“They are not afraid of Donald Trump”

Summary

Podcast Summary: Deadline: White House

Episode: “They are not afraid of Donald Trump”
Host: Nicolle Wallace (and panel)
Air Date: November 5, 2025

---

Overview

This episode of Deadline: White House is packed with urgent and timely topics: the political repudiation of Donald Trump in recent state elections, the Supreme Court’s skepticism toward Trump’s expansion of presidential power (especially on tariffs), the resilience and rise of pro-democracy movements like “no Kings,” and the unprecedented turmoil engulfing federal institutions such as the FBI under Trump’s administration. Insights and sharp analysis are offered by regulars David Frum, Kim Akinstor, Andrew Weissman, and special guest Rep. Jason Crow.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Post-Election Tone: A New Confidence in Resisting Trumpism

• Massive Democratic Victories:
  Major wins for pro-democracy candidates across several states and for California’s Prop 50 signal a “wholesale rejection of Trump, Trumpism and his aspiring autocratic governing philosophy.” (MSNBC Analyst, 01:23)
• No Kings Movement:
  The “no Kings” protests—seven million people strong—are directly tied to election turnout and victories.

  “This nation has not ever been, nor will it ever be, ruled by kings...We take oaths to a Constitution, not a king. We’ve chosen liberty, the very foundation of democracy.” (Excerpted from victory speech, paraphrased at 01:59)

• Democracy's Resilience:

  “If there is any way to terrify a despot, it is by dismantling the very conditions that allowed him to accumulate power.” — David Frum (03:00)

---

2. Supreme Court Shows Skepticism of Trump’s Strongman Tactics

• The Tariff Case Overview:
  The Supreme Court hears arguments regarding Trump’s use of the “national emergency” declaration for broad tariffs. The conservative justices, especially Trump appointees Gorsuch and Barrett, are notably skeptical.

  “[Justice Gorsuch] kept saying, look, if we...delegate this kind of tariff power to the president, how, how do you get it back?” — Kim Akinstor (05:52)

• Separation of Powers at Stake:

  “Isn’t this Congress’s power? … The reason we divide power in this country, the reason we do not have a king, is that it’s better to protect liberty.” — David Frum (08:15)

  • The panel highlights that this case tests whether Congress’s constitutional powers can be usurped by the executive branch (“abolishing Congress’s power to tax…to spend or not to spend”).
• Tariffs as Presidential Revenue Stream:

  “If a President can impose a tariff and can raise his own revenue at his own discretion with no consultation of Congress, he’s bust free from the Article 1 rule that Congress taxes.” (13:09)

  • It’s underscored that these powers, used as Trump did, are far in excess of even historical monarchs.

---

3. Impact of the “No Kings” Movement and Democratic Momentum

• Leaderless, Grassroots Strength:

  “What is so interesting about the no Kings movement is that it has no figurehead. It is from the people themselves...They are using their voice in every way that they can.” — Kim Akinstor (15:52)

  • The “no Kings” movement now polls higher than Trump’s MAGA in popularity.
• Elections as a Referendum:
  Democratic wins in historically contested states and districts are seen as a grass-roots rejection of Trump’s attempts at autocratic rule.

---

4. The Longest Government Shutdown and Trump’s Strategy

• Trump’s Hostage Politics:

  “Donald Trump wants to keep the government shut. He wants to inflict pain on the American people and he wants to weaponize hunger. He wants to weaponize government services. He wants to weaponize health care to consolidate power.” — Rep. Jason Crow (23:09)

• Rising Political Engagement:
  Crow emphasizes a “comeback has started,” with new kinds of candidates stepping up nationwide, inspired by the current moment.

  “Confidence builds on itself. Courage is contagious.” (22:08)

---

5. Military Action in the Caribbean and Critique of Trump’s Foreign Policy

• No Strategy, Just Bombs:
  • The administration’s erratic, military-heavy response to suspected drug smuggling is called out as tactically adrift and strategically hollow.

  “...Trump doesn’t see a single problem that he doesn’t think he can bomb his way out of...Do I want to stop the flow of drugs in America? Yes. Is this the way to do it? No.” — Rep. Jason Crow (25:05)

  • Briefings to Congress have been uninformative, and there’s scant evidence justifying the attacks.

---

6. Crisis and Purge at the FBI Under Kash Patel

• Unprecedented Public Rebuke:
  The FBI Agents Association, representing over 90% of agents, issues a rare rebuke of Patel’s firings as “erratic and arbitrary retribution.” Agents assigned to January 6th and Trump cases are being targeted.

  “The fact that they are willing to draw this line in the sand and come out with language as strong as that statement does really shows that things are much more dire for the workforce than we even imagined.” — Andrew Weissman (32:36)

• Agents Vulnerable to Political Winds:
  • Agents are being targeted based on social media rumors and association, not merit or conduct, creating immense fear and instability inside the bureau.

  “So in addition to assigned agents who investigated Trump being fired, agents who've just gotten in the crosshairs of random posters on Twitter are in the same boat. There is a random element that is terrifying.” — Andrew Weissman (34:32)

• Retaliation for Exposure:
  • Kash Patel is targeting those who exposed his own use of government resources for personal purposes (e.g., private jet travel), fueling even more purges.

