C (3:54)

Yeah. So I said what I wrote, what I wrote because it is important that we celebrate these moments. I mean, you know, it is a remarkable thing that you and I are here talking about this at the end of April, that it is likely, it is more likely than not, that when all of the rendition battles are done and the election returns are in, that you and I will be on the air sometime late next November. And this redistricting will have backfire for Donald Trump. Like backfired. Net, net. This will have been a loss for him. As I look at it right now, I think Democrats have gained six seats now. That should be clear on the math there. That is because I don't believe Republicans are going to gain five seats in Texas. I'm banking they'll get three. There is no way Florida, which is the only significant state left that, that Republicans have to play, can gain six seats. So I think it is likely that Donald Trump will have spectacularly cost his, his party much needed seats. But as you point out, this is part of a larger mosaic and no one point of time, no one piece of that mosaic tells or paints the full picture. So it is Donald Trump is unpopular. It is that Donald Trump's redistricting gambit has failed. It is also that Donald Trump is saying that he wants to take over the voting. He wants to take over. He wants Republicans take over the vote counting. It is that Mike Johnson and the Republicans in the House and John Thune and the Republicans in Senate are, have hitched their wagon to him and will do whatever he wants and so as you look at all of this, we are moving into the next phase of this, which is even more dangerous than the last, because what it means is that the likelihood that Donald Trump will try to seize ballots or try to take over the voting or try to rig the outcome of the elections or suppress voters or create a national mailing list of who gets to cast mail in ballots and who doesn't, that those odds go up at the same time that the odds that he goes after his political opponents goes up as well. It was a year ago that you and I were talking about the executive orders aimed at law firms, aimed at law firm lawyers like me by name, aimed at Andrew Weissman. You know, I sat with you for, I think, the full two hours of your show. The day that they went after James Comey and Tish James and, you know, we talked that. I remember because John Brennan was on and I said, look, you know, I am worried and everyone should be worried that they're going to come after, you know, the people further and we're going to see more of that. So you're right, we're entering a more dangerous time and we all need to be more vigilant about it.

B (6:23)

What I think people are eager to know is what is the marching order? And I think the thing about this last phase, right, is it was fighting fire with fire. And I think it proved two things. One, the pro democracy side, the Democrats could get off the mat after last November. Two, people like President Obama had a really important role communicating directly to the voters of California about why Prop 50, fighting fire with fire. Voters understood that. They responded. Virginia, same thing. This phase you're describing, political prosecutions against people like Director Brennan, potentially like yourself, it's not clear what people can do. So how do you answer that question? What can people do?

C (7:13)

Yeah, three things they can do. Number one, they cannot allow the Overton window to shift. You know, this, this was literally the debate I was having on air with some of the other lawyers at that time. We cannot allow Donald Trump to normalize things that are completely abnormal because they are perhaps not as bizarre and crazy as some other alternatives. So, you know, I don't care which federal prosecutor is behind a political prosecution. It doesn't make it any more legitimate that the person bringing the case has been there for 10 years versus that it's, you know, some, some crony of Donald Trump's. It's been there for a day. The second thing, with respect to voting in particular, look, I need everyone watching this to pay attention at what is Happening not just in the big headline cases, but in all of the challenges to voting rights. Like, I get it when I come on air and I say I am suing Donald Trump over his executive order, there's a lot of attention and a lot of, and a lot of energy behind it. But, you know, earlier today, my law firm won a fight in the, in the Arizona Court of Appeals having to do with a very particularized challenge in, in several counties in Arizona. We just sued, we just intervened in a lawsuit in Louisiana to try to protect voting rights there. We, you know, we have been defending, you know, individual groups of voters in 30 cases where the Department of Justice is trying to get access to voter data and voter information. And the problem, Nicole, in this area of the law, in this area of protecting democracy, is it's going to happen at the state and local level. It's mostly not happening in federal courts. In Washington, D.C. it's most happening. It's mostly happening in communities around the country. And so I need people to pay attention to what's happening in their community. I need them to call their state legislators. I need them to pay attention to what happening at their county commission meetings about where they're citing polling locations and where they're not. Because, yes, it is possible that Donald Trump will try to seize ballots, and that is something we have to be worried about. But I, but I oftentimes say, if all you're trying to focus on are the extraordinary challenges to elections, what you don't realize is that most of the challenges to free and fair elections start quite ordinary. You know, January 6th was not the beginning. It was the culmination of a series of ordinary cases trying to throw out ballots here, trying to discount the certification there that then, that then layered up. And so I would just ask people, stay informed, but stay informed of what's happening in your community and speak out.

