Tim Miller (2:21)

Watch. The threats and bullying of an ally are wrong. And just on the weird chance he's serious about invading Greenland, and I want to let him know that would probably be the end of his presidency. Most Republicans know this is immoral and wrong and we're going to stand up.

Claire McCaskill (2:37)

Against it, the signals are clear. And I think you, you will find that support in Congress to acquire Greenland in any way is not there.

Tim Miller (2:50)

There is not support for this in Congress, regardless of what they may say in the White House, I think that an illegal taking of another territory and from a sovereign nation and a NATO, it's just not good advice. And I'm going there to tell them there's at least one branch of government that stands with the NATO alliance.

Alicia Menendez (3:09)

Two of those voices, Senator Murkowski and Tillis, were the only two Republicans to participate in a congressional delegation to Copenhagen this weekend. And they're in line with a huge majority of the American public. New CBS polling shows 70% of adults oppose using federal funds to acquire Greenland, While a colossal 86% oppose using military force to do so. Perhaps that is why others in the GOP have started to come around.

Tim Miller (3:37)

Watch. I think the President rightly understands that this is a strategically important piece of real estate.

Nicole Wallace (3:44)

But Greenland and the Danes have been.

Tim Miller (3:47)

Our allies for a long time now. So if he wants to purchase Greenland, that's one thing, but for him to militarily invade would turn Article 5 of NATO on, on its very head, in essence, put us at war with NATO itself. It would end up abolishing NATO as we know it, an organization that has lasted for over four to five decades and protected us from world wars. And my father was a bombardier in World War II and it's worked to prevent world wars. There certainly is no authority that, you know that the President has to use military force to seize territory from a NATO country. America still is for democracy. America still is for self determination of people, for sovereignty of other nations.

Alicia Menendez (4:38)

Such repudiation, full throated or otherwise, is a rare thing these days from what is allegedly a co equal branch of government. And yet it is still very much an open question as to what that legislative body is willing to do to rein in the excesses of a President who regularly flexes his grip around elected representatives. Just last week, Senate Republicans backed down on a war powers resolution having to do with Venezuela because the Trump administration told them to. That's because, at least in part, the Republican Party is now effectively operated by Donald Trump. A point illustrated by the man who helped us start this hour, Senator Ted Cruz. From fears of nuking Denmark 10 years ago to whatever this is when it.

Tim Miller (5:20)

Comes to Greenland, I want to commend President Trump for being single mindedly focused on America, first on U.S. economic interest and U.S. national security interest. I believe it is overwhelmingly in America's national interest to acquire Greenland.

Alicia Menendez (5:38)

And that is where we start this hour with political analysts and host of the Bulwark podcast, former RNC spokesman Tim Miller, plus political analyst former senator Claire McCaskill is here. And Kimberly Atkins Storr is still with me at the table. All right, Claire McCaskill, you had Senator Murkowski saying this about her Republican colleagues this weekend. Take a listen.

Claire McCaskill (6:00)

So you're not seeing a lot of Republicans here today and I'm not going to give you the details of other members schedules, but Senator Coons, quite honestly, you put this trip together pretty quickly. And I don't think that the absence of Republicans is because they don't care about this issue or they have already decided what side of the fence that they may be. So I would not, I would not take, take that as an indicator of support or lack of support.

Alicia Menendez (6:35)

Claire, do you buy it?

Claire McCaskill (6:37)

Well, we'll see. You know, Your poll said 86% opposed. A lot of the polls I've seen, it's been upwards of 90, as high as 96% of Americans say, no, we aren't going to go to war against ourselves, which is what this is. Let's be very clear here. We gave our word in a treaty many years ago that we would lay off Greenland in return for the Virgin Islands. And since then, Denmark's been one of our greatest allies. And we're part of an alliance that says we're all going to protect each other if anybody attacks us. Well, if the United States attacks Greenland, then the countries of NATO will try to defend Greenland. Greenland against a member of NATO. It's nuts. And the Republicans in the Senate know this, the Republicans in the House know this. The question is, does he have such a communication grip on the base of the Republican Party, which are the ones who decide primaries, that they are too cowardly and won't say anything until American lives are lost? So gin up that war resolution vote quickly, make them go on record, because they are playing with political dynamite and frankly, they're playing with American lives.

