of Vladimir Putin. That's next. A reversal from Donald Trump today after another seemingly humiliating call during which he admitted he again made zero progress with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Here's what he had to say today about that. Once again using some of his more colorful language. Watch. I don't know.

Michael Steele (36:08)

We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin for you want to know the truth? He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.

John Heilman (36:18)

There was also this from Trump yesterday, announcing that he will resume weapons shipments to Ukraine that were halted again by his own administration just days earlier. Watch.

Michael Steele (36:30)

I'm not happy with President Putin at all. I'm disappointed, frankly, that President Putin hasn't stopped, though. We're going to send some more weapons. We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now.

John Heilman (36:45)

Getting to this took maybe the clearest, most obvious sign yet that Putin doesn't want peace. Launching the largest air attack against Ukraine since the start of the war just hours after his call with Donald J. Trump, New York Times reports this today. Quote, lawmakers and analysts in Kyiv, Ukraine's capital, said they were not expecting a full turnaround on military assistance, given Trump's skepticism of US Spending on Ukraine and his fickleness on continuing military aid already funded by Congress. Others aired skepticism that arms supplies would continue, given Trump's earlier zigzags on weapons shipments and his wobbly backing for sanctions on Russia. Joining our coverage, staff writer for the Atlantic, author of Autocracy, Inc. Anne Applebaum is here. Don is with us as well. Ann, take us through how this is seen in your eyes and how it's received in Kyiv.

Basil Smikle (37:42)

So I think there are two things to say about Trump's response over the last couple of days. One is the comment he made about Putin seems so nice. And then he does these bad things. You know, Putin is a trained KGB officer. He was trained in the art of manipulating people. Anybody who's dealt with him over the last decade knows that and is prepared for him to lie and for him to say things that aren't true and is ready for that. And Trump seems over and over and over again unprepared for that. And of course, the question of whether that's naivete or whether it's something deeper is not even worth going into anymore because we don't know the answers right now. Maybe someday we will. The second thing to say is that although Trump periodically does this move back and forth where he blocks weapons and then he unblocks weapons, or he's unpleasant to the Ukrainian president and then changes his mind, I mean, all of that is masking something that's rather deeper, which is that in multiple ways, multiple ways, not just in the world of weapons, this administration is making concessions to Russia. So in practice, the Trump administration has stopped applying new sanctions to Russia. And that means that every time there's a new company that does deals to get around the old sanctions, it's not sanctioned. This administration is blocking money for Russian independent media and even for US Funded media for Radio for Europe and Radio Liberty, which have broadcast into Russia doing counter propaganda for a long time. All of those things are sending a message to the Russians telling them essentially that the US Isn't playing the game anymore and they're welcome to keep going. And that's why Putin is still going. That's why he's stepping up his attacks. And pretty much everyone you ask what people in Europe and Ukraine think, and that's what we see. That's what I'm in. I'm in Warsaw now. That's what people here see. That's what people in Kyiv see. They see the administration making these constant concessions. And then somehow Trump is surprised when Putin laughs at him and continues fighting, even though he seems to believe that he said he wouldn't.

John Heilman (40:03)

Is there a strategic play scene or an opening scene to move Trump away from Russia as he's so publicly ignored? And it would seem Putin's laughing at him. He gets off the phone and bombs the union know what out of Ukraine after Trump asks him not to. I mean, is there, is there any consideration given to playing this very public humiliation of Donald Trump that Vladimir Putin's clearly enjoying?

Basil Smikle (40:34)

So there are some people around Trump, including a lot of Republican senators, who have been pushing for a long time to get him to look at the conflict differently, to understand that the war will only end when the Russians stop fighting, when the Russians understand that they can't win. And that can only happen if you arm Ukraine, if you increase sanctions, if you put more pressure on Russia. And he's been told this, and he's been offered a bill in the Senate that would accelerate sanctions on Russia. Maybe it will eventually begin to work, and I hope that it does, because that's really the only way the war will end. But, but, but Trump has been all along from, since he took office in January, has been resistant to seeing the war this way. He's in, somehow insisted on believing that he's friends with Trump. Excuse me, that he's friends with Putin and that Putin wouldn't lie to him. And Putin will do what he says and that, you know, maybe after six months, he'll finally realize that that's not true. He's sounding a little bit more like that. But as I say, if you look at the whole range of US Policy, not just at the weapons, what you see is over and over again the US Administration doing things that are to the advantage of Russia.

John Heilman (41:55)

Right. And the whole nine years of Trumpism is oriented in that direction. Ann, stay with us. I want to bring John Heilman in on this. I have to sneak in a quick break first. We'll all be right back on the other side. We're back with Ann and John. John, I keep thinking of the interview you did with Trump back in 2015, or when you asked him who he turns to for expertise and advice. He said, me and my own big brain. I mean, do you see any influences here, or is it all just reacting to the reactions of his own chaos?