---

7. The Comey Prosecution: A Break from DOJ Norms

• “Indict First, Investigate Second” Justice:
  • Judges have rebuked DOJ prosecutors for rushing the indictment of Comey at Trump’s command, noting failure to properly turn over grand jury materials and question prosecutorial competence.

  “...the FBI and the Department of Justice would not bring a case unless it knew it could win that case...It is very clear that in their rush to indict Jim Comey, they sacrifice detail for speed.” — Michael Feinberg (41:31)

• Accountability and Trust at Stake:
  • The expert guests stress how this political coercion of federal agencies undermines rule of law.

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “If there is any way to terrify a despot, it is by dismantling the very conditions that allowed him to accumulate power.”
  — David Frum [03:00]
• “The reason we divide power in this country, the reason we do not have a king, is that it’s better to protect liberty...”
  — David Frum [08:15]
• “What is so interesting about the no Kings movement is that it has no figurehead. It is from the people themselves…”
  — Kim Akinstor [15:52]
• “Confidence builds on itself. Courage is contagious.”
  — Rep. Jason Crow [22:08]
• “Donald Trump wants to keep the government shut. He wants to inflict pain on the American people and he wants to weaponize hunger...to consolidate power.”
  — Rep. Jason Crow [23:09]
• “...Trump doesn’t see a single problem that he doesn’t think he can bomb his way out of...Do I want to stop the flow of drugs in America? Yes. Is this the way to do it? No.”
  — Rep. Jason Crow [25:05]
• “The fact that they are willing to draw this line in the sand and come out with language as strong as that statement does really shows that things are much more dire for the workforce than we even imagined.”
  — Andrew Weissman [32:36]
• “There is a random element that is terrifying.”
  — Andrew Weissman [34:32]
• “It is very clear that in their rush to indict Jim Comey, they sacrifice detail for speed.”
  — Michael Feinberg [41:31]

---

Important Timestamps & Segments

• Election Analysis and “No Kings” Movement: 01:21–08:15
• Supreme Court Arguments on Tariff Powers: 03:19–14:03
• MAGA vs. No Kings & Political Trends: 15:02–18:15
• Guest: Rep. Jason Crow on Democratic Momentum and Shutdown: 21:13–24:08
• Crow on Trump’s Foreign and Drug Policy: 25:05–28:21
• FBI in Crisis/Patel’s Purges: 30:29–38:24
• DOJ’s “Indict First” Approach in Comey Case: 41:21–44:13

---

Tone and Atmosphere

The tone combines sharp urgency, historical awareness, and a sober warning about institutional drift. The panel’s language is straightforward, often evocative, and occasionally laced with biting wit — especially in comparing Trumpism to historical autocracy and in dissecting the pettiness driving current government purges.

---

Summary Takeaway

This episode paints 2025 as a pivotal moment of democratic pushback against authoritarian drift, with historic voter engagement, judicial scrutiny of executive overreach, and serious warnings about the institutional rot and culture of retribution spreading through federal law enforcement under Trump loyalists. The message: the American public and parts of government are mobilizing to protect constitutional democracy, despite the most severe challenges to it in generations.

Transcript

[Host/Announcer]

They mimic our friends.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

They mirror our family. They share memories we remember.

[Kim Akinstor (MSNBC Political Analyst)]

They ask questions only someone close would know. They speak in the voices we love.

[Host/Announcer]

They wear our faces.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

AI has transformed scamming into a trillion.

[Host/Announcer]

Dollar industry, harming millions of Americans every year. Using new tech to impersonate people we trust. Bitdefender's advanced protection defends your family's devices, data and digital identity.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

Bitdefender protect your family's digital world.

[Host/Announcer]

Are you a parent looking for an independent, flexible and tuition free school in Oregon? Evergreen Virtual Academy offers a dynamic and tuition free public education with Oregon certified teachers for PK through 12th grade students.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

Your student gets a laptop, live class.

[Host/Announcer]

Sessions and the ability to chart their own unique path. Plus in person events and social activities all year. When school has no walls, learning has no limits. Learn more and enroll now. Evergreen Virtual Academy evergreenvirtual.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Or.

[David Frum (Atlantic Staff Writer, Political Commentator)]

So Donald Trump. Since I know you're watching, I have.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

Four words for you.

[Host/Announcer]

Turn the volume up.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Might be one of the bumper stickers that last turned the volume up. Hi again, everyone. It's five o' clock in New York. The winners in last night's weeping victories are making one thing clear. They are not afraid of Donald Trump. The remarkable victories by massive margins by Zohan Mamdani in New York City, Abigail Spamberger in Virginia, Mikey Sherrill in New Jersey, and Prop 50 in the state of California show a wholesale rejection of Trump, Trumpism and his aspiring autocratic governing philosophy. You can see the direct tie between the energy and message of the recent no Kings protests. Seven million people taking to the streets in mid October to last night's resounding turnout wins for Democrats. Even the winners acknowledge the urgency in the fight to protect our democracy. In their victory speeches here in New Jersey, we know that this nation has not ever been, nor will it ever be, ruled by kings. We take oaths to a Constitution, not a king. We've chosen liberty, the very foundation of democracy. And we've chosen prosperity necessary to create opportunity for all. This is where American democracy was born and where we are still working to perfect it today.