B (9:40)

Well, I thought about that last night in really reading the posts that Trump put out. And yes, he's got some deterioration in terms of his credibility after attacking the pope and after being called crazy by Marge and attacked every day by Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson. But I view the attack on the Virginia vote as the analog to the summer of 2020 plans. And the emails that the January 6th select committee surfaced from Tom Fitton, where they were talking in the summer. I think it was a July, mid July 2020 email. And then Trump goes on the trail, I think, in North Carolina and is telling people to vote twice. Bill Barr goes on CNN before the election and says, we're Going to investigate voter fraud. I mean, all these things were seeds that they planted before the election even happened to make people doubt the outcome. It happened last night in Trump's social media post about the Virginia vote.

C (10:38)

Absolutely. Look, Donald Trump has already said that he believes that the vote in Virginia was fraudulent. He thinks that. He said that he called out mail in voting and said that, you know, there was a dump of mail in ballots. And he himself says, doesn't this sound familiar? Well, yeah, it does. It's the same lies he's told before as the predicate to taking more extraordinary action. He. He claimed that, you know, the, the language of the ballot measure was too complicated and too confused. He. He said that the results were unfair. Like all of these things are laying down the predicate for why it is. When, in fact, Virginians go to the polls in November and elect 10 Democrats and one Republican, which is what's likely going to happen. That he will say that the results of the Virginia elections were rigged and they've been rigged all along, and that will be the predicate for much more extreme action. And it will begin with. With rhetoric, as it always does. It will proceed to the courts, where it always does, and then it will proceed to things that are outside the normal process and into the authoritarian regime, you know, realm. And that's. That's what he does. And we need to be focused on that again at the local level. It's not enough to just focus on what's happening in Washington, D.C. but focus what's happening in your own communities.

B (11:53)

When you look at the extraordinary defeat of Viktor Orban, what are the participatory lessons for people to learn and import here?

C (12:05)

Look, I think we saw some of them in the last few days. I mean, I think that the fact that Hakeem Jeffries gave a statement that said we need maximum warfare, you know, everywhere, I think it was like, everywhere. All the time.

B (12:16)

All the time. Yeah.

D (12:17)

Yeah.

C (12:18)

I think that. I think that that leader Jeffries got this entirely right. And I think that that shift in mindset that we are going to do everything we can, we are going to use every lawful tool available. You know, I mean, look, you and I, Nicole, have go way back in this, and, you know, I've tried to be diplomatic over the years and, and you have. You. You have pressed me at times. You know, there have been times where my approach of use every tool available has not been to the taste of every. Of every Democratic leader and everyone on the left of center position. I think there were people who thought that it was more important to preserve norms than it was to use tools. And I'm glad that that's no longer the case. I mean, Hakeem Jeffries has made it clear. Gavin Newsom made it clear. Abigail Spamberger made it clear. The legislative leaders made it clear, like, that Democrats are in this to fight with every tool available. And that is, I think, an enormous lesson. An enormous lesson from what we saw in Hungary. It's an enormous lesson from what we have seen with the victories we've had so far. And. And we need to stay in that mindset. We cannot become captive to a bunch of antiquated norms that Republicans hold up and say, you know, but you're violating these. You know, I've complimented you, and I've complimented Tim Miller. I feel like the. The former Republicans, particularly the Never Trumpers, which probably you're. You predate them. But the Never Trumpers, like, they don't get thrown off their game by being called names by. By Republicans in a way that sometimes Democrats have.

B (13:48)

So Republicans show their love. We hate you, you traitorous loser. Oh, yeah, I'm making it.

C (13:55)

Yeah, exactly. And, like, I think that that's something that. That the mainstream of the Democratic Party is now embracing, that they can call me. You know, I saw earlier today on social media there were some prominent Republicans calling me a communist and calling me, you know, all kinds of names. And I'm just thinking, like, you know what? I'm not. I'm not going to take that bait, and I'm not going to let it affect me. I'm just going to move forward. And I think that Democrats are learning that lesson. And that is. That is one of the key lessons that I think we learned from. From Hungary.