Alicia Menendez (7:55)

Tim, if you put the release of the Epstein files aside, Republicans haven't shown much willingness to fight Trump in a while. Ann Applebaum writes this in the Atlantic. The people around Trump could find ways to stop him, as some did in his first term, but they seem too corrupt or too power hungry to try. That leaves Republicans in Congress as the last barrier. They owe it to the American people and to the world to stop from acting out his fantasy in Greenland and doing permanent damage to American interests. He is at risk of alienating friends in not only Europe, but also India, whose leader he also snubbed for failing to nominate him for a Nobel Prize, as well as South Korea, Japan, Australia. Years of careful diplomacy, billions of dollars in Trade are now at risk because senators and representatives who know better have refused to use the powers they have to block him. Now is the time. I get Tim Miller, the number of conversations that all of us surround the table had that come back to this fundamental question of what Republicans on Capitol Hill are or aren't going to do. But the amount of sound that I was able to play for you at the top of this hour of congressional Republicans actually either mocking him, saying legitimately he has a political problem, legitimately he's not understanding the law. I have to. That is closer to critical mass than I have heard on anything other than Epstein. Do you think I'm wrong?

Tim Miller (9:17)

Kind of. I love you, Alicia, but I wasn't really impressed with that list of people at the beginning. It's like you got Don Bacon, who's retiring and quit Congress because he realizes he's still out of step with his party, of Thom Tillis, who's retiring and quit Congress because he realized he's out of stuff with his party. You have Lisa Murkowski, who had to get elected as an independent, and they tried to beat her with a kook from the right, but she was one of the rare ones that was able to, to defeat that attempt to beat her from the right. But she's not really in the mainstream of MAGA or the Republican Party. And I just, I don't, I don't understand why I, and the people watching the show understand Lisa Murkowski's colleagues better than she does. Just going back to that video, you played this idea that other Republicans didn't go because Chris Coons scheduled the trip too recently. Like, what are they, what else are they doing? Like, Josh Hawley had to wash his hair. Like, that's why he wasn't there. Do you think, like, John Corbin had a barbecue he had to go to. What else are they doing? We're threatening our biggest allies. They could do something right now, this whole thing. Oh, well, if he ever invaded Greenland, they'd step up. So she's saying, I don't know, maybe. Maybe they didn't really step up on January 6th when people attacked our Capitol. Maybe they would. But right now, Donald Trump is starting a tariff, a 10% tariff on our allies in what, 13 days? In two weeks. The Senate, John Thune is allegedly against trade wars. So he's been his whole career. He's the Senate leader. They could bring something up right now that says, no, we're not going to.

Alicia Menendez (10:57)

We can't.

Tim Miller (10:57)

You know, you don't have emergency powers to tariff NATO allies or, you know, you don't have emergency powers to tariff Europe, make him veto you. You know, they could take back the power of the purse from the President right now. It should be in Congress's hands anyway. Senator McCaskill knows he shouldn't be able to unilaterally make up a fake emergency and tariff the Netherlands. And so if they're opposed to what he's doing in Greenland, in addition to the war Powers resolution that Senator McCaskill brought up, they could also do this and block him from doing that. But they're not going to do that, cuz they don't actually care. Maybe they say to Lisa Murkowski in private, they're like, hey, Lisa, this is crazy. But I don't care what they're saying in private. What matters is what they're doing in public. And they have an obligation or responsibility to the country. So sure, it's better than nothing that there are six of them or whatever, but to me, I think Ted Cruz is much more representative of where the party is right now, which is they'll go along with whatever Trump wants.

Alicia Menendez (11:56)

I love you too, Tim Miller. And I'm grateful for any opportunity you give me to be the resident optimist because I do not get a lot of those opportunities a day. And I think that Tim puts his finger, Kim, on something else that is important here, which, which is when Don Bacon frames that, he says like, well, I mean, really serious about this. There's almost a sense of we don't know how seriously to take him on this and we don't know if strategically the best way of going about this is treating him like he is dead serious and this is a threat that we need to understand. Or if this is gonna be like his tariffs, where he puts them in place, rolls them back, changes his mind from day to day.