[Kim Akinstor (MSNBC Political Analyst)]

Where James Madison built the framework for.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Our Constitution to protect us from tyranny. It is up to us, the citizens, who must put those ideas into action.

[David Frum (Atlantic Staff Writer, Political Commentator)]

And if there is any way to terrify a despot, it is by dismantling the very conditions that allowed him to accumulate power.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

This is not only how we stop.

[David Frum (Atlantic Staff Writer, Political Commentator)]

Trump, it's how we stop the next one.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

And as if on cue, as if he was watching not even 24 hours later, Trump is in line for another potential rejection, this time from an institution that has so far of the last nine months been much friendlier to him in his quest for unbridled power, the United States Supreme Court. This morning, the justices heard arguments on the legality of one of Donald Trump's key economic policy, declaring a national emergency, which is what he did to impose tariffs, a power usually left to the hands of men and women in Congress. It was summed up by the New York Times like this quote, after almost three hours of arguments, the most important takeaway was that the administration's lawyer faced sharp and skeptical questions from several members of the Court's conservative majority indicating that major elements of Trump's tariffs program may be in peril. Take a listen.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

What's the reason to accept the notion.

[Host/Announcer]

That Congress can hand off the power.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

To declare war to the president?

[Host/Announcer]

Well, we don't contend that. Again, that would be.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Well, you do.

[Host/Announcer]

You say it's unreviewable.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

There's no manageable standard, nothing to be done.

[Host/Announcer]

And now you're. I think you tell me if I'm wrong. You backed off that position. Maybe that's fair to say.

[David Frum (Atlantic Staff Writer, Political Commentator)]

Okay.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

And so is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France, I mean, I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy. It was notable. It was a notable degree of skepticism voiced from a majority conservative Supreme Court that has now, again, we just have what we've seen with our own eyes over the last nine months, ruled over and over and over again, again in Donald Trump's favor, most famously before the election, granting the president immunity from criminal prosecution for, quote, official acts, a seeming potential rejection of the overreach and authoritarianism at the ballot box. And the Supreme Court is where we begin the hour with some of our favorite experts and friends. Former top official at the Department of Justice, MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissman is back with us. Also joining us, David Frum. He's a staff writer for the Atlantic and host of the video podcast the the David Frum show, and senior opinion writer and columnist for the Boston Globe. MSNBC political analyst Kim Akinstor is here. Kim, I start with you. What do you think?

[Kim Akinstor (MSNBC Political Analyst)]

You know, I think I start by cautioning against drawing any broad conclusions from oral arguments at the Supreme Court. That can always come back to bite you. But in this case, I found it particularly interesting, the skepticism that you talked about. In that opening segment, skepticism from people like Justice Amy Coney Barrett and particularly Justice Neil Gorsuch. These are both Trump appointees. And I think Justice Gorsuch in particular was really drawing down on this idea of the Congress not being able under the Constitution to designate, to delegate some of its authority to the executive branch when the Constitution clearly intended for it to have it for the Congress to have that. He kept saying, look, if we, Justice Gorsuch, Ash, for example, if we delegate this kind of tariff power to the president, how, how do you get it back? Congress, what if you pass a statute right now, the president can veto it in practical, real world ways. If the president gets this authority, it will always be with the executive branch. He would never see that. No president would. And so that violates the principles of separation of power, regardless of what the statute says. But on the statute itself, it's really hard, it seemed really hard for the justices to buy the fact that a statute that does not mention the words tariff, does not mention the word duty, gives the President this broad power to set tariff, set tariffs entirely based on reasons that he comes up with or no reason at all.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Andrew, that seemed to be where our friend Neil Katiel was trying to go in this argument he made about, about Donald Trump tearing up the entire tariff architecture. Let me play that.

[Congressman Jason Crow]

This president has torn up the entire tariff architecture. You know, for example, he's tariffing Switzerland, one of our allies, which we have a trade surplus 39%. That is just not something that any president has ever had the power to do in our history. And the idea that Congress, by implication did this in 1977 and handed him all this power, I think is really difficult.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Where your, where's your head after hearing the arguments on both sides?

[David Frum (Atlantic Staff Writer, Political Commentator)]

So I'm going to relate this back to some of the speeches that you played at the top of this hour and in the last hour, where you have people winning at the, you know, at the state level, you know, whether it's mayors, governors, and talking about the separation of powers, as Kim said, the idea that the President does not have all of the power, that you have a separation, that is really at the heart of what this case is about, which is, isn't this Congress's power? It is not the President's. If the president wants to do it, he has certain things he can do, but if he wants to go beyond that, he has to go to Congress. And I thought Neil ended with perfect, perfect quote, which is from Justice Robert Jackson, who said in the famous Youngstown Steel case that it is important to have separation of powers to secure liberty. That the reason we divide power in this country, the reason we do not have a king, is that it's better to protect liberty and that that is really the core of what's at issue in this case.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

David Frum, let me play you.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

One.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Of the mask off moments. There were a few, but this is the government acknowledging that up to 80% of the tariffs will be paid for by the American people. Something you've been writing about since Independence Day.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

If a tariff is imposed on automobiles, who pays them?

[Host/Announcer]

Typically there'd be a regardless of who the importer of record is, there'd be a contract that would go along the sort of line of transfer that would allocate the tariff and there'd be different. Sometimes the foreign, the foreign producer would pay them, sometimes the importer would bear the cost. The importer could be an American, could be a foreign company. A lot of times it's a wholly owned American subsidiary of a foreign corporation. So it gets allocated. The empirical estimates range from like 30% to 80% of like how much is borne by.