Nicole Wallace (42:32)

Look, I mean, Ann is so sophisticated and so rigorous and so serious, and I Listen to those things of Trump. Everything she said makes total sense to me. I listened to that first clip you played Nicole, where he said, well, you know, Putin, I just, you know, I keep expecting this. I keep expecting. It's just bullshit. It's all bullshit. He's just a pouty little snowflake. He sounds like a 14 year old who's just been learning the hard way that the quarterback, the varsity quarterback just is not into her or into him, whichever. He's just, it's just, it's the most infantile kind of pathetic display. I think that there is a lot of pro Russian policy being made in this administration. My guess is that Trump is obviously tolerant of that. But you know, the people who are executing that on his behalf right now are JD Vance on down where I think Trump is just in a hissy fit and he doesn't know what to do. He's a pouty snowflake and he kind of is sitting here. He really, I think, seems bruised to me. Like I really thought Vladimir liked me and if I did all these things, he would really like me. And he keeps defying me. I just don't know what to do. That's just all it is. Right. Is there anything other than like childish tantrum that you see in his, his public affect, his public quote, diplomacy towards Putin, other than bruised feelings and kind of acting out in various ways that have no effect on Putin certainly. And I don't really think have any particular effect on the people who are making the actual policy and implementing it below him in the administration.

John Heilman (44:22)

I mean, the tragedy, Ann, is that innocent Ukrainians and valiant Ukrainian soldiers are paying with army the their lives for which on just articulated. But it does get back to your first point about the KGB officer and Donald Trump.

Basil Smikle (44:39)

Yeah, I mean he's, Putin has been manipulating Trump for many, many, many years. He convinced him that he was his friend, he convinced him that he was on his side. Who knows what else he's been telling him or what other information he's been passing him. And Trump bought it. And you know, I don't think John and I are in disagreement at all. I mean, the administration is structured to be pro Russian all the way down from J.D. vance to Pete Hegseth all the way down. They are making changes to all kinds of areas of policy that are pro Russian and that was supposed to make Putin and like us more. And it doesn't work, of course, because what it does is send Russia the message that they can go on fighting and then everybody's surprised.

John Heilman (45:30)

Yeah. And that we're weak, I mean, which is also music to their ears. And it's such an interesting point that all the policy making is pro Russia. We should pull all that out and spend some more time on that with both of you. And Applebaum, John Halman, thank you both so much for spending time with us today. Up next for us, just breaking this hour out of Texas from Texas Governor Greg Abbott. What we're learning today about the devastating and heartbreaking scale of the tragedy there. We have some really tragic breaking news to tell you about in the last hour. Texas Governor Greg Abbott provided an update on the floods in Texas, saying at least 161 people are known to be missing in Kerr county alone as a result of the flood, at least 109 people have died. Abbott added that no survivors have been found since Friday. In other parts of Texas, there are at least 12 missing. But Governor Abbott noted that there very likely could be more added to that list. We'll keep you updated on this story when we come back. A group of former federal prosecutors are torching Donald Trump's nominee for a lifetime judgeship. We'll bring you that story and more when the next hour of DEADLINE White HOUSE starts after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Nicole Wallace (46:58)

I think this is about as seriously flawed a candidate as you could possibly find. He lacks the judgment, the temperament, the, the integrity and honesty you want in a candidate for the bench. So by every measure, this is a terrible nomination.

John Heilman (47:16)

Hi again, Everybody. It's now five o'clock in the east. The case against top Justice Department official email. Bove's nomination to be a federal appeals court judge is getting stronger by the day. And it's being made in large part by conservatives voices when Bove led the push to dismiss the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, which led to a mass exodus of career prosecutors from the Department of Justice. Then acting attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, accused Bove of ignoring the rule of law. In her resignation letter, Sassoon, a lifelong Republican, wrote this quote, the reasons advanced by Mr. Bovet for dismissing the indictment are not ones I can in good faith defend as in the public interest and as consistent with the principles of impartiality and fairness that guide my decision making, end quote. Her sentiment was echoed by her deputy, Hagen Scotten, who wrote to Bove this quote, I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward to foul your motion, but it was never going to be me. And Bove's temperament was called into question recently by none other than the Wall Street Journal editorial page. They write this quote, his reputation lately is as a smash mouth partisan who wields the law as a weapon. All that opposition culminated today in a burst of public alarms being sounded loudly by former federal prosecutors, the lightblood of the Department of Justice. They warn in a letter to senators this, that Bovet is, quote, the worst conceivable nominee for a lifetime judicial post. They add that Bove, who has seen himself at the forefront of just about every controversial action in Donald Trump's Justice Department, has, quote, demonstrated a willingness to ignore his oath to the Constitution and to disregard the rule of law in an effort to conform to every possible whim of the president. This is Trump's principal, if only, criterion required of Bobay in his nomination. And they pose a crucial question at a time when the judicial system seems to be the only guardrail to Trump's policies, asking this quote, how can Bove be trusted to be fair and impartial in reviewing the appellate cases before him when they conflict with the Trump administration's desires? That $64 million question is where we start the hour with two of those former federal prosecutors for the District of of Columbia, Daniel Toomey and Chuck Work. Thank you so much for speaking out. Thank you so much for doing so on our program. And Chuck, I'll start with you. Just tell us a little bit about your career and how you came to want to or think it was important to sound the alarm about Mr. Bove.