Kimberly Atkins Storr (12:30)

Well, there is a way around this. And I'm gonna go back to Schoolhouse Rock for a minute and talk about Article 1. The war power rests. That means that the war power rests with the American people. Because Article 1, it's the first one that's representative government. We elect people, we lend them our power in order to do the job. Now, there are some things that they lend some power to the executive to. That's Article two, that's secondary. So we shouldn't be guessing about where the President's head is on this. Members of Congress should be listening to those polls, listening to people. And I say to listeners, they also have phone lines, emails, everything else that you let them know what you want them to do that is what they should be basing their actions on. Not trying to test the temperament of a, you know, president that you don't know what he's thinking from one minute to another, but asserting where this true power constitutionally lies with the American people. That's why we elect people in the House every two years. They should be listening to them. And that solves this whole problem.

Alicia Menendez (13:31)

Claire, this has all been moving so quickly that it was easy to forget that when they were staging this vote on the war powers, what we'll call the first time Venezuela was what was in focus. And I think secondarily there was concern about Greenland. I wonder if we were having last week's conversation today if it would be any different.

Claire McCaskill (13:50)

I don't know. I do think that our allies have a really important decision to make. If the members of Congress are too afraid to follow the Constitution, if they're too cowardly, if they're such lily livered cowards they cannot follow the power given to them in the Constitution as it relates to war, then he's going to probably use military action. And when he does, Americans are going to die in battle and then what happens, really? A guy who said he wanted to get out of foreign entanglements is going to take American lives and lose them because he supposedly cares about rare earth minerals? You know, it is just this guy is out of control with his narcissism and the fact that he's got this military that is so damn good, but he's treating them like a toy instead of human beings. And he is blemishing our country on a world stage in a way that it will take decades to overcome.

Alicia Menendez (14:57)

Tim, tomorrow you have Speaker Johnson delivering an address to UK's parliament in honor of the United States 250th anniversary, all while Trump is trying to wrest control of Greenland. Here's what Speaker Johnson had to say earlier.

Tim Miller (15:14)

In terms of nerves, European nerves. Can you understand when we look at Greenland, why various European nations are concerned by some of President Trump's rhetoric? Sure, but I think you should look at the results and emphasize that more than the rhetoric.

Nicole Wallace (15:32)

I mean, President Trump is trying to.

Tim Miller (15:34)

Return us to peace through strength, which is an important principle in the US Ronald Reagan used to talk a lot about that. And at times when America is strongest, it is good for freedom loving people around the world.

Alicia Menendez (15:46)

Tim's like a mixed message salad. I'm not sure what there is supposed to make our allies feel better.

Andrea Flores (15:51)

Do you?

Tim Miller (15:52)

Yeah, well, one of the results, not rhetoric to go back to it. Is the tariff that we're putting 10% on the United Kingdom for no reason unclear because Donald Trump said he didn't get a peace prize, we're going to do a 10% sales tax on Americans and screw with the British export economy. People take this seriously. You know, people do get upset when you play games with their economy and you engage in trade wars that hurts their way of life over nothing. People get rightly upset. And you saw, I think Nicole played this last week was the booing at the basketball game of America that happened in London. And I think that Speaker Johnson should expect to get the same treatment this week and I don't know, maybe wear an apron to that speech.

Alicia Menendez (16:42)

Claire, real quick, before we let you go, there was something that Scott Bessen said that I want to come back to, and that is that the national emergency is preventing a national emergency. I'm not an attorney, but that strikes me as a very dangerous precedent to try to begin to set as a legal predicate for just about any foreign intervention.

