← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“Trump DOJ fought the law, and the law won”
00:42:52
Nicolle Wallace covers the breaking news that a judge has derailed U.S. Attorney for DC Jeanine Pirro’s case against Federal Chair Jerome Powell. Judge Boasberg wrote that the DOJ was trying to use this case against Powell to pressure him to vote for lower interest rates or to pressure him to resign, and that there was little to no evidence presented to charge Powell with an actual crime.
Loading summary
Transcript72 lines
- [00:01]
Commercial Narrator
Day or night. VRBoCare is here 247 to help make every part of your stay seamless. If anything comes up or you simply need a little guidance, support is ready whenever you reach out. From the moment you book to the
- [00:17]
moment you head home, we're here to
- [00:19]
help things run smoothly because a great trip starts with the right support. And hey, a good playlist doesn't hurt either.
- [00:31]
Your home holds the story of your life. Renewal by Andersen Windows are built to weather every season with you. They frame the little moments and the big ones, from first steps to graduation to new beginnings. While life keeps moving, our windows stand strong through every chapter. Let Renewal by Andersen be part of your story. Windows built to last. Visit renewalbyandersonhome.com to learn more.
- [01:06]
Nicole Wallace
Hi there everyone. It's four o' clock in New York. Donald Trump's handpicked US Attorney Jeanine Pirro fought the law. And in this instance, the law won. We come on the air with the breaking news that a federal judge today derailed the case Pirro has been trying to assemble against Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Judge James Boasberg blocked the subpoenas served to the Federal Reserve regarding its building renovation. Writing in his ruling, this quote, a mountain of evidence suggests that the government served these subpoenas to pressure Powell into voting for lower interest rates or resigning. Judge Boasberg said Pirro's office, quote, has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime. Indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the court can only conclude that that they are pretextual. The court therefore finds that the subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose and will quash them. In a press conference a few minutes ago, Pirro tried to save face. She accused Judge Boasberg of showing a bias against Donald Trump. She also added that she will appeal this decision by Judge Boasberg. This stinging blow to her case is just the latest rebuke and defeat for the Trump DOJ as it pursues anyone Donald Trump places on his enemies list for investigation and prosecution. That pattern did not go unnoticed by Judge Boasberg in his ruling when he wrote this quote, being perceived as the president's adversary has become risky in recent years. In his second term, Trump has urged the Department of Justice to prosecute such people, and the department's prosecutors have listened. For instance, the president exhorted the attorney general to prosecute Jim Comey, Adam Schiff and Letitia James. Consistent with this pattern, DOJ now set its sights on Powell. That is where we start today. Former cop, DOJ official and general counsel for the FBI. Our legal analyst Andrew Weissman is here. Also joining us, justice and intelligence reporter Kendallanian is here. I want to start with you, Andrew Weissman. I mean, Judge Boasberg himself now counts as someone the president has smeared and labeled as essentially a political adversary. This ruling doesn't speak to that, but it does make clear that the evidence did not match the moves that Trump's DOJ sought to make here against chair Jerome Powell.