I (50:09)

Well, I was a prosecutor 50 years ago in the U.S. attorney's office at a time when we were a lot smaller office, but it was an elite, strongly performing, excellent office. It was an honor to be in that office. But we were never questioned about our political status. Not one word was ever asked in any of the interviews or at any time while we were Assistant US Attorneys about whether we had allegiance to one political party or another. It is a tradition that has continued throughout the U.S. attorney's office up until the present time. The reason that we got involved in this particular nomination stems from our opposition to Edward Martin, who was nominated by President Trump to be the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. He was the worst conceivable nominee for that particular job. And we went to work to try to oppose that, and we and others successfully opposed that nomination. Then we came across the Bovet nomination. And the Bove nomination we decided was worse than the Martin nomination, but it was related. Two of the really important egregious acts by Martin were instigated by ove. They involved. They involved the firing of assistant United States attorneys who appeared in those cases in which the office was prosecuting the insurrection. I'll let Dan talk about the second one. Dan.

John Heilman (52:00)

Dan, go ahead.

Michael Steele (52:02)

The second one had to do with the firing of a 24. Well, not firing, but the forced resignation of a 24 year year veteran of the U.S. attorney's office in Washington who refused to sign an affidavit that was being used as a pretext to stop environmental funds that had been already granted under the Biden administration. She wouldn't do it because she said there aren't any facts. And at that time, Martin forced her resignation. This was another matter that we thought that Martin was handling unilaterally. Well, in fact, it was not. If you read her NOISY departure letter, Ms. Chung makes it very clear that the acting Deputy Attorney General, and that's Beauvais, was really insisting on all of this.

I (53:06)

And then another important distinction here, and this is really important. Bove has been nominated for a lifetime appointment. A lifetime appointment. Now, this level of appointment to a circuit court in the United States has historically gone to persons of great integrity, great reputation, who have practiced law in a distinguished fashion for a big chunk of their lives, have often been judges in the federal court system at a lower level. This nomination is an abomination, a rejection of all that has been really important in the American judicial system for as long as I have been in it, which is a long time.

John Heilman (54:02)

Daniel, let me ask you what happens. What is happening inside the Department of Justice? I mean, we know of the case you talked about. We know of the case of Danielle Sassoon because there was a rupture. There was friction. But what is it like? What is your understanding of what it's like right now inside the Department of Justice under Emile Bove's leadership?

Michael Steele (54:26)

Well, and I. I think not only Emil Bove, but the Attorney General herself, what's happening is there's an attempt to root out people who will not go along lockstep with anything the President wants in connection with his policies. One of the most reprehensible things that Bove did and one of the most hypocritical. I did not know this until we were getting involved in this, and that is Bove was in the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District of New York for a year, almost a year after the insurrection. And with a matter this large, a number of officers had to deal with these events, and he was assigned to go after people from New York State in the jurisdiction of the Southern District who were involved in the insurrection, he then leaves and then when he comes, becomes the acting deputy attorney general, he turns on them. He then says he fully adopts the president's view of what was going on, a grave misjustice. So he has thrown other attorneys at the Southern District under the bus. And of course.

I (56:07)

He himself was involved in those prosecutions and pursuing.

Michael Steele (56:12)

Absolutely.

John Heilman (56:14)

And I remember the reporting when that came out. He asked for them. He thought they were prestigious and righteous cases and asked to be more involved in the January 6th prosecutions. And now he's instrumental in the purge of those prosecutors. Chuck, I wonder if you can just pull this thread for me. For folks outside the department, outside these elite groups of attorneys and offices, what does it mean for the country when the Justice Department becomes completely overrun by political partisans who won't touch cases for fear of being purged themselves if they anger the people in power?

I (56:59)

You know, we have been in touch with some of the people still inside, and quite frankly, they are frightened. They don't know who to talk to. They don't know. They are fearful of coming to work. They're fearful of opening their emails. There's never been anything like this anywhere near the Department of Justice. What the American public needs to know is that the Justice Department is collapsed. It is collapsed. It cannot do its job the way it's currently being operated. We have that information from people who are currently inside.

John Heilman (57:39)

That is so dramatic. I wonder, Chuck, what the reaction is from US Senators who've seen your letter.

I (57:47)

Well, we have not spoken to any particular US Senators. We have had a good reception from.

John Heilman (57:52)

From the.

I (57:53)

From the minority staff. We have worked hard with Martin, with. To. To try to attract some attention from the Republican members and the Republican members. The Republican members staff have been attentive to us and have listened to us, and we are hopeful that we can continue to have those conversations with them. The person who was the hero of the Martin nomination fiasco was Tillis. Tillis went to the present and said he could not. Senator Tillis went to the President and said he could not support that nomination. We're very hopeful because we need. We really only need one vote, we think, from the. From the Republicans, and we're hopeful we can get one vote from the Republicans, and we are working hard on it.