Claire McCaskill (17:05)

Well, it's gibberish. It's not a legal predicament concept. You cannot use a future emergency to justify declaring an emergency. Either there's an emergency or there isn't. And no one believes this is an emergency. I don't know. Donald Trump's just making it up, but he's more comfortable lying than he is telling the truth. Scott Bessant knows better. As Madeleine Dean said earlier in the show and as Kimberly is has emphasized, this is not a legal basis to declare an emergency. But neither are all the tariffs, as Tim has said. I mean, the idea that he's declaring tariffs because there's emergencies all over the world. No, there's not. No, there's not. The only emergency we have is right there in the Oval Office. And that's one that I hope the American people will begin taking steps towards solving in November.

Alicia Menendez (17:57)

Claire McCaskill, as always, thank you so much for starting us off today. Tim and Kim, they are sticking with me. When we return, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz pushes back against news the Justice Department is investigating both him Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Fry chalking it up as the latest example of lawfare by Donald Trump against his political opponents. We're going to get to that story next. Also ahead for us, brand new reporting on how the FBI under Cash Patel has made payback a top priority, is essentially using its vast powers to conduct opposition research on critics of the Trump administration. One of the reporters behind that new reporting is going to join us later in the hour. Deadline. White House continues after a quick break. Stay with us.

Tim Miller (18:37)

The new year brings new health goals and wealth goals. Protecting your identity is an important step. Your info is in endless places that could expose you to identity theft leading to lost funds. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your New year's goals. With LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com SpecialOffer terms apply. The US military deployed on the streets of America.

Nicole Wallace (19:10)

Whole communities targeted for removal. And when accountability finally came knocking, the.

Tim Miller (19:16)

Burn order to cover it all up.

Nicole Wallace (19:18)

Rachel Maddow presents Burn Order all episodes available now.

Alicia Menendez (19:27)

Donald Trump has once against weaponized the Justice Department on the DOJ announced a probe into local and state leaders in Minnesota. It is a major escalation in the fight between the Trump administration and state leaders since an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Goode. According to the New York Times, the investigation would focus on allegations that Governor Tim Walls and Mayor Jacob Fry of Minneapolis had conspired to impede thousands of federal agents who have been sent to the city since last month. It remains unclear what investigative steps have been taken in response to the investigation. Governor Walz issued a statement saying, quote, two days ago it was Alyssa Slotkin. Last week it was Jerome Powell. Before that, Mark Kelly. Weaponizing the justice system and threatening political opponents is a dangerous authoritarian tactic. The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Goode is the federal agent who shot her. I want to bring in former DHS official and White House advisor, founder of America's Promise and senior fellow at Forward us, Andrea Flores. Tim and Kimberly are still with me. Andrea, you had Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Fry. He was asked about the probe yesterday. I want you to take a listen to what he said and we'll talk about it on the other side. Have you received any subpoena or any official notice that you are under investigation, and if so, for what?

Tim Miller (20:44)

We have not received any official anything at this point and so I can't comment on what I know about. That being said, this whole dynamic is deeply concerning because supposedly they would be coming for me and targeting me for something that is core and critical to my job as mayor and that is speaking for my residents and my constituents that we are at a place right now where the Department of Justice or the federal government could be coming after senators and governors and mayors simply for speaking for their respective constituencies and disagreeing with this federal administration. I Mean, this kind of thing happens in other countries.

Nicole Wallace (21:29)

This cannot happen in America.

Alicia Menendez (21:31)

Andre, I want to give credit where credit is due because you were among the first to say to me that none of this was ever about immigration, that this actually isn't immigration enforcement. And I don't think there is any clearer example of what may or may not be an investigation into the mayor and the governor.

Andrea Flores (21:46)

I mean, that's right. We're seeing exactly as the mayor said. This is a tactic that we've seen in maybe countries like Hungary where anyone affiliated with or seen to be defending migrants in Hungary were criminalized for doing so. And so there's really a staircase of steps that are taken when you first start trying to tell the public this is all about immigration enforcement and safety. And very quickly, those operations, as we've seen, are now extending to local elected officials for doing nothing. There is no evidence that either the mayor or the governor have done anything to impede any legitimate enforcement action. And they are repeatedly trying to make the public believe that they cannot go into Minneapolis and actually do their jobs. There's no evidence of that. There's never been a national problem across multiple administrations of doing enforcement in Minneapolis. And so. Right. This exceeds any immigration enforcement I've seen in my entire career. This is so extreme and unprecedented.