- [03:31]
Andrew Weissman
Well, first, with respect to the judges, it's worth noting that Judge Boasberg is joined in many, many rulings against this administration, including by judges appointed by Donald Trump in his first term. So you are seeing judges across the board and across political spectrums and ideologies ruling against the administration. This decision, I want to make sure people understand, is extraordinary in this regard. It is a very, very low standard to get a grand jury subpoena, and it is exceptionally hard to have a grand jury subpoena quashed. You essentially need to have a good faith basis in order to have grand jury subpoena issued and to not have it quashed. If you've got any legitimate ground to go forward and you're conducting yourself in any responsible way, you should be able to have a grand jury subpoena enforced. And, and I've been a defense lawyer for years as well, and I would always advise people that it's just not possible to get these things quashed. That is what's so extraordinary here because of the nature of the evidence. And the main evidence that the judge points to is Donald Trump's public statements, where I think in a very apt quote, Judge Boasberg hearkens back to King Henry ii, saying, is there no one there to rid me of this meddlesome priest? Referring to Thomas Becket, and says that is what President Trump was saying with respect to Jerome Powell and quoting him over and over and over again, trying to get rid of him. And so what ultimately happens is the judge says it's clearly just a pretext, and he relies on absolutely clear Supreme Court precedent in our enterprises case that says that you cannot use grand jury subpoenas to just harass somebody for improper purposes. And that is what the judge found. I can't stress enough how unusual it is in the sign of the, the bottom that we are still reaching with this Department of Justice and this administration that's been found by this court. And final point is it's worth noting we've seen judges take issue with cases that have been brought once a grand jury is indicted. Abrego Garcia is now litigating the issue of selective and vindictive enforcement. James Comey and Letitia James made motions on that. We've also seen grand juries refuse to indict. But now we're seeing a federal district judge who's extremely respected saying, I'm not even going to enforce a grand jury subpoena. It's the very, very incipient part how you sort of begin an investigation, because I'm finding it's for improper purposes.
- [06:36]
Nicole Wallace
Kendallanian Judge Jeanine. I always want to call her Judge Judy. Judge Jeanine Pirro has failed to indict the sandwich guy. Judge Jeanine Pirro has failed to indict the six Democratic lawmakers who made the video telling men and women of the military not to obey illegal orders. Judge Jeanine Pirro oversees an office that has gutted its national security, counterterror and anti corruption assets. And it now appears that Judge Jeanine's office is, as Andrew Weissman just points out, incapable of getting a subpoena. This sort of preliminary step or beginning step in an intended prosecution of one of Trump's biggest targets for political smears.
- [07:22]
Ken Dilanian
Yes. And anyone who watched her news conference in the last hour, you could see that Judge Jeanine Perro is a good communicator. She's been on Fox News for years. She knows she's a great talker. And she articulated the law, as Andrew described, how really low the standard is for a grand jury. She pointed out that the law allows the grand jury to investigate potential crimes based on rumors, based on news reports. But what she didn't address is the judge's argument, really and conclusion in this ruling that all of that was done for an improper purpose, as Andrew said. And you know, Judge Boasberg started this lengthy opinion with a quote from Donald Trump on Truth Social, calling Jerome Powell stupid and political and a loser. And he said that was one of a hundred instances where Trump or his minions have attacked Powell and the Fed. And that was the point. The point is not that a grand jury doesn't have the authority to do this. They absolutely do. But they can't do it to harass. They can't do it for a fishing expedition. And, you know, we're gonna see because we've seen it before, this is not Judge Boasberg's first fight with the Trump administration. And he will be attacked by Donald Trump's allies as a far left extremist. Gene Pirro called him an activist judge. So let's understand who Judge Boasberg is. Judge Boasberg attended the elite St. Albans school here in D.C. a conservative religious school. He went on to Yale, and he was first elevated to the bench by George W. Bush. At Yale, he was at Skull and Bones, which is the secret society where the Bushes were members also. So George W. Bush elevated him to the bench, and then he was elevated further by Barack Obama. He is a well regarded, well respected down the middle, a jurist here in Washington, D.C. and he made a thorough argument here just demolishing the idea that this investigation was on a level. And let's remember what this investigation's about. It's supposedly about Powell may have lied to Congress in his testimony about the renovations and the expense and the potential cost overruns of the Federal Reserve building. Does anyone who's observed Jerome Powell's career for any length of time believe that that's the kind of thing that he would do, that he really cares whether there's nicer marble or a better elevator in the Federal Reserve Building? He's not even going to be there to see the end of the project. It just didn't pass the laugh test all the way around. And so they're going to appeal. And look, this may not be the last word because there's some interesting legal issues here raised about what is an improper purpose and what is the extent to which a grand jury can do its work. But this was, as you said, a stark repudiation of the Justice Department today.