B (14:23)

Is it in time?

C (14:26)

That's the big question. Look, I am not here to tell you that it's all going to naturally work out okay. You know, I. The one thing I disagree with Martin Luther King Jr. About, he was a genius and an incredibly important historical figure in American history and politics. I've never bought into the idea that the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice. I don't even buy into the idea that it bends towards justice. If we all push on it, sometimes it bends towards justice, and sometimes it bends towards complete injustice. And so we all have to do our part to try to bend it in the right direction. But I'm not here to say it is in time. I'm not here to say that it's all going to be okay. That, you know, Donald Trump will not be able to succeed. What I can tell you is that he will succeed if we don't fight. He will succeed if we don't do everything we can. And so, like, I'm all in to do everything I can. I made that decision, you know, when he won his second election. I wasn't going to be deterred. And, you know, I know you are the same way, but I don't want anyone to, to think that this is a message of, of, of, of destiny. It's not. It's a hopeful message, but it's not a message that says that it all works out in the end. Automatically, we're going to do everything we can. But Donald Trump has cards to play.

B (15:42)

Let me ask you about people changing their mind, because this feels like this, this, this should be a moment. Trump said 33% and whatever merger you want approved, his brand is, you know, the dog shit, dog poop on your shoe, you know, stinking up the whole house. And I wonder what you would say to powerful people who got under the covers and are in bed with him with that stinky shoe on.

C (16:09)

Yeah. I think that the greatest tragedy of this time is not actually Donald Trump, but it is that people with so much power, who could have done so much and at such little personal cost, instead did nothing. And so at the same time, we saw, you know, the, the people with the most to lose, the people who, you know, were risking everything in Minneapolis, stand up to the government. We have seen corporate leaders, law firm leaders, people who frankly could afford and, and weather any storm. We've seen them bow down to Donald Trump. We've seen them compromise their integrity. You know, I, I don't want to personalize this, but I noticed that yesterday, I think it was Tim Cook retired or stepped aside from Apple. And I think here's a guy who could be known for all of the great products and other things he was involved in. Apple. But part of his legacy is going to be the guy who sucked up to Donald Trump, and he's going to have to live with that. And when this moment has passed and we've moved on to another decade or two, and our children, our grandchildren come to us and they ask us about this time. They're not going to ask us about gas prices, honestly, they're not going to even ask us about the war. They're going to ask us what we did at this time when democracy was at stake, when an authoritarian was trying to take over our country. And I will be able to tell them what I did. I won't tell them how I felt, I'll tell them what I did. And I look at a lot of these corporate leaders and I look at a lot of these civic leaders who have hid under the covers or have cut deals or law firm managing partners who have shoveled pro bono in his direction. And what are they going to tell their kids, what they're going to say? They made a few extra dollars. They, they closed, you know, they got paid a little bit more. They, they got invited to the White House. I think that history is going to, is going to remember them for the cowards they were.

B (17:57)

Mark is sticking around. When we come back, there's breaking news to tell you about on how the FBI investigated a New York Times journalist after that journalist read an article about Kash Patel's girlfriend and article that Kash Patel and his girlfriend did not like. The reporter who broke that story will be our next guest. Also ahead, why critics of the Trump administration are warning that the Justice Department is lining up squarely on the side of extremists and white nationalists. The latest, the DOJ's efforts to tear down an organization that has fought for civil rights and helped make the country safer for decades. Plus, Donald Trump's plan to abandon those who, who helped the United States war effort in Afghanistan. More than 1,000 Afghan refugees now facing a no win situation, all because of Donald Trump. The growing outrage over that story with the former Army Ranger now serving in Congress. Also later in the hour, deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

D (18:57)

You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft.

E (19:02)

I thought it was safe.

D (19:03)

If that happens, LifeLock gives you a US based record restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims. Your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed. Pour your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year@lifelock.com Pandora terms apply. Hey, everyone, it's Chris Hayes.

F (19:29)

This week on my podcast, why is this happening? Cryptocurrency and the golden age of scams.

D (19:34)

Crypto markets operate 24. 7, not like the regulated financial markets.