Alicia Menendez (22:46)

I want you, Kim, I want to read to you something that Todd Blanche said over the weekend. He said, walls and fry. I'm focused on stopping you from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat, it's a promise. It strikes me the way in which terrorism is this administration's go to rationale for any variety of things, whether it be bombing ships off the of Venezuela, whether it is marching into American cities, or whether it is targeting elected officials.

Kimberly Atkins Storr (23:17)

Or whether it is a mom sitting inside her van who is shot and killed by a federal agent. Right off the bat, she was called a domestic terrorist too. It's really remarkable what should happen in a normal world. Anytime a federal official fires a gun that hits someone, let alone kills them immediately, there should be an investigation that takes place on the federal level. It can also be taking place on the local level because there are state and local laws that are involved here too. Usually they cooperate. We saw that after the George Floyd killing that the Fed sort of stepped back and allowed this local investigation to take place because it was a local police officer. In this case, it's federal. It wouldn't make sense. The federal government would lead it. And that's where you begin to find out. It may. It may find out that no protocols were violated, but we have constitutional rights in this country. Part of the investigation will be if Renee Goode's constitutional rights were violated and what to do about it by officials, including Stephen Miller, saying total immunity for all ICE agents on whatever you do. What he's actually saying to the American people is you no longer have rights. The Bill of Rights and all your rights, your rights to free speech, your rights to protest, your rights not to have your life taken by someone under color of law when it's not necessary. Those don't matter. These agents can do whatever they want. That is extraordinarily dangerous. And that is something that I, as a lawyer, as a citizen, never thought I would see in the United States in my lifetime.

Alicia Menendez (24:46)

It's also a brilliant way of looking at it, which is one thing to talk about the extension of rights to these officers. It's another thing to talk about the rights that are being extracted and withheld from everyday Americans. Tim, you spoke with someone who gained a lot of attention for his comments regarding ISIS behavior. Let's watch and then talk about it.

Tim Miller (25:03)

I just kept observing what was going on. And I saw, as I was down there, I saw American citizens coming out, you know, one every hour or so. And for most people that haven't seen the Whipple Building, the drive is very long. People are usually walking out without jackets because their jackets have been destroyed or taken. And it's very cold in Minnesota right now. And they don't. They're not allowed phone calls. So they walk out to the crowd and ask for a cell phone or something to use to call somebody to pick them up. And I was trying to get their stories about what was going on inside the building, why they were taken, if they're charged with anything. And most people were charged with absolutely nothing.

Alicia Menendez (25:44)

Tim, I wonder why you think Chris's comments hit such a nerve and just what sort of your takeaway from your time with him.

Tim Miller (25:51)

Yeah, people don't recognize him without the cussing. I was Minnesota as the guy who was interviewed on the street a couple nights ago and bas he said that he's not a protester. He's not someone who's been to these things before. But. But this is freaking nuts to do it in a PG version. What. What is happening in Minnesota. And his comments really resonated with me as I've got a chance to talk to him. And look, I basically what he is, what he was representing for me is somebody that a just was looking around what was happening as community and saying, this is Just not normal. This isn't acceptable. We need to speak out. And B wanted to get other people to do so as well. And so I was impressed by him. He said he was seeing more and more people who, like him, hadn't been coming to protest and were coming out in the days after, like, his video went viral. And I think that the thing that he's really focusing on, not that we don't care, you know, it's wrong to menace or treat immigrants wrong. It's wrong to. And wrong to treat people who are illegally wrong. Like, we have a process here. We have the nation. We should treat people, you know, with dignity and within the rule of law. But I think his point that is important for folks to know who might not be as engaged in this as everybody who's watching the news day today is that in Minnesota, these ICE agents, CBP agents, are going after US Citizens and they are roughing them up and they're detaining them and they're not charging them, and they're bringing them to that Whipple Building and harassing them and then letting them go. We should not allow that in a free country. And I'm happy that somebody, Chris, is out there kind of speaking up for people who may have not, you know, been engaged in activism before, but are just outraged by what's happening.

Marion McCourt (27:30)

Right.