- [09:56]
Nicole Wallace
And let me just fill in some of these chapters for our audience. The accusations that were levied against Judge Boasberg. He was the obstacle, I guess. Or he ruled against the Trump administration when they wanted to use the Alien Enemies act to deport people in this country and deprive them of due process. Wasn't that one of the original friction points between the Trump administration and Judge Boseberg, Ken?
- [10:28]
Ken Dilanian
Yes. And he began a lengthy inquiry into whether they violated his orders. And he wouldn't let it go even when it became moot because the larger issue had been resolved at a higher court. And that really annoyed the Trump administration. And he made people come in and testify under oath about what happened. And we learned new things. And remember, this is about whether the planes were in the air when he ordered them not to be deporting these people, these undocumented immigrants who were being deported to these countries to El Salvador and other places. And he was believed and was trying to figure out whether they willfully violated his orders. And I don't think he ever got to the bottom of that. But that really drew the ire of the Trump administration.
- [11:14]
Nicole Wallace
And let me just read this to you, Andrew Weissman. This is from the reporting in the New York Times about this. I don't even want to call it a standoff. The Trump administration either defied or didn't want to have to prove that it didn't defy his order, and so they smeared him. The New York Times wrote this about the complaint. The complaint was filed in July. It coincided with a broad and ongoing effort by Trump administration officials and their allies to attack the credibility of judges who rule against the Trump administration and in some cases, to call for their impeachment. Judge Boasberg, the chief of the federal district court for the District of Columbia, became a particular focus after he attempted to block the deportations to El Salvador, then attempted to open an inquiry into why planes headed for the prison did not turn around despite a court order. Because so much news, I think, consumes the limited airtime and limited space, you might think that these attacks have abated. They have not have written, I think even just in the last 10 days, pretty scathing statements about all of the areas and ways in which the Trump administration is in violation of court orders. Just speak about this sort of barely under the surface simmering conflict, I guess, is the best way to put it, between the Trump administration and the judiciary. Andrew Weissman, Sure.
- [12:41]
Andrew Weissman
Well, let's start with the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanch actually said to the federal society there needs to be a war on the judges. This is part of an effort because they see the judges ruling against them to try and smear anything that stands in their way. We've seen it. And with respect to law firms, we see it. With respect to journalists, we see it in all, all walks of life that that's what happens with respect to judges being smeared, where it also has real life consequences in terms of death threats to them and their families. And I mean, real consequences. It's worth remembering that when the tariff decision came out, which was 6 to 3 against Donald Trump and his administration, what did the president do? What was the first thing he did is, was to attack the three conservative jurors who joined the majority, including the two justices who he had appointed with the idea that they somehow owed him to rule in his favor because he had appointed them. Just think about that. Is that, is that the rule of law? Is that what we want in this country? There are jurists of all stripes who have been ruling against this administration, not for political reasons. It that doesn't even work because the judges come from all sorts of backgrounds. Politically, it's because of what is happening with the administration. Just recently in Minnesota, a judge appointed by Donald Trump in the first administration found that the administration was violating the Fourth Amendment and was seizing and arresting people based on race and ethnicity. That was a Donald Trump appointed judge who said that. And so this is just an example of Judge Boasberg really adhering to his oath of office. And this is one where the appeal of this may be one where the administration maybe will get a ruling with respect to the legal principle saying that they're right on that, but the. They're not going to win on the facts. In other words, this is an appeal where it's hard to see that they're really going to prevail because the facts here are so absolutely crystal clear. As you noted, there is a mountain of evidence that the reason this was being done was solely to harass Jerome Powell, as the court found.
- [15:17]
Nicole Wallace
And behind every politically motivated attempt to harass, investigate, prosecute a perceived political enemy is some perceived slight. This was a joint appearance, public appearance with Jerome Powell and Donald Trump in which chair Jerome Powell. Correct. Fact checks Donald Trump in real time. Let me play that.