Michael Steele (58:52)

Now, importantly.

John Heilman (58:53)

Well, go ahead.

Michael Steele (58:54)

I just make this importantly. The argument that we make in our letter is there is virtually no distinction between the reasoned and ethical position that Judge. Excuse me, Senator Tillis took in rejecting Martin than what we believe he should do now, which is reject Bovey, except because Bovey is really worse. Bovey is the one who has instructed and demanded that these things take place. And he has no regard for his own colleagues. You mentioned it earlier on the way he treated Sassoon and Hagen. We've never seen anything like it.

I (59:46)

The other thing we need to call your attention to, I know you have discussed it, and that is the whistleblower Reveni. He has put together a noble effort to describe what Bove did to him and to the representations in the court, you know, to the, to the, to the point of using swear words and blasphemy about, about whether or not Raboony should obey the court. And you know, that story, that story is a really important story. We're trying to get the committee, the Judiciary Committee, to call him as a witness and to tell that story to the whole country.

John Heilman (60:33)

And just to remind my viewers, I just want to remind my viewers, this is the whistleblower who recounted that Mr. Bove said, Use the F word. Said, basically, F the courts, f the judges. I wonder in terms of decorum and norms, how far away from anything resembling the rule of law and respect for the rule of law and respect for the courts you think we are and if you think it's retrievable. Daniel, you first.

Michael Steele (61:07)

Well, I think it's going to be very difficult in this administration. People who have done the things like Martin get rewarded. He's now the head of pardons and the so called organization committee. And clearly one of the analyses I did is found out how many lawyers there are existing in the third circuit, the three jurisdictions, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey. It's 94,000 lawyers. So this administration picks somebody who has never been admitted to any of those jurisdictions, is probably not even a resident in any of the three states. New Jersey is the state that's owed that seat. There is always an apportionment because these circuits cover more than one state. Why this one person? Why is he the person that has to be in there and look at the other appointments? I mean, we only have to look at Alina Haba. These are not quality appointments. Bovi has an interesting educational background. Nobody's saying he's stupid, but he has lost his true north and it's been manifest time and time again.

I (62:41)

You know, he was also good.

John Heilman (62:44)

No, no, go ahead.

I (62:45)

I'm just going to point out that he had a role in the quid pro quo case regarding Mayor Adams. You know, he was the one who suggested that quid pro quo, you know, Mayor.

John Heilman (62:55)

If.

I (62:56)

Mayor. They would drop the case against Mayor Adams without prejudice, if he would behave and help them with immigration and other issues that they were concerned about in New York. All right, so they decided to drop it without prejudice, but the court would not let him do that. The court insisted that it be dropped with prejudice, thereby making sure that this holding it over his head would not be operable. And that's what Bove was trying to do. Completely unprecedented kind of action.

John Heilman (63:31)

Chuck, let me ask you one last question. What does it feel like? I worked in the White House, and so I talked to a lot of people about what it feels like to see, I don't know, everything from the Rose Garden dramatically altered to the podium used for spreading seemingly knowing falsehoods. What does it feel like to see the Department of Justice and the Washington, D.C. u.S. Attorney's office used for such brazenly political purposes? How does that feel to you?

I (64:05)

Them? You know, you and I share the fact that we are former Republicans. I held presidential appointment in the Nixon and Ford administrations and in the Reagan administration. And, you know, it feels awful that my party is gone. I left the party on January 6. I said to my wife, we're done. And there's nothing there. There's nothing there that resembles what I came to respect and highly regard as a young lawyer and prosecutor at Washington.

John Heilman (64:39)

I feel you. Go ahead, Daniel.

Michael Steele (64:43)

We revered our time in the US Attorney's office. Regularly, when the colleagues of ours would retire, or oftentimes in the obituary, it would say, it was the greatest job in my life. And it was. I learned 90% about being a lawyer in those three and a half years I was an assistant U.S. attorney. And the word I would use is. It's heartbreaking.

John Heilman (65:11)

Yeah. Yeah. I feel it. I feel it from both of you. And that's why I wanted to ask. And I appreciate both of you for sharing that. I feel your heartbreak. And I guess what I would say is you're in the fight now, right? Whether you want to be or not. And to your point about votes and attention, it doesn't take a lot of people digging deep and feeling equally heartbroken about what the Department of Justice has become. Just takes. Just takes a couple to remember what it can be and what it used to be. I hope you'll stay in the fight with us. Daniel Toomey and Chuck work. Thank you very much.

Michael Steele (65:45)

We really appreciate it.