Alicia Menendez (27:30)

Andre? It also, to me, sort of gives a face and a name to some of the polling that we've been seeing. We have this new Quinnipiac poll out reporting 57% of Americans disapprove of the way ICE enforces immigration laws. Given that sort of the political wind is moving here in the directions of. Of Democrats, how do you think Democrats should take this moment and message in this moment?

Andrea Flores (27:57)

It's a great question because you have this poll that shows, and multiple polls that show that the public are now overwhelmingly opposed to Trump's ICE and immigration enforcement actions. But at the same time, you have simultaneous polls that say that voters still trust Republicans more on the issues of border security and immigration. And so what you're seeing is, is actually, I think, the result of Democrats not being particularly clear on what their vision is going forward. So they can be against ICE officers wearing masks, and they should, and it's important there against what's happening in Minneapolis. But what should immigration enforcement be? Is something that any political party should be able to answer. And until they offer an alternative that reassures people who have been fed lies by this administration for at least over a year now that what they're doing is somehow necessary. Right. If you're just tuning in, you may think some element of this is necessary to enforce immigration law. And if you don't have another side explaining why none of this is necessary and why every single day Trump could choose to de escalate and go back to the fact that every president I've worked for, Obama and Biden, we didn't have an issue of removing people with criminal convictions. We didn't have an issue of finding people with terrorism charges. That is not a problem that needed to be fixed. Right. And so until Democrats give more than what they're against, I don't know how we build the political will to do better than we did in 2020 when we promised reforms of these agencies and then we didn't deliver them when we got back into power. So I'm very focused on lawmakers who are providing solutions. And because the public deserves an answer on how immigration enforcement should be carried.

Alicia Menendez (29:35)

Out, there's an opportunity here to have actual vision. Let's hope they take it. Tim Miller Kimberly Atkins Store Andrea Flores, thank you all so much for joining me today. When we return, the investigations in Minnesota, just the latest example, how Donald Trump is corrupting the Justice Department to go after his political opponents. Up next, how the FBI under Cash Patel has made payback part of its portfolio. We got new reporting on that after a quick break.

Tim Miller (30:03)

The new year brings new health goals and wealth goals. Protecting your identity is not important step. Your info is in endless places that could expose you to identity theft leading to lost funds. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your new year's goals. With LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com SpecialOffer terms apply.

Nicole Wallace (30:33)

Start your day with the MSNow Daily Newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust, standout moments from your favorite shows, and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up at Ms. Now.

Alicia Menendez (30:50)

Under Kash Patel's leadership, the FBI, the nation's top law enforcement agency, has reshaped itself into a weapon for Donald Trump's revenge. Brand new reporting in the New York Times reveals just how much the agency has shifted priorities in the last year. From that reporting quote, the FBI has had many missions in the more than half century since its founding director, J. Edgar Hoover, died. It has chased spies, foiled terrorist attacks, ushered in a modern era of innovation and decreased crime rates. But under its current chief, the bureau has added payback to its Portfolio agents Now scour the FBI's vast holdings to root out negative information about those who once investigated President Trump, according to current and former officials, lawmakers and lawyers representing some of those targeted. The top target of Cash Patel's payback agenda has been former special counsel Jack Smith. FBI personnel have reportedly been poring over case files and other sensitive materials to try to discredit his work. That material is then typically shared with Trump allies in the media and on Capitol Hill. As the Times points out, though, quote, smith and his deputies have repeatedly claimed that they acted lawfully and apolitically and that they buttress their cases with overwhelming evidence of Mr. Trump's guilt. Let's bring in New York Times Justice Department reporter Glenn Thrush was bylined on that Times reporting. And former acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Justice Department, Marion McCourt. All right, Glenn, talk us through your reporting.