C (19:38)

And, and they're gamified and all these things.

D (19:40)

And so for that small percentage of the population that develop gambling addictions, this stuff is like crack cocaine. It's really, really bad.

F (19:47)

That's this week on why is this Happening? Search for why is this Happening?

D (19:50)

Wherever you're listening right now. And follow.

B (19:56)

There is brand new reporting from the New York Times that has broken since we've been on the air on how the FBI pursued an investigation into a New York Times reporter who reported on and wrote a story about the girlfriend of FBI Director Kash Patel. A person briefed on the matter, telling the New York Times that, quote, agents interviewed the girlfriend, queried databases for information on the reporter, Elizabeth Williamson, and recommended moving forward to determine whether Ms. Williamson broke federal stalking laws. In response to the New York Times, the FBI said that, quote, investigators were concerned about how the aggressive reporting techniques crossed lines of stalking, but added that the FBI is not pursuing a case. Williamson wrote an article that published on February 28 about all the FBI resources that were being poured into protecting Kash Patel's girlfriend. His girlfriend's a country music singer named Alexis Wilkins. New York Times reported at the time this, quote, FBI tactical agents have ferried her to a resort in Britain before a dinner at Windsor Castle and to an appointment at a hair salon in Nashville. Last April, agents in two SUVs took guard outside a senior center in Ronald Reagan's boyhood home of Dixon, Illinois, while she sang for a few dozen young conservatives. To an extent not previously reported, Ms. Wilkins is escorted in her travels by Special Weapons and Tactics team members drawn from FBI field offices around the country. We want to bring in New York Times investigative reporter Mike Schmidt, whose byline is on. That reporting we just read from Mark Elias is still here as well. Mike, tell us what you're reporting.

F (21:43)

Look, the FBI went out and interviewed Alexis. They talked to her about the concerns that she had about this New York Times reporter, and in turn went through FBI databases looking for information on my colleague, this New York Times reporter, Elizabeth Williamson. And then agents recommended that the Bureau move forward with a larger, more fulsome investigation into whether the New York Times reporter, my colleague, had broken federal stalking laws through her reporting. And what stood out at us about this is that the reporting that Elizabeth Williamson had done for this story is what we would consider routine reporting, reporting that is asking questions, which is a normal, respected First Amendment practice practice in the media. But in this instance, the FBI wanted to move forward with looking into whether that had broken the law. And the FBI ran into problems with this investigation when Justice Department officials learned about it and thought that it was in retaliation to the Times story and did not think that there was a legal basis to move forward with an investigation.

B (23:08)

The executive editor of the New York Times, Joe Kahn, said this in the story, quote, the FBI's attempt to criminalize Routine reporting is a blatant violation of Elizabeth, the journalist's First Amendment rights and another attempt by this administration to prevent journalists from scrutinizing its actions. That's according to Mr. Kahn. Quote, it's alarming, it's unconstitutional and it's wrong. You also go on to report all the other instances where, under Kash Patel's leadership, the FBI has aggressively pursued journalists. You write, quote, in January, the FBI searched the Virginia home of Hannah Natenson, a Washington Post reporter, in connection with an investigation into a government contractor's handling of classified material. It is exceptionally rare for the authorities to search reporters homes as part of such an investigation when they're not the focus of the investigation. In April, after news organizations reported details about the downing of a US Fighter jet in Iran, Trump promised to go after an unnamed outlet over its coverage. Early last year, the White House punished the Associated Press over its refusal to comply with an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico. Just talk about the reporting in this piece and the statement. I think it's a rather rare statement from the executive editor about the climate for carrying out what your editor describes as normal journalistic duties.

F (24:39)

The most important thing to know here is that reporters that find themselves caught up in federal investigations usually find themselves as witnesses in the sense that the government is trying to identify who our sources are, who we're relying on to publish government secrets or grand jury material or classified information. In those instances, the government can be very aggressive and they can subpoena reporters. And in the case of the Washington Post reporter, they went to what was seen as a very extreme level of executing a search warrant to go to the through the reporter's home to get their electronics in this case. What's different here is that the FBI is not trying to go after Elizabeth Williamson's sources. The FBI is trying to go after Elizabeth Williamson. The FBI was trying to move forward with a preliminary investigation into whether she had broken federal stalking laws through her reporting. And that is just very, very different because it's an attempt to criminalize the basic reporting, the basic asking of questions. And administrations in the past have been widely criticized for simply having reporters caught up in their investigations when they've tried to go after who reporter sources are. In this instance, if the FBI had had their way, they would have done a full blown inquiry into whether Elizabeth Williamson was breaking federal law simply through her reporting. They did not want to know who Elizabeth Williamson sources were. They wanted to to learn more about Elizabeth Williamson.