John Heilman (65:46)

It's an honor to have you. It's a privilege. Thank you so much. Thank you. And thank you both for being here. Thank you. When we come back with this extraordinary, really historic pushback against Emil Bobay should tell all of us about whether there are any guardrails left as the pro democracy movement tries to stop Donald Trump's brazen and aggressive assault on the rule of law in America. Also ahead for us, Donald Trump campaigned and won the White House by promising to lower the prices for American, among other things, quote, the grocery for all Americans. Remember that. But his shoot from the hip trade war with virtually every country on the planet is doing the opposite. It's making the prices of just about everything, including groceries, go up. We'll ask if there's a political price to pay for him for promising to do something and then betraying that promise and his own voters. We'll have that conversation with two of the authors of a new book on the 2020, 24th presidential campaign later in the hour. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Nicole Wallace (66:49)

MSNBC Films presents Season 2 of Leguizamo.

Michael Steele (66:53)

Does America, an NBC News Studios production.

Nicole Wallace (66:57)

On the next episode. John Leguizamo travels to Phoenix Sunday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC.

John Heilman (67:04)

Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes.

Nicole Wallace (67:05)

This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening? Bloomberg News reporter Zeke Fox News on.

John Heilman (67:09)

What the heck's happening with crypto?

Chris Hayes (67:11)

What crypto is good for is crazy gambling. And there's a very big group of people around the world who've realized this.

John Heilman (67:19)

Is kind of fun.

Chris Hayes (67:20)

I like gambling on crypto. I know somebody who made a lot.

John Heilman (67:23)

Of money on it.

Chris Hayes (67:24)

Maybe I should try to find the next bitcoin.

Nicole Wallace (67:27)

That's this week on why Is this Happening?

John Heilman (67:28)

Search for why Is this Happening? Wherever you're listening right now and follow.

Nicole Wallace (67:32)

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

John Heilman (67:35)

For early access, ad free listening and.

Nicole Wallace (67:38)

Bonus content to all all of MSNBC's.

Michael Steele (67:40)

Original podcasts, including the chart topping series.

Nicole Wallace (67:43)

The Best People with Nicole Wallace, why Is this Happening?

Michael Steele (67:46)

Main justice and more.

Nicole Wallace (67:48)

Plus new episodes of all your favorite.

Michael Steele (67:50)

MSNBC shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddows original.

Nicole Wallace (67:55)

Series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News.

John Heilman (67:57)

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Nicole Wallace (68:04)

A judge has to uphold core values and principles.

Alex Jones (68:07)

Independence, impartiality, integrity, diligence. A judge must be free from undue influence. A judge must decide cases fairly, without prejudice or favor. A judge must ensure that anyone who appears before them in court will get a fair shake.

Michael Steele (68:25)

Thank you, Mr. President.

Nicole Wallace (68:26)

Everything we're hearing you say makes me.

Alex Jones (68:28)

Believe that you're incapable of that. The pattern didn't just begin when you were nominated by this president.

Nicole Wallace (68:34)

Peers of yours, prosecutors, attorneys who served.

John Heilman (68:38)

With you and judges in your past.

Alex Jones (68:40)

Year have again and again cited you.

Nicole Wallace (68:43)

As someone who is not capable or qualified of doing this job in which you're nominated.

John Heilman (68:49)

For turning our coverage, former U.S. attorney and professor at the University of Michigan Law School, MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuaid is here. Also joining us, Democratic strategist and professor at Columbia University, MSNBC political analyst Basil Smikles here. Barb, it is extraordinary to look at the carnage to quote Donald TRUMP that M.L. bove has left behind among Republicans and inside the Trump Justice Department in five short months.

Basil Smikle (69:24)

Yeah, it really is extraordinary. You know, you look at the letter that you were just discussing earlier, and they document all of the things, things that imabove has done in the past five months, from the firing of prosecutors, the quid pro quo in the Adams case and the urging of department lawyers to ignore court orders. Any one of those, I would think, might be disqualifying, but together, collectively, I think demonstrate somebody who is far more concerned about executing the president's agenda than he is about fidelity to the rule of law. And it's bad enough when they're at the Department of Justice, but when the person is on the bench and is supposed to be deciding cases fairly with regard to arguments and equities on both sides of the equation, it seems like a very dangerous person to put on the bench.

John Heilman (70:13)

You know, Basil, I've stopped, I've tried to stop asking the question about red lines for Republicans. So I won't. But there is something about this appointment and the distaste that the Wall Street Journal editorial board has it, and that folks, the sway, the promise that folks like Danielle Sassoon used to hold and used to have for former Republicans, I don't know what they call themselves now, MAGA hostages, maybe. I wonder how you see this playing out.

Alex Jones (70:44)

Yeah. You know, it's interesting that you use Senator Cory Booker's testimony at the beginning because later in that in the testimony, he asked the question, where is that red line? Where is that red line for you? And it dovetails with David French's column in the New York Times where he says that with respect to Bove, it's fealty above all. And that's really all we need to know about where he would how he would be as a justice, guilty above all, and no respect for the law, for the institutions. And the concern that I have to answer your question more specifically, is that all of this is happening in an environment where so many voters have so much distrust for the institutions, including the judiciary. And in the previous segment, when one of the former prosecutors talked about the collapse of the judiciary, that's really the concern here, that if you feel that the judiciary itself is collapsing and so many voters have distaste or distrust for the institutions that Trump and Bova are operating in an environment where people respect power and fealty over the law and over justice. And so they feel they could kind of get away with this and get away with that kind of attitude and mindset. Ultimately, I my gut feels that perhaps this won't go through, and maybe my fingers are crossed and toes are crossed and maybe I'm saying prayers as I'm saying that. But my feeling is that at some point folks are going to realize that if you don't have respect for the judiciary, given the fact that they don't have as strong an enforcement mechanism as we would like, then what left is there? If someone who sits on an appeals court has felt the over respect for the law, I just feel that that might actually send a chill in a way that perhaps some other things would not.