Nicole Wallace (32:18)

Well, as we know, Cash Patel came into this job as FBI director with less experience and more animosity than any of his predecessors. He wrote a couple of books. One was a series of books portraying Donald Trump, Trump as a king. But the other one was a memoir in which he had what has been described by some as an enemy's list, people he believed who wronged President Trump and wronged other allies in the MAGA movement and what he has done. And this was done in concert, I should say, as our reporting revealed, with his former deputy, a guy who just left about a couple of weeks ago named Dan Bongino, who's a potential, but like Patel, is a podcaster. What they did essentially was use the access that they had to the files they'd been on the outside for four years, to go in and examine the investigative files, particularly for Arctic Frost, which is what the code name for the FBI's investigation into Donald Trump's activities were to find material that was deleterious or made the individuals who did the investigations look bad? It's essentially a cherry picking operation.

Alicia Menendez (33:38)

Okay, Mary, what are the consequences of a cherry picking operation where the skills of FBI employees are being used to root out negative information about people who investigated Donald Trump and not doing, you know, their real jobs?

Marion McCourt (33:52)

Well, I haven't really heard any legitimate purpose for this. Right. I mean, I haven't heard that there's sort of some sort of criminal investigation into these people, nor any indication that any of these people committed any type of crime, including leaking, leaking of any type of classified information or even particularly sensitive information. And you should, you know, there is a enormous amount of prosecutorial discretion and investigatory discretion that is afforded to the Department of Justice. We know that the Supreme Court has told us that when it talks about what a core executive function this is. And, you know, we certainly have recently criticized the uses of prosecutorial discretion and resources in. In some of the political prosecutions brought by this administration. But what they seem to be doing here is looking for anything they can find that would suggest that the previous administration under the Justice Department, also misused its resources. And. But, you know, these are really apples and oranges, in my opinion, because there are things that were warranted by the facts and the evidence, much of which we all know. If we're talking about Arctic Frost, we all can see the video of the attack on the Capitol on January 6th. We've been able to read much of the evidence that Jack Smith's investigation revealed in his lengthy report, as well as the work of the House Select Committee. And that's very different, of course, than what we're seeing with some of the announced investigations recently, not just against Mr. Comey or Letitia James, but also against Jerome Powell, the Fed chair and, you know, Governor Walz and Mayor Fray. So there's really no there there. So it seems to be be trying to investigate people instead of crimes or misuse of government property. And I don't see any justification other than to try to, at least according to Glenn's reporting, to funnel this information then to, you know, the legislative branch, to members of Congress so that they can make it public.

Alicia Menendez (35:50)

Let's talk, Glenn, about that funneling, because I thought one of the most interesting elements of your reporting was that a lot of what the FBI is digging up, they're then turning over to Republican Senator Chuck Grassley. Explain the dynamic there.

Nicole Wallace (36:05)

Well, this is really interesting. Grassley has been known over the last four decade as somebody who supported whistleblowers. But really, over the last couple of years, the nature of those whistleblowers that he supports have taken on a particular hue, which is essentially people who opposed the Biden administration. He was, for instance, a patron of the whistleblowers in the Hunter Biden case that helped revive the Hunter Biden case. But we were able to discern essentially three streams for the information that's making its way to Grassley's committee. A bunch of it is also making its way to Jim Jordan's committee. Jim Jordan is the head of the House Judiciary Committee. Grassley is the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. One is requests that Grassley has made. Two are parcels of information that Patel and Bongino themselves have produced for Congress. And the third and perhaps most interesting is this shadier area of whistleblowers. Now, it made a lot of sense for whistleblowers to come forward to drop information, as I said before, about Hunter Biden when Biden was president. Now you have a dynamic that one former FBI agent described to me as a whistleblower working in the whistle factory. So you have a whistleblower who's producing information about Jack Smith from the files. Some of it is grand jury information that is illegal to leak out into the public domain, and it is going through Grassley's committee. The question I repeatedly asked Grassley and his staff was, why does this, these people need whistleblower protection when the likelihood of them facing reprisal from the Trump administration is minuscule? What I was told is these people have just been granted this classification. What I said to Grassley's folks is, what's the difference between a leak and a whistleblower? Because at times it does seem like they accuse the media of accepting leaks when the same material or material that's even more sensitive being produced in the public domain, given the protections that members of Congress have to release grand jury information without any penalty. So it is a very interesting situation, a dynamic in which the administration and Grassley's office do seem to be working in concert. And the other thing that's really a critical factor here is the head of legislative affairs for the Department of Justice. And remember, the FBI is under the Department of Justice is a former top investigator for Chuck Grassley. And that is not the only Chuck Grassley alum inside the Justice Department.