B (26:15)

Margaris this is from the original reporting that the journalist did that puts in motion this extraordinary investigation into her. Quote, Christopher O', Leary, a former senior executive in the FBI's counterterrorism division, said that while threats could temporarily change the posture, it was unheard of for the FBI to provide open ended, around the clock SWAT coverage for a girlfriend living in another city. Quote, if you want to be a celebrity or a social media star, get your own security. He said in an interview, quote, the inappropriateness of this cannot be overstated. It has to be at least put out there that this was perhaps an unflattering depiction of the use of government assets for the director's girlfriend.

C (27:08)

Yeah, I think that this is an absolute outrage for three reasons. And I think Mike and the New York Times have hit one of them, which is, obviously, this is an effort to chill First Amendment activity on behalf of the media. And I think that that is, you know, in and of itself terrible. But there are two other outrages here. The first is, why is it that. That the. The girlfriend of the director of the FBI is able to commandeer the FBI into a stalking investigation? I mean, like, the New York Times investigates a lot of individuals. They ask questions of a lot of people. They undoubtedly do profiles of a lot of people that those people don't really like. How is it that the FBI wound up investigating in all of those possible circumstances, the one involving the girlfriend of the FBI? And so it's an abuse of power beyond the chilling of the First Amendment. It's an abuse of power that presumably the girlfriend of the FBI director was able to get the FBI to pay a lot of attention to her concerns when they don't pay the attention to the concerns of others. And then finally, I would just point you to the stalking law itself, because apparently someone within the FBI thought that this was worth looking at. And this is 18 USC code section 2261A. And what it says is that. That a crime is committed if you engage in activity with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate or place under surveillance someone with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person. I mean, give me a break. I mean, give me a break. You're telling me that the FBI genuinely thought that there was a risk that. That. That a reporter at the. At the New York Times was trying to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate someone? I mean, this is just a pure out and out misuse of government resources to benefit Cash Patel's girlfriend for the purposes of trying to prevent scrutiny of Cash Patel. And that girlfriend and retribution, as you point out, for a legitimate article about her. So this is outrageous. It is outrageous not just because it is going after the New York Times, but because of the the misuse of this to to try to benefit Cash Patel's girlfriend and insulate her from scrutiny.

B (29:35)

You also have to wonder how much more bad press Trump is interested in garnering for his head of the FBI and his girlfriend. Mike Schmidt, thank you for the reporting. Marco Lias, thank you for spending so much of the hour with us. When we come back, a move by the Trump Justice Department that critics say puts him squarely in the corner of extremist groups. We'll explain after a short break.

C (30:03)

You had some very bad people in

D (30:05)

that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.

C (30:12)

Every wireless service comes with a cost, right?

B (30:15)

Wrong.

C (30:16)

The TextNow app lets you do your thing for free. Get real talk, real text and 5G data for must have apps with no monthly bill.

A (30:24)

Need more data, add it right from the app.

C (30:26)

Done.

A (30:26)

Go back to free. No long term contracts, no pressure, no surprises.

C (30:31)

Just wireless that works around you. TextNow, we've got your back. Download TextNow in your app store today. Wireless plans require the purchase of a sim card. Visit textnow.com for terms and conditions.

D (30:42)

Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes.

F (30:44)

This week on my podcast why is this Happening? Cryptocurrency and the golden age of scams.

D (30:49)

Crypto markets operate 24,7, not like the regulated financial markets and they're gamified and all these things. And so for the that small percentage of the population that develop gambling addictions, this stuff is like crack cocaine. It's really, really bad.

F (31:02)

That's this week on why Is this Happening? Search for why is this happening?

D (31:04)

Wherever you're listening right now and follow.