John Heilman (72:37)

Barb, I wonder what you make of the idea that largely, largely the courts are viewed to have held or to have done their part. It's not their job to fight Trump per se. It's their job to call out that which is illegal and unconstitutional, and they have done that over on a near daily basis. We've come on the air with some ruling somewhere, which I imagine is why they're trying to limit the power of individual federal judges. What do you make of sort of the state of the judiciary today?

Basil Smikle (73:11)

Well, I think the courts have largely held. I think there have been one or two exceptions where it seemed that judges were making decisions that were nakedly political. To me, Judge Eileen Cannon in Florida comes to mind. Judge Kaczmarek in Texas comes to mind as people who made decisions that were perhaps not based on the law, in my opinion, but largely I agree with you that they've held. But I think this is one of Donald Trump's complaints in his second term. He has said he's very angry at Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, even calling him a sleazebag for giving him bad advice. He has privately indicated that he is very disappointed in Amy Coney Barrett and some other judges that he has appointed. You know, he has this very transactional view of the world and seems to believe that if I appoint you to the bench, you owe me and that you should be deciding cases the way I do. And it seems that Emil Beauvais is very part of that transactional view of the world that is the antithesis of how the law is supposed to work. Most judges accept the nomination from a president and then decide cases objectively, sometimes in the favor of the administration and sometimes against. That's how it's supposed to work.

John Heilman (74:20)

I mean, what's amazing to me, listening to both of you and to Chuck and Daniel, is that the Overton Window has been bombed, and they've moved it to a place that we couldn't even have seen nine years ago. Right. So we're now talking about whether or not any of us has any hope that Donald Trump's criminal defense attorney might be blocked by a couple of Republicans in the Senate because he has been so political and extrajudicial that Federalist Society prosecutors left the U.S. attorney's office in New York. This is all bat bleep crazy. It is batshit crazy that this is, like, on the bubble will probably get through because Republicans never stand up to Trump. Republicans used to care about the rule of law. Mitch McConnell carried around a crumpled up piece of paper in 2016 in defending and justifying his endorsement of Trump as president. And you know what was on it? A list of lawyers or judicial nominees that he was promised, I think from Leonard Leo or somebody in exchange for his support for Donald Trump. Republicans used to say they care about the character and the quality of the men and women who were on the bench. And now we're having basically what amounts to a stupid conversation about whether this guy belongs on the bench. Nobody thinks he belongs on the bench. And the conversation is really about whether they're all hostages of the MAGA movement and have the courage to do the right thing. I mean, the Wall Street Journal editorial board lays it out there. This is not the right thing, according to the Wall Street Journal editorial board, to put Bove on the court. But, you know, I think, Basil, you nailed it. We've got our fingers crossed that maybe someone will do the right thing. That's where we are.

Alex Jones (76:02)

Yeah, that, sadly, is where we are. I mean, we've seen it time and time again. Dan and Chuck talked about their conversations with folks inside, and the word they used was fear. Everybody's afraid. If you go back to Lisa Murkowski statement that was, I guess, not supposed to be recorded and published, but it was that she said, we're all afraid. You know, fear is the currency of the Trump administration. It's not the rule of law. It's not voters expectations, it's just raw fear and the hope that there is capitulation to that. And so when you have a person, when you have a person who's on the bench and that's all that he cares about, then we should all be afraid, quite frankly.

John Heilman (76:48)

I mean, the thought experiment I think has to be done. If everyone's afraid, then no one should be afraid. Right? I mean, and the thing with Trump is he smells your fear. He's like those you're on safari and you're, or you see a bear in your yard, you're supposed to act big because they smell your fear. That's, that's Trump's, that's the radar, that's the detector. It's just, it's a tragedy that all these institutions are being destroyed because people are afraid to defend them. Barbara McQuaid and Basil Smichel, thank you for having this conversation with us. When we come back, it was Donald Trump's biggest, most effective campaign promise, pledge, commitment. He swore up and down from battleground state to battleground state to battleground county to battleground county to swing voter to swing voter, that he was the guy to lower the cost of everything for American families. But between his manufactured trade war and his big, not so beautiful budget bill, costs are actually going up. It is the greatest political betrayal in modern times. We'll have the conversation about how we got here next. From today and from the day I.

Michael Steele (78:08)

Take the oath of office, we will rapidly drive prices down and make America affordable again. We will end inflation, slash your prices, raise your wages, and bring thousands of factories back to America. With your vote in this election, we will end inflation. We, all of us together, we are going to save America. We're going to save America.