[Congressman Jason Crow]

I mean it's been suggested that the.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

Tariffs are responsible for significant reduction in our deficit. I would say that's raising revenue domestically.

[Host/Announcer]

There certainly is an incident, incidental and collateral effect of the tariffs that they do raise revenue. But it's very important that they are regulatory tariffs, not revenue raising tariffs.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

30 to 80% paper by the consumer, which if you asked anyone rolling a cart down the aisles at Costco or Walmart, they may not know the number, but they know who's paying for the tariffs.

[Host/Announcer]

Well, the statistic I use is that the tariff raises each month according to the White House itself, in excess of $30 billion a month. Now that is more than the entire value over its entire lifetime before it expires of the no tax on tips gimmick. So you pay every month back more to the government through tariff taxes than you then working people get back. A tariff is a tax. If a President can impose a tariff and can raise his own revenue at his own discretion with no consultation of Congress, he's bust free from the Article 1 rule that Congress taxes. If the President can then take that money and give it to farmers, he's bust free from the Article one rule that only Congress can spend the money. If the President then says, oh by the way, I'm also refusing to spend other money that Congress has voted, he's asserted a new right to not to not spend what Congress has authorized to spend. This case is The Trump administration saying, we want to abolish Article 1. Congress go out of business. You can pass post office, you can name post offices by the president, taxes. The president spends and the president withholds spending. One more point that is really important about the history of this law. This law was passed to limit presidential power, not to expand it. This law was passed in the middle 1970s by post Watergate Congresses who became very frightened about the emergency power. It's left over from not World War II, but World War I. There was a law passed in 1917 called the Trading with the Enemy act that gave the President big powers of the economy and had been used for many things, many of them abusive. And Congress in the middle 70s said that went too far. And this act, we want to roll back economic emergency powers. But even the Trading with the enemy act of 1917 did not give the President the power to tariff. So this act, which is supposed to be less scope than the 1917 law, how can it give him more power than the law it was meant to reduce?

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

I mean, with that stipulated, how did we get this far? David Frum.

[Host/Announcer]

Trump pushes the limits and sees who will tell him no. And so one of the questions on this case, I don't think this is a very, I mean, it's technical, but it's not very difficult. This is a case that is really about the credibility of the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court gives the green light to Donald Trump, they are abolishing Congress's power to tax. They're abolishing Congress's power to spend or not to spend. It's the end of Article 1. You have created in effect, a single headed administration. Mr. Trump is also claiming the courts can't review what he does either. It will be a purely presidential regime.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Can I play a little bit of what Justice Kagan said about this question of that which is unreviewable for you, Andrew Weissman.

[Kim Akinstor (MSNBC Political Analyst)]

You yourself think that the.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

Declaration of Emergency is unreviewable.

[Kim Akinstor (MSNBC Political Analyst)]

And even if it's not unreviewable, it's of course the kind of determination that.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

This court would grant considerable deference to the President on. So that doesn't seem like much of.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

A concern, but it is. And in fact, you know, we've had.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

Cases recently which deals with the President's emergency powers. And it turns out we're in emergencies.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Everything all the time, about like half.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

The world.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Emergencies all the time. That is the, to the degree that there's a governing philosophy that is it.

[David Frum (Atlantic Staff Writer, Political Commentator)]

Do you.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

I mean, it seems foolish to think that the Supreme Court has found a limit, but it sounds like they might have. Is that a fair read?

[David Frum (Atlantic Staff Writer, Political Commentator)]

I think that's right. I mean, tie that to what David was saying. I think we are hearing this actually from all of us, which is on the one hand, this case, this specific case is about sort of Congress has this power and the court should not cede that there's three branches of government. And what Justice Kagan is basically saying is, look, you, the Trump administration are saying the court doesn't even have the power to review this. So to David's point, if the court can't review it and you're taking the power away from Congress, that goes to the we now have a king. There are no other branches to check that power. It's so violative of not just the spirit, but the actual letter of the Constitution that you have three branches of the government. And so that's why I think you were hearing pushback from a surprising wide variety of justices, not just the sort of so called three liberal justices.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Kim, I want to put up another number for you. MAGA is now underwater 13 points to a movement that didn't exist nine months ago, the no Kings protest movement. It has no clear single person or leader. It is an idea. It is an idea that doesn't really limit itself to age or gender or race or geography or size of its movement. But more people identify themselves under the banner of being for no Kings than right now identify themselves as being for Donald Trump's Make America Great Again movement. What does that say to you?

[Kim Akinstor (MSNBC Political Analyst)]

You know, for a while, since Trump came on the scene, there's been a lot of talk about who would be the leader on the Democratic side, who would be the figurehead who could message and be a counterp point to Donald Trump. But that figurehead never emerged. What is so interesting about the no Kings movement is that it has no figurehead. It is from the people themselves who take to the streets with homemade signs that can't be, you know, called mass manufactured with of all ages of different across regions from coast to coast to really say we don't like what is happening. They are using their voice in every way that they can to speak out and say, this is not the democracy that I learned and I loved about this country that I learned in school. This is something entirely different that I also learned in school that led to terrible results in places like Germany. This is not the America that we want. So that's a really astounding rejection. And I think in the election results we saw last night wide. I'm loathe to nationalize local races because I think they're way more complex than that. Certainly in Virginia and New Jersey, places where people have been impacted by the shutdown, where people have been impacted by the loss of federal jobs, where people have been impacted by the aviation industry and how the hit that they've been taking are saying, enough, we don't want this. We may not love the person that is running, but we definitely need a change from, from where we are right now.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

David, from your takeaways from watching all the results come in last night.