B (31:12)

There are people on the right still trying to rewrite that moment, denying that that sentence came out of his mouth. But that's not the worst of it. Things have actually gotten worse in the nine years since that moment, since Trump said that it has gone from quote, good people on both sides to Donald Trump's government in the second term. Seemingly comfortable standing on just one side, the side of the extremist groups. That has been made evident in Trump's efforts to erase January 6th through mass sweeping pardons as well as the Justice Department's efforts to erase the most serious criminal convictions that stemmed from the insurrection. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche further cemented DOJ's seeming position to stand with extremists yesterday with the announcement of an Indictment of the Southern Poverty Law center, an organization that has been at the forefront of exposing some of the country's most extreme hate groups, including the KKK, for decades. The Justice Department charged the SPLC, Southern Poverty Law center with 11 counts of fraud over its use of paid informants inside of extremist groups without telling donors. Central to this indictment was an informant who was an organizer of the deadly 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. That informant allegedly received $270,000 to pass on information about the planning of the event. While DOJ claims the SPLC's payments were funding extremism, the New York Times reports this, quote, the indictment offers little to support the notion of that the group's payments to informants were meant to aid the extremist groups they had infiltrated. And as the CEO of the SPLC points out, here is why those informants are crucial and why they are kept secret.

D (33:06)

We frequently shared what we learned from informants with local and federal law enforcement, including the FBI. We did not, however, share our use of informal informants broadly with anyone to protect the identity and safety of the informants and their families. And while we no longer work with paid informants, we continue to take their safety seriously. These individuals risked their lives to infiltrate and inform on the activities of our nation's most radical and violent extremist groups.

B (33:37)

I'm going to bring into our coverage senior investigative reporter Carol Lennig. And joining me at the table, Princeton University professor and political analyst Eddie Glad. Caroline, just take me inside how this indictment came to be.

E (33:52)

So this is the product of several months, actually, as far as I can tell from sources dating back to January, of work by the Justice Department to figure out how to charge the Southern Poverty Law center, which is, as you and your viewers know, has a storied history of trying to get under the. Under the covers essentially, of extremist organizations that are promoting hate speech, violence, and racist attacks on Americans and American society. And also, I would be remiss if I didn't mention, Nicole, that I asked prosecutors, former ones, primarily, to review this indictment and to, and to tell me, sort of like, what do you think? And their assessment was that it barely met any of the elements for the criminal statute that is charged. And so to underline what was said in the New York Times story, it's really hard to see how you're defrauding your donors or helping these extremist groups. And based on the evidence that is presented in the indictment, typically, an indictment is so clear cut in terms of the evidence is very strong and convincing and persuasive. And in this instance, the Southern Poverty Law center obviously was using informants to gather information that in many cases they used in both reports to police and in public reports outing those groups for, again, hate violence and promoting racism.

B (35:34)

Carol, you said something at the beginning that I just want to make sure I understand. Your reporting is that like with Comey and Tish, James and Brennan, the target was identified before the evidence and the investigation and the facts.

E (35:50)

Yes, the government doesn't like to say this word very often, but you drew a nice through line through a number of these cases and others, which is called unpredicated. It didn't start with a predicate of, wow, we have some amazing evidence of a crime that we've got to figure out how to either corroborate or confirm that it's not true. We've got some great evidence, and we've got to figure out whether where this crime potentially leads. And in this instance, there was not that predicate, according to our sources. And again, the indictment suggests that because it doesn't show exactly how you are defrauding donors or helping those extremist groups.

B (36:34)

Let me show you what the last director of the FBI said about the FBI's posture in 2020 in terms of how it viewed white supremacy.

C (36:46)

What I can tell you is that within, within the domestic terrorism bucket category as a whole, racially motivated violent extremism is, I think, the biggest bucket within that larger group. And within the racially motivated violent extremist

B (37:04)

bucket, people ascribing to some kind of

C (37:08)

white supremacist type ideology is certainly the

B (37:12)

biggest chunk of that. Okay, that's very helpful.

G (37:16)

That's very helpful.

B (37:16)

So the white supremacists are the largest chunk of the racially motivated domestic terrorists.

C (37:22)

But let me also say, and I

B (37:24)

would also add to that, that racially motivated violent extremists over recent years have

C (37:29)

been responsible for the most lethal activity in the U.S.