John Heilman (78:38)

We're guessing he just might have a different definition of what it means to save America than the rest of us. Donald Trump, up and down the campaign trail from coast to coast, promised that he, and only he, was the candidate who would lower prices for Americans. It's a promise he quickly abandoned in the transition, actually before his inauguration, in favor of leveraging tariffs on some of our closest trading allies and trading partners and actually raising prices on all Americans, including millions who voted for him. And despite the overwhelming evidence that Americans are paying more for everything from new homes to the clothes they buy to toys for their kids, Trump is still driving America to toward the cliff. Today he floated a potential 200% tariff on all pharmaceuticals that come into our country. On top of his threats yesterday to impose tariffs between 25% and 40% on 14 countries, including some of our most vital trading partners like Japan and South Korea. Not surprisingly, new polling shows that Americans are alarmed. 81% of all Americans say they're concerned about the impact of Trump's tariffs on their personal finances. Joining US now, the two co authors of the brand new book, 2024 How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America, Wall Street Journal reporter Josh Dossey and New York Times White House correspondent Tyler Pager. Congrats, you guys, on the book. Tyler, I'll start with you, since we've had this conversation in sort of an ongoing manner about doubling back. I mean, the power of Trump's message on the economy is something that has attached to him since 2015 and stayed through the 2024 election. And he seems to have reversed on that commitment by announcing in the transition that things might actually go up. It seems that no one around him is concerned, but the poll numbers tell a different story. How do you see this moment and how we got here?

Tyler Pager (80:37)

Yeah, I mean, tariffs are something that this president in particular has long been in favor and supportive of and something he's long wanted to do. And we're seeing him try to play out that now. The successes will be determined. Nicole, as you said, there's a lot of moving parts here. And I think one of the biggest things is the uncertainty about how he's doing this. But I think in order to understand sort of the economic framework here, it's important to look back to the campaign and how he talked about those, these issues. Then in the teaser to the second, Nicole, you showed that picture of Trump standing in front of those household goods. We write extensively about that moment in the book that just came out today in which there's flies sort of going around the meat out there in one of Trump's clubs in New Jersey. And he had to be pushed by his aides at that time to go out there and talk about the economy. He wanted to talk about immigration. He wanted to talk about other things. And if you read the book, you see him sort of making fun of his aides for asking him to talk about the economy. But they did feel that the economy was the issue. That was really strong for him. He could lean into his background as a businessman and really resonate with voters who were frustrated about the Biden economy. Now, the big difference is he's governing and not campaigning and how he's able to execute on those promises. I think these uncertainty that we're seeing is a challenge for consumers for countries, industries, for the global trading market. And so we'll see how successful he is moving forward on that front.

John Heilman (82:09)

Tyler, tell me more about. I remember being on the air that day, and it was really hot. I think he was at Bedminster, as you say. But you, you write about the scene. Tell me about what you guys report out from that day.

Tyler Pager (82:22)

Yeah, our colleague and our co author, Isaac Arnsdorf, was at Bedminster that day watching that press conference. But before Trump goes out to give those remarks, his aides ask him, you know, it's really important that you talk about the economy. It's an issue that we feel like we're winning. The polling showed that. And he then gets out there and says to the media assembled, my advisors want me to read this? I don't know that I should read this. This is boring. Basically criticizing his and sort of jabbing at his aides that want him to do so, and he does so sort of reluctantly and then moves on to other topics. But it was sort of this thing that we write about. And the book that's a larger point is that Trump ran a much more strategic campaign this time, really leaning into the issues that they felt they had a better chance of winning on, and even cutting, some might say, cynical decisions in order to talk about issues that were not super popular for them. Abortion being one of them, early voting being one of them. We have a series of memos that the campaign wrote tailored to Trump's interests and the way that he wanted to talk about issues, but getting him to move the goalposts a little bit on hot button issues that they felt would be more successful for them in the election.

John Heilman (83:40)

Josh, what do you sort of take away from the body of reporting in terms of explaining how we got here, where he's in the middle of this very messy trade war. By his own measure, there have been no 90 deals in 90 days. He said that this calamitous breakup with Elon Musk that resulted in Musk accusing him of being in the Epstein files. And he's got Alex Jones and some of the Fringier figures who played pretty prominently in his presidency with Laura Loomer coming in and picking winners and losers in the national security spots. What do you make of where we are now and how we got here?