Alicia Menendez (38:47)

What is the difference between a leak and a whistleblower? I want to come back to that question, but first we need to sneak in a quick break. We'll be right back. We are back with Glenn and with Mary. Mary, in light of everything that we were just talking about vis a vis Glenn's reporting about what is happening over at the FBI, the way in which they are looking into Jack Smith and others. Important to remind everyone Jack Smith's going to publicly address everything that Republicans have been talking about this week, sort of. What are you looking forward to? What are you anticipating? How do you think it's going to play out?

Marion McCourt (39:21)

Well, you know, it's interesting because we all did have the opportunity to read the transcript of the closed hearing on the House side with Jack Smith from a week or two ago. And so I suspect there will be some amount of repetition of that. And, you know, there's two things that I think we will see, which is that we will see Jack Smith doing what he has already done and he will, will, you know, heavily defend his investigation by letting the public know that the he, he and those on his team concluded, and so did a grand jury, by the way, at least by a probable cause standard, that there was significant evidence to support all of the charges brought against Donald Trump. And that's specifically with respect to the January 6th investigation, which I think is more the thrust of this. But remember, also the Mar a Lago investigation result in, in, in charges. And I know Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors, they had to go well beyond the probable cause standard in the, in what they applied to themselves in determining to go forward with this case. So I think you will see him defending and being specific about the evidence that they amassed that to the extent that he's permitted to do so by the Department of Justice without revealing grand jury information, which would be prohibited, but he will be specific about evidence that they amass to support those charges. I think what you will also probably, probably see is some of the Republican Congress members questioning again the use of subpoenas for toll records of some of the members of Congress, because that is something that they definitely pushed him on in before the House in the closed hearing. And I think we'll see more of that. We'll get to hear him respond about how that, that how they complied with the guidance from the Department of Justice. So and there may be some new revelations, but I don't know that there'll be much that's too different, although. So this issue, Glenn's reporting certainly could come up.

Alicia Menendez (41:14)

Glenn, what do you think? Do you think we hear anything that's new?

Nicole Wallace (41:18)

I think that's one of the reasons we wrote the story is because, remember, they've got access to this entire trove of information and they can release what they choose when they choose. And as we also report, they have spun these things in such a way that is oftentimes mischaracterized. And with the case of the toll records where you had somebody like Senator Josh Hawley sitting, that they were wiretaps completely put out false information. But there's a couple of interesting dynamics. One of the reasons the House is doing this right now is because there is a non zero chance that Judge Cannon down in Florida is going to unseal substantial parts of the second section of Smith's final report of special counsel pertaining to the documents case in Florida. And there's stuff in that report we generally believe that would be very damning for Trump and would re litigate a lot of this stuff. The other thing I should say is a bunch of people on the House side, including Jordan, have been very reluctant to give Smith this big platform in front of cameras because Smith is the most articulate and well informed advocate to puncture what has become a MAGA piety, which is that Donald Trump was an innocent who is persecuted without evidence. So it's going to be extraordinarily interesting. There's going to be some wild cards. But I think Smith feels really good going into this.

Alicia Menendez (42:41)

Always feels like the events, these events are sort of a Rorschach test for what you already believe. Glenn Thrush, Miriam McCord, thank you both so much for joining us. We're going to sneak in one more break. Be right back. On this week's episode of the Best People with Nicole Wallace, how disinformation is damaging our democracy. Catch Nicole's conversation with media reporter Oliver Darcy. Just scan the QR code on your screen to listen now or download wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you so much for spending this Martin Luther King Day here with us. Nicole will be back here tomorrow. I will be back in one hour alongside Michael Steele and Simone Sanders Townsend for the weeknight.

Tim Miller (43:19)

The new year brings new health goals and wealth goals. Protecting your identity is an important step. Your info is in endless places that could expose you to identity theft leading to lost funds. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your New year's goals. With LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com SpecialOffer terms apply.