[Host/Announcer]

Well, let me say one thing on behalf of kings. This is history that the founders of the country would have known. Well, the English kings and then the British kings did not actually claim the right to tax. The last English king to say who made the claim that Donald Trump is claiming I can tax without Parliament, without Congress was Charles I and the English in the 1640s. And the English cut his head off for that. So from then on, it was pretty clear. Kings can't tax without Parliament. Even in England, George III couldn't tax without Parliament. It was parliament that laid those taxes that would have been 101 to the people who wrote the Constitution. Obviously, the executive cannot tax by itself, but that's the power that Donald Trump is claiming. He's claiming to be much more than any king that any American ever knew, even before there was an independent American republic.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

It's amazing and there is something just visceral that people are rejecting. David from Come back in store. It's great to see you today. Thank you so much for starting us off. Andrew Weissman is going to be back with us later in the hour. When we come back, the Democratic Party for giant steps forward on the road to a massive political comeback. Possibly reaction to the very successful election night with a top House Democrat is next. Also ahead, a sharp rebuke against FBI Director Kash Patel, who continues to carry out a campaign of revenge and retribution against individual FBI agents who have simply been doing their jobs. What the FBI Agents association, which represents more than 90% of all active FBI agents, is saying about Kash Patel's firings at the FBI and the chaos that is ensuing that reporting later in the hour. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[Host/Announcer]

Pandora makes it easy for you to find your favorite music, discover new artists and genres by selecting any song or album and we'll make you a personalized station for free download on the Apple App Store or Google Play and enjoy the soundtrack to your Life. Netcredit is here to say yes to a personal loan or line of credit when other lenders say no, apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. If approved, applications are typically funded the next business day or sooner. Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner banks and serviced by NetCredit applications subject to review and approval. Learn more at netcredit.com partners NetCredit credit.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

To the People Dogs deserve the best, and that means fresh, healthy food. Unlike other brands, Ollie offers five flavors.

[Host/Announcer]

That are as nutritious as they are.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Delicious, all made in US kitchens without harmful fillers or preservatives. Head to ollie.com, tell them all about your dog and use code HappyPup to get 60% off your welcome kit with a bonus you'll get a storage container for a mess free experience and it comes with a 30 day money back guarantee if your dog doesn't lick the bowl clean Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican Party are making history today. Today is day 36 of what is officially the longest government shutdown in our country's history. Donald Trump is beating the previous record set by Donald Trump during his first term as president. And today Trump is still displaying no interest in negotiating to end the shut, despite its impact on Americans. With food aid being disruptive for millions of people and the boost the shutdown gave to Democrats in Democratic campaigns last night in their major victories across the country, including the governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey. We want to bring in Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado. He was first elected to the House of representatives in 2018, along with now governors Mikey Sherrill and Abigail Spamberger. How are you feeling today and did you hear from either either governor elect today?

[Congressman Jason Crow]

I did. I mean, Abigail and Mikey ran incredible races. I came in with them in 2018. We're very close friends. I was supporting them in New Jersey and Virginia over the last week up there campaigning and you know, seeing them campaign meeting their constituents was energizing. It was amazing and it is showing me what's happening around this country. Not just in Virginia, not just in New Jersey, but in rural Pennsylvania, in Colorado, in my own district where city councils and mayors races and school boards flipped. There is something really big happening. The comeback has started. The movement is beginning. America is repudiating mega. They are repudiating Donald Trump. They want people to actually govern.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

How do you sustain that from these huge outside of all of the predictions and modeled polling wins last night, how do you sustain that through the midterms and Beyond.

[Congressman Jason Crow]

Well, it's actually the opposite issue. It's not how we sustain it. Confidence builds on itself. Courage is contagious. You know, we are showing that we are in this fight. Right. There are people stepping up around this country. You know, I am the recruitment chair for the dccc, which means I'm running around this country finding that next generation of candidates that who are stepping up to take back this country. And they are unbelievable. The people who are stepping up are just unbelievable. They are inspiring me. People are saying enough is enough. I am willing to stand in the breach and fight for my country and defend my country. And every American should be inspired by that.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

What is the framework around which we should understand the shutdown? I mean, it's now the longest in history. Trump says he has no interest in ending it. And voters blame Trump and the Republicans for the shutdown itself. How does it end and how do we get the government back open?