Alex Jones (84:19)

Yeah, I mean, a lot of these figures were also around on the campaign. I mean, we read a lot about Laura Loomer and sort of her flying with him, giving him advice on how he should debate what he should say. She was the person, according to our book who's telling him, you know, he should go out and say that they're, you know, eating the dogs and the cats or they don't have evidence for. But she's pushing him to do that. Right. One of these figures were circling around all the time. I mean, I've covered Trump for a long time, and he's always sort of had a capacity for chaos and having it around him and all of these things happening as you sort of delineate, you know, figures that other politicians might not touch. He's happy to have on the campaign plane, on the Oval Office, you know, policies other people might be too scared to implement. Trump sometimes will do that. He just, you know, some politicians have more of fear of sort of touching the proverbial stove. And that's what we showed on the campaign trail. Trump actually wanted to do things sometimes that his team reined him in from doing and made him sort of win there. But when he came back in, it was clear from the beginning, you know, what he was saying in the transition. He was going to do things his way. He was fully back. And in the first term, Nicole, you were broadcasting a lot. We were talking about this at the time. There were lots of advisors who tried to rein him in in the White House. You had Reince Priebus, you had Rex Tillerson. What we saw here was you have Susie Wiles, who's probably the key figure in his orbit, as our book shows and has played out since, who doesn't always try to rein him in. She views her job as managing the staff. You have Stephen Miller, who's putting together a lot of the framework for President Trump's impulses, putting together the orders, doing exactly what he wants, you don't have that code of advisors this time who are trying to pull him back. So whether or not you like it, if you're one of his supporters or you really dislike it and you're one of his critics, it's just a different dynamic.

John Heilman (86:20)

I have to sneak in a break, but I want to ask you how that shapes the landscape ahead of the midterms, where he's just rammed through over the objection of Republicans, probably one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in modern history. Ask you guys about that on the other side of a short break. We'll be right back. We're back with Josh and Tyler, authors of 2024, brand new book out today. I want to read from the book, you guys. You write this quote, trump's new coalition, on its face, relies on his personal appeal to less frequent Voters. As much as many opponents have tried and failed to take the shine off Trump, many followers have tried and failed to reproduce his unique, unique place in American cultural and political life. The flip side of Trump's MAGA GOP is that he has driven away many more reliable voters who used to tilt Republican. That offers Democrats a potential advantage in the 2026 midterms, which are likely to see lower turnout than in 2024. On top of the usual historical pattern of a two year backlash to a sitting president and the risk that Republicans will use their unified control in Washington to overreach, I think it's fair to say that is overreach is their brand in a very Trumpian manner. And the big beautiful bill has its most vocal critics, frankly, on the right. In Elon Musk's scorched earth campaign against Trump and against the bill, how do you see his power dynamic, which, as you said, there's no one reining him in. There's no, no one trying to make things easier or better for any of the Republicans on the Hill. So you end up with a bill where the, by the day it becomes more and more politically toxic. Whichever one of you wants to take that.

Alex Jones (88:09)

I think this, the coalition you just mentioned, Nicole, was really interesting to us in the book. One of the things we found was that Trump's team, instead of trying to find centrist Republican voters, moderate voters, voters and others to vote for him in 2024, they believed a lot of his people were gone and were not coming back. And we obtained these memos where they say our theory is to run up the score with men and run up the score, you know, with the voters who are not there regularly at the polls. And frankly, they were able to do that. And that's one of the main reasons why they won. But a lot of those people don't vote in every election. They don't vote in midterms. They don't vote in places when Trump is not on the ballot. And as you said, you know, he muscled through this bill through sheer will. A lot of Republicans did not want to vote for this bill. A lot of them were critical of the bill behind the scenes. They were afraid. As we reported in the Journal recently, Thom Tillis is warning folks about Medicaid, warning folks about sort of the deleterious provisions here in this bill. And he just sort of forced them to do it. Right? And so he's totally remade the party in his image. That's one of the things that, that we sort of wrote a lot about in the book is that the folks who were dissenters, he squashed them sort of one by one by one by one to make this in his party. So everyone who's with him now either, you know, you sort of live or die by the proverbial sword. And as you said, this bill is not particularly popular. So they're going to have to make it more popular if they want to have a good chance in the midterm elections.

John Heilman (89:38)

It's going to age about as well as those groceries with the flies that you write about aged in front of him at Bedminster. Josh Dossey, Tyler Pager, Two phenomenal journalists, thank you for joining us. Congrats on the book. It's called 2024 How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America. It's out today. When we come back, I'll show you a little bit more this week's episode of the Best People podcast with the one and only Sarah Jessica Parker. We'll have that after a quick Many of us got to know her as Carrie Bradshaw from Sex and the City. But Sarah Jessica Parker, the human is a tireless advocate for issues close to her heart, from libraries, public libraries, to the kind of government programs that she openly talks about benefiting her when she grew up. Here she is on this week's episode of the Best People. The things that I care about have nothing to do with me in a lot of ways. I will always be able to buy a book. I will always be able to find a school to educate my children. So the things that I'm worried about.

I (90:43)

Are not about me.

John Heilman (90:45)

They're about what I grew up my free lunch, all my free access to arts and education, all my free access to information in libraries, a cool place in the summer we didn't have air conditioning and a warm place in the winter. All the great programs that used to exist that were federally and state funded.

Basil Smikle (91:08)

That we my mom grabbed all of it.

John Heilman (91:14)

The entire conversation with the one and only Sarah Jessica Parker is available now on YouTube. Just scan the QR code on your screen. Quick break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes. We are grateful.