B (37:35)

i played that because that was Donald Trump's handpicked director of the FBI. Under him, five years ago, this was viewed the greatest threat, what the Southern Poverty Law center was helping to unearth. Now that leads you to being indicted.

D (37:53)

We've come a long way since 2020. Right. And so not only did we hear Christopher Wray say that, we also now know that they've pardoned Jan Sixers, vacated charges around sedition for Oath Keepers, and now they're going after the organization who in 1981 basically broke the Klan. And so it's an explicit, I think representation of Donald Trump's administration's identification with what has been called euphemistically the hard right. And the hard right are those who traffic in white supremacist rhetoric. Right. They believe this nation is not only a nation that is post constitutional, post liberal, they also believe that it is white. And with this charge, you know, Todd Blanche is auditioning to be AG and whatever Cash Patel's doing, he's just defending that he wasn't drunk. Right. What we see very clearly is that they think they can double down on this particular current within the administration, and that is to signal to the hard right that they are on their side.

B (38:52)

What happens next?

D (38:54)

Well, what happens next, it places folks in danger. They're basically given a green light to those who are committed to the idea that ours must remain a white republic. And I think what's important for us to understand, it's not that he seemingly sides with. I understand the caution from the legal side for Ms. Now, it's that they do. And I think it's important for us, as I've said over and over again, for us to describe this administration as a white nationalist administration. It's one current amongst many. But it's an important current, particularly for Trump's coalition, however afraid it may be

B (39:31)

that coalition still obtains and cares about these issues.

D (39:34)

Absolutely.

B (39:36)

Carol Lennox, thank you so much for your reporting on the story and for joining us. Eddie sticks around a little bit longer. When we come back, outrage over a new Trump administration plan to abandon our friends, our allies, the Afghan refugees who fought alongside the US Military. We'll bring you that story next. In a shameful betrayal of brave service to aid the United States and the men and women of our military and our allies, Donald Trump and his administration is in talks to force Afghan refugees who risk their lives and their families lives to help the nearly two decade long American war effort in Afghanistan to now make an impossible choice. In a story first reported by the New York Times and confirmed by MSNOW's David Rhode, the State Department has plans to force a group of Afghan refugees who fled Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover in 2021 to choose between returning to live under the Taliban or leaving with their families to live in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is suffering one of the world's gravest humanitarian crises. The New York Times reports that the group includes interpreters for the US Military, former members of the Afghan Special operations forces and family members of American service members. The group includes more than 400 children. The group also includes more than 1,000 refugees there being housed in a former US military base in Qatar. According to that Times report, quote, the American government brought them there in late 2024 and promised them a path to settlement in the United States if they passed further checks. But since taking office, Donald Trump stopped that resettlement program. I want to bring in Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado. He's a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. He's also a former paratrooper and Army Ranger who served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I saw this story, I said I need to talk to Jason Crow about this. Your thoughts?

H (41:46)

Well, Nicole, if this happens, it would be a moral travesty and a terrible failing primarily for these Afghans who fought with us, who served with us, who worked with me and helped me do my mission and bring my soldiers home alive. You know, we made a promise when we were in Afghanistan that if these folks worked with us and served as interpreters, served as guides, helped us secure our compounds, that if they needed it, we would be there by their side. We would have them and their families backs. Which is why when I came to Congress, I've made this one of my top priorities. And this used to be a bipartisan issue when I passed one of the largest expansions of the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program In history in 2021, I got 416 votes in the House of Representatives for that bill. But then enter the second Trump administration. They have demonized this group. They demonize all immigrants, including Afghans, and they have made this a partisan issue when it should not be.

B (42:46)

It seems that there should still be enough sort of sober, fever breaking realization that our men and women of the military are in danger if we betray the people who keep them alive in combat. What are your conversations, private conversations with Republicans?