[Congressman Jason Crow]

Yeah, there's no framework. It's very simple. Donald Trump wants to keep the government shut. He wants to inflict pain on the American people and he wants to weaponize hunger. He wants to weaponize government services. He wants to weaponize health care to consolidate power. That's what's happening. Democrats want to govern. We're here to govern. We actually want to find a deal. But you know what? I'm not going to compromise on the Constitution and rule of law. I am willing to make a deal on policy, but I'm not going to allow Americans to lose their health care coverage and blow up the health care system. I'm not going to allow children to go hungry and to be starved by Donald Trump. And I'm not going to allow Donald Trump to violate the Constitution and violate the law. Those things are non negotiable. So Donald Trump needs to come to his senses more clearly. Republicans in Congress need to come to their senses and they need to open up Congress, come back from their vacations, work with us to cut a deal and put guardrails in place to protect our democracy.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

I want to share with you some reporting in the New York Times. The latest strike on a suspected drug boat has killed two people in the Pacific. The Times reports that this, quote, it was the 16th announced strike in the offensive that began in early September. It raises the death toll to at least 67 people and attacks in both the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific. In a post on social media, Hegses cited intelligence and showed a short video clip of the bombing of a boat. But he did not provide evidence for his claim that two Men who were aboard were smuggling narcotics. What has been briefed to you about either who they're striking? What evidence exists that there are drugs on these boats? What evidence exists that the drugs are bound for the United States? And do you know for certain that it's the military? A military, former military official suggested in our program on Friday that it's not even clear who's carrying out the strikes.

[Congressman Jason Crow]

Yeah, it is military. I'm on the Intelligence and Armed Services Committee. I've received several, I guess you could call them briefings. They certainly were inadequate and didn't have a lot of information. And the briefers posed raised more questions for us than answers. But listen, this is all madness. I was an Army Ranger, a paratrooper. I did three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. We spent the last 25 years, $3 trillion, 7,000American lives, decades of lost opportunity, and those wars ended up poorly. Right. And now Donald Trump doesn't see a single problem that he doesn't think he can bomb his way out of without briefing Congress, without declaring a conflict. He just thinks he can bomb anybody and everybody wherever he wants. And guess what? He's spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to blow up a couple of wooden boats in the Caribbean. Right. There's an aircraft carrier battle group heading there. There are submarines. There are. There are some of the most technological advanced aircraft in the world, dozens of them, going after a bunch of wooden drug boats. Do I want to stop the flow of drugs in America? Yes. Is this the way to do it? No. Is this dangerous and going to end poorly? Yeah, I think it will.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

What do you, based on what you see and what is publicly known about positioning of military assets, what do you think they're doing?

[Congressman Jason Crow]

Well, it certainly doesn't seem to be a strategy. You know, I walked away from my briefing last week, for example. So briefers came onto the Hill last week to brief us, and what I heard was a tactical briefing. Now, I've sat in hundreds of tactical briefings when I was a Ranger, when I was a paratrooper, since I've been a member of Congress. And I know a tactical briefing that doesn't have a strategy when I see one. There's no strategy. Let me be clear here. The Trump administration has no strategy and no end game to end the flow of drugs into the United States. They don't. All they're doing is just bombing boats, posting videos online, thinking people think that it'll be serious and that they're serious about the war on drugs. They're not. There's no strategy. And this is not going to address our 70 year problem with drugs in America. America deserves a strategy. Our kids do something real with an end game, not just wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to get some videos of, you know, F35s blowing up wooden boats.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Do the briefings include evidence of the existence of the drugs and evidence of the past and the ability of those crafts to make it to the United States?

[Congressman Jason Crow]

Again, Nicole, I think that's the wrong. That's the wrong question, right? That's the tactical question. Are there boats? Do those boats have drugs in them? Are they coming to the United States? The answer is probably yes to all of those. But the real question here is what is the strategy to end this? We've been doing this for 70 years. We've been trying to stop the flow of drugs into the United States for 70 years. And it's like a big game of whack. A mole, right? We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in literally the most advanced weaponry and systems in the world, paid for by our taxpayers. And for something that is not going to actually end the flow.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

I guess I asked because as a local reporter in California on i5 when there was a big drug bust, they would call in all the reporters, no matter the hour, and we would come in with our cameras and shoot the pictures of the drugs that were taken. It's just sort of astounding that Trump, who's such a showman, hasn't had any displays of the evidence he says or the drugs he says he's keeping from showing up in our country or in our neighborhoods. Congressman, we appreciate your time. Congratulations again on a big night for Democrats. To be continued. When we come back, why FBI Director Kash Patel is getting hammered by the group that represents the vast majority of his workforce, the bureau's agents, for carrying out what they are calling a, quote, erratic and arbitrary retribution campaign. We'll have that story after quick break.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

Hey, this is Will Arnett, host of Smartless.

[Host/Announcer]

Smartless is a podcast with myself and Sean Hayes and Jason Bateman, where each.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

Week one of us reveals a mystery.

[Host/Announcer]

Guest to the other two. We dive deep with guests that you.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

Love like Bill Hader, Selena Gomez, Jennifer.

[Host/Announcer]

Aniston, David Beckham, Kristen Stewart, and tons more.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

So join us for a genuinely improvised and authentic conversation filled with laughter and.

[Host/Announcer]

Newfound knowledge to feed the smartless mind.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

Listen to Smartless now on the SiriusXM app.

[Host/Announcer]

Download it. Today, NetCredit is here to say yes to a personal loan or line of credit when other lenders say no, apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. If approved, applications are typically funded the next business day or sooner. Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner banks and serviced by NetCredit. Applications subject to review and approval. Learn more at netcredit.com partners NetCredit Credit to the people Extra value meals are back for just $5. Get a savory and sweet sausage, egg and cheese McGriddles plus hash browns and a coffee only at McDonald's for a limited time only. Prices and participation may vary. Prices may be higher in Hawaii, Alaska and California. California and for delivery.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

So just how bad is Kash Patel's leadership at the FBI? It is so bad that with his latest chaotic firings, the FBI Agents association, which represents 14,000 agents, including more than 90% of all active FBI agents, has issued a blistering public rebuke calling Kash Patel's actions, quote, erratic and arbitrary retribution. As a part of the ongoing Purge at the FBI, several agents who worked on investigations related to Donald Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election results were fired by Kash Patel earlier this week, then reinstated after pushback from none other than Acting D.C. u.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, only to be fired again by Kash Patel the next morning. After that, nonsensical and arbitrary whiplash, an FBI Agents association spokesperson telling Axios that the firings, quote, highlight the chaos that occurs when longstanding policies and processes are ignored. An agent simply being assigned to an investigation and conducting it appropriately within the law should never be grounds for termination. Quote, FBI agents deal in facts, and we urge Director Patel to do the same. When leadership abandons due process, it doesn't just erode trust, it makes the American public less safe. FBI agents must be free to focus on protecting the American people, not fear losing their jobs over third party social media posts. Joining our coverage, former assistant Special Agent in Charge at the FBI, MSNBC national security and intelligence analyst Michael Feinberg. He's also a fellow at Lawfare. Former top official at the Department of Justice and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissman is also back with us. Michael, this is in substance, a lot of the things we've heard from you in your first post in Lawfare and on your appearances on this show. But just tell me the significance of it coming from the association that represents 90% of the active duty agents.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

This statement is actually quite extraordinary, and it's for reasons that may not at first be obvious to the general public, FBI agents for a variety of reasons and a variety of statutes do not have access to a lot of the mechanisms other federal employees have to protect their rights and their livelihood. FBI agents cannot unionize. Most of them do not have access to the Merit Systems Protection Board. There are different whistleblower procedures for FBI employees than there are for general government employees. As a result, the only means that FBI agents have to protect their own interests is through the FBI Agents Association. Now, because of that, the FBI Agents association recognizes and always has that it is only as valuable as it is able to influence and regularly meet with the director or the Deputy director of the the organization. So they have always bent over backwards to never directly criticize the director or directly antagonize him. The fact that they are willing to draw this line in the sand and come out with language as strong as that statement does really shows that things are much more dire for the workforce than we even imagined.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

And can you just give me your analysis based on what they say and what you know about whether there is a tipping point dynamic, whether it is firing the agent who had knowledge of the use of the private jet or whether it is the cumulative hollowing out of the FBI that inspired this very rare rebuke for all the reasons you described as being rare.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

I think the FBI workforce really got amped up to a state of panic when then deputy Attorney, then Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove requested and then demanded the names of every single agent who worked on a January 6th investigation. As you know, FBI agents do not get to choose what cases they work on. They're assigned to them. So the notion that a line agent would be punished simply for doing his or her job was really a shock to the system. And what we've seen since then is things get worse. Agents and executives are getting fired left and right for random and political reasons. Everybody knows that agents have been fired because they worked on investigations into Donald Trump and his associates. What they might not realize is that other agents have been erroneously fired because the administration read on Twitter that Agent Smith or Agent Jones also worked on that case, even though that's not true. So in addition to assigned agents who investigated Trump being fired, agents who've just gotten in the crosshairs of random posters on Twitter are in the same boat. There is a random element that is terrifying.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Andrew Heisman it would be traumatic to use Russ Vogt's word for any workforce. It feels like it is catastrophic for the one in charge of law enforcement for every American. And I want to show you how small ball obsessed they are. These are Kash Patel's public statements about the use of a private jet.

[Congressman Jason Crow]

You know, I'm not the defund everything guy. I'm just saying Chris Wray doesn't need a government funded G5 jet to go to vacation. Maybe we ground that plane 15,000 every time it takes off. This is odd. We're not the guys running around on private jets. And somebody maybe in Congress should ask for how many flights on a private jet Director Comey took or my predecessor Director Ray took and how many personal trips they took.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

And this is reporting in Bloomberg, quote, FBI oust leader as Patel fumes over attention to agency jet use which he very publicly there thrust into the news himself. Quote, the FBI forced out a senior official overseeing aviation Shortly after Director Kash Patel grew outraged about revelations of his publicly available jet logic indicating he'd flown to see his musician girlfriend perform. That's according to three people familiar with the situation. Stephen Palmer, a 27 year veteran of the FBI became the third head of the Critical Incident Response Group which includes FBI pilots to be fired or removed in Kash Patel's short regime, adding to a year filled with retribution, terminations. It's getting harder and harder to pull out and not flatten what is a drumbeat of purges and firings from the FBI and the Department of Justice. But this single example of hypocrisy of a government official doing the thing he went on TV and attacked other government officials of doing. And then the retribution he carried out because flight logs became public that are publicly available. Nobody leaked. Let me be clear, nobody leaked the logs to the press. They're publicly available. What do you make of both this incident and the rebuke from the agents Association?