H (43:07)

Well, privately they admit that, but I don't need private conversations anymore. I've been spending years having private conversations where I listen to them tell me how much they don't like what Donald Trump is doing, how much they don't disagree with it, how they, how horrible they think it is, well, enough is enough. I just don't care anymore what they think in private like this. This is a public job and you represent people publicly. And if you're not willing to stand up and say what you believe and stand by your convictions and lead, then I simply don't care what you have to say anymore. Right there are people suffering. Our partners, our allies are facing death if they go to the consciousness Congo or the Taliban. These are people who fought with us, served with us, and if you can't stand up and have their back, I simply don't care anymore what you have to say. Nor do you have any moral authority anymore when it comes to national security issues. Because if nobody can trust us when we go around the world, everywhere we go around the world, we work with locals everywhere. And if people can't trust us and won't work with us anymore, our service members will be in tremendous risk and we won't be able to get our missions done.

B (44:15)

Donald Trump and Caroline Levitt have not ruled out boots on the ground in Iran, which I think you pointed out. They're not boots, they're humans. They're men and women, sons and daughters, moms and dads, husbands and wives. How will a decision like this impact the men and women and sons and daughters if they, heaven forbid, have to fight a ground war in Iran and need to rely on local help?

H (44:38)

Well, this war in Iran is really an unmated, unmitigated disaster. We've spent close to $100 billion so far. Americans are paying $500 million a day more at the pump. The Strait of Hormuz, which was open before this war, is now closed. And we're negotiating to basically get it open again. Which, which it was before the war. It's mined. That's going to take God knows to how long to open up the regime in Iran. The new regime is actually more extreme and more hardline than the one before. So this has been a disaster. And it's always the working class kids that I grew up with, that I fought with, that have to bear the burden. They're the ones that are paying the bulk of the taxes to fund this. They're the ones that have to go to the fighting and the dying and the suffering. They're the ones that have to spend time away from their families. And Americans are fed up with it on the right and the left. We don't want to spend trillions of dollars for this anymore. They want it over. They want us out of conflict in the Middle east. And I'm going to fight hard to deliver that to end this.

B (45:38)

Congressman Jason Crow, thank you for taking time to talk to us today. We're going to give Eddie the last word on the other side of a short break. Don't go anywhere. We're back with Eddie.

C (45:50)

Glad.

B (45:50)

Eddie, I always put you the impossible position of putting a new cycle into context.

D (45:55)

We can't be the good guys with these kinds of decisions with people who were on our side. You can't position yourself.

B (46:01)

We'll be the good guys again. No, never again.

D (46:04)

Not in our lifetime. We can't be the good guys. And let's just be clear. Accumulated bad choices corrupt the soul. And so we see choice after choice piled upon. It corrupts the soul of the nation. And we need to understand its implications for the country and for each of us.

B (46:22)

Thank you so much for being here, my friend. Thank you. One more break for us. We'll be right back. My guest this week on the Best People podcast is civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill. She is someone who has been on the front lines in the fight for our democracy for a long time. A fight that requires honesty about the threats we face.

G (46:42)

Watch the calls I would get every week. You know, do you think Donald Trump is racist? But why do you think Donald Trump is racist? And I would be like, okay, well, so here's all this stuff. Here's all the stuff which you can read as well as I can read, right? Why are you asking me that question? You need a black person who's a civil rights lawyer to say that the president is racist. When the Department of Justice said he was racist, when he has made all of these racist statements. When he called for the execution of these young black boys who actually were later exonerated and when they were exonerated, refused to retract what he had said before. When he was involved in the birther stuff. When he said during the campaign that the Mexican American judge that was deciding one of his cases that he couldn't decide in my favor because he's Mexican and we're building a wall. I mean, what, what, what? When he's palling around with proud boys and white supremacist groups, when he recently said that the Civil Rights act harmed America, The Civil Rights act, which ended racial segregation and public accommodations. Why are you calling me to ask me that question?

B (47:45)

She is essential listening and you can listen or watch the Entire conversation on YouTube by scanning the QR code on your screen right now. Be sure to let me know what you think on Instagram or Bluesky. We want to thank you for letting us into your homes tonight. We are grateful.

A (47:59)

Listen to your favorite Ms. Now shows anytime as a podcast. Enjoy new episodes of Morning Joe, Deadline, White House and the Rachel Maddow Show.

E (48:08)

Every small d Democratic muscle that we have is flexing.

A (48:13)

Plus the Last Word with Lawrence o', Donnell, the Beat with Ari Melber, the weeknight and more on the go wherever you get your podcasts for ad free listening to all of your favorite shows. Subscribe to Ms. Now premium on Apple podcasts.