[David Frum (Atlantic Staff Writer, Political Commentator)]

Well, let's just start with the rebuke because that's the more serious issue. I think people need to just step back and say when you have a director of the FBI, you want their loyalty to be to the safety of the American people. You want them to be thinking about having the best agents, analysts and staff at the FBI possible. And that is just simply not what we are seeing. There still has not been an after action after what appeared by all accounts to be the clown show of how the FBI handled the Charlie Kirk assassination when you would normally expect the FBI to be showing itself at its absolute best in the reports of what Cash Patel were doing were truly outrageous. And for me, having been trained by Robert Mueller, I was trained in if you make mistakes, you own up. You have reports, you do a whole after action of what happened. How are we going to deal with this better. This is just the absolute contrary result, which is firing people for political reasons, then the plane. There's a whole protocol for how that's supposed to be dealt with. The general counsel signing, signing off on that. And it appears that none of that is happening. For this to come out this way, for Cash Patel to be handling it in this fashion.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

It's just an interesting anecdote about retribution on top of retribution and what a culture of retribution ushers in. Right. The firings en masse are because of Donald Trump's desire for retribution against every agent that was assigned by Chris Wray and others to work on the J6 or the documents case. But the culture of retribution has ushered in retributive conduct by Kash Patel, who, based on Bloomberg's reporting, is punishing someone who had some ancillary role in the existence of the logs. I want to drill down more on this. I have to sneak in a quick break before I do that. We'll all be right back on the other side. We're back with Michael and Andrew. So, Michael, this is what Politico is reporting about the case against Comey, which Comey and his legal team are claiming is a vindictive prosecution. Quote, a federal magistrate judge scolded Justice Department prosecutors on Wednesday for a, quote, indict first investigate, second posture in the criminal case against former director of the FBI Jim Comey, raising new questions about a highly unusual case that was ordered up at President Donald Trump's command. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick raised his concerns at a hearing to resolve questions about how prosecutors. Prosecutors were handling evidence against Comey. It is extraordinary that it has come to this point and reached this moment with this rebuke from the judge. But do you think it stops here.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

The rebuke or the politically motivated prosecutions?

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Well, the.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

I don't think we're going to see either of them stop.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Yeah. Really? Say more.

[Andrew Weissman (Former DOJ Official, MSNBC Legal Analyst)]

Well, look, this is a real deviation from the FBI and DOJ norms during my entire time, and I imagine during Andrew's as well, the FBI and the Department of Justice would not bring a case unless it knew it could win that case. And that's not out of a sense of ego or a desire to have an impressive scorecard. It's because when you're dealing in actions that could take away somebody's liberty, that can confine somebody to life in prison, you need to be extremely certain that you have the facts on your side and that you have the law on your side. And as a result, you don't bring charges until you know that you have looked at every possible angle of the case at hand. It is very clear that in their rush to indict Jim Comey, they sacrifice detail for speed.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Andrew.

[David Frum (Atlantic Staff Writer, Political Commentator)]

I wanted to just raise one other thing, because in addition to the magistrate judge, there is a district judge who also issued a rebuke yesterday. It had been ordered by that judge that the government had to turn over the grand jury transcript where Lindsey Haligen presented the case. And what, according to the judge, was turned over was just the part of the grand jury transcript where the witness testified that none of the direction, none of the colloquy between Lindsey Halligan and the grand jurors, in other words, what the law is, what they have to find, what the standard of proof is. That's the critical part. None of that was turned over. So the judge had to issue a second order that basically said, I said what I meant. It is that is remarkable. Obviously, it raises a lot of suspicion about what could be in there because they didn't, according to the judge, comply with her first order. And Lindsey Halligan is not an experienced criminal prosecutor. So of course, you can imagine the defense is going to be very interested in what she said and what she didn't say and whether she correctly instructed a grand jury. That is something, by the way, that criminal prosecutors are trained on as to what they can say, what they shouldn't say. So I would be very, very curious to see what is in there. And it does raise suspicions as to why that was not turned over by Lindsey Halligan pursuant to the court order that directed her to do that.

[MSNBC Political Analyst/Commentator]

Andrew Weissman and Michael Feinberg, thank you both so much for joining us on these stories today. We're grateful. One more break. We'll be right back. We're learning more today about a deadly crash of a UPS cargo jet at the Louisville International Airport in Kentucky. At least 11 people are now confirmed to have died after the crash yesterday afternoon. Federal investigators say the left wing of the plane caught fire and its engine broke off shortly after takeoff en route to Honolulu. The plane struggled to gain altitude and crashed in a fireball near an auto parts store and petroleum recycling business. All three people on board were killed and at least eight people on the ground. Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear said the incident could have been far worse had the plane not narrowly missed major office buildings near the crash site. We'll keep an update on any developments from Louisville. One more break. We'll be right back. The Democratic Party's future looks a lot brighter after last night's sweeping victories. Two people who care deeply about the Democratic Party and the country. Our former Obama senior advisors Jon Favreau and Tommy Vitor. They are two of the hosts of Pod Save America and they are my guests on this week's episode of the Best People Podcast. Just scan the QR code on your screen to watch the whole conversation on YouTube or download the Best People wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes today. We are grateful.

[Host/Announcer]

Extra Value meals are back. That means 10 tender juicy McNuggets and medium fries and a drink are just doll McDonald's for a limited time only. Prices and participation may vary. Prices may be higher in Hawaii, Alaska and California. And for delivery.