- [15:40]
Frank Kendall
It looks like it's about 3.1 billion. It went up a little bit or a lot. So the 2.7 is now 3.1.
- [15:48]
Nicole Wallace
I'm not aware of that.
- [15:49]
Frank Kendall
Yeah, it just came out. Yeah, I haven't heard that from anybody at the Fed. Our notes had it about 3.1 as well. 3.2.
- [16:03]
Nicole Wallace
This came from us.
- [16:04]
Frank Kendall
Yes. I don't know who does that. You're including the Martin renovation. You just added. You just said. You just added in a third building, is what that is. That's a third building. It's a building that's being built.
- [16:18]
Nicole Wallace
No, it's been.
- [16:19]
Frank Kendall
It was built five years ago. Are there things the chairman can say
- [16:22]
Andrew Weissman
to you today that would make you
- [16:23]
Frank Kendall
back off some of the earlier criticism? Well, I'd love him to lower interest rates.
- [16:29]
Nicole Wallace
So even there, Kendallanian, there is a smear that's a lie, that's fact checked. And then the whole thing is about what he wants him to do. The whole thing is about Donald Trump's desire that Jerome Powell lower interest rates. It all plays out in public. And that seemed to bite the U.S. attorney's office in the butt today.
- [16:54]
Ken Dilanian
It really did. Because is there anyone who doesn't understand what's going on here? Donald Trump is the guy that's building the ballroom. I mean, he doesn't Have. He's not exactly known as a steward of public money. And by the way, he's pardoned people who have committed frauds that if you add them all up, probably add up to more money than this Federal Reserve renovation cost is costing the taxpayers. And so that was a setup, right, that was designed to embarrass Powell and to sort of bring this point home to his base. I guess, that there is a problem here, that these renovations somehow have been corrupt and overspent. And again, they're just. The inspector general has looked at this stuff and has not found that. So there's just not evidence to support that. But even if there was, Judge Boasberg lays out here why that's not the real purpose of this investigation, and that's why he quashed these subpoenas.
- [17:50]
Nicole Wallace
You know, Andrew Weissman, I don't know if Jeanine Pirro wants to be thought of as a serious person or prosecutor or she's happy sort of in the headset vein of a TV host playing in a role in government. But this is what Boasberg writes about, sort of the weakness and fecklessness of her attempt at prosecuting Powell. Quote, where Pulte and Trump pointed, the U.S. attorney's office followed it opened a grand jury investigation into the renovations and Powell's testimony, and served the two subpoenas at issue here. In sum, the President spent years essentially asking if no one will rid him of his troublesome bed chair. He then suggested a specific line of investigation into him, which had been proposed by a political appointee with no role in law enforcement, who hinted that it could be a way to remove Powell. The president's appointed prosecutor promptly complied. Those facts strongly imply that this investigation was launched for an improper purpose. As with the resulting subpoenas, the taint suggests that this office is going to have a very hard time successfully prosecuting and convicting any of Trump's perceived political enemies because they've been so flagrant and blatant and public and loud about their intentions.
- [19:02]
Commercial Narrator
Evidence.
- [19:04]
Andrew Weissman
Absolutely. You know, this is something having read very carefully the briefs by Letitia James and James Comey when they were making arguments for a very similar kind of claim, selective prosecution, vindictive prosecution. One of the key things they cited to was all of the attacks by the President, all the public smearing by them. That is exactly as Ken points out and as you pointed out, what Judge Boasberg does here to show just how pretextual this is and that this is really just being orchestrated by the White House with no factual basis to support the investigation. Again, an unusual decision here that shows just how much you have toadies within the Department of Justice, according to Judge Boasberg, who are just doing the president's bidding.
- [20:00]
Nicole Wallace
It's just amazing that so many people operate as though in three years this won't all one way or the other be over, that they won't have to go find jobs or work or clients. Andrew Weisman and Kendallane, and thank you for jumping on the air and starting us off on the breaking news. When we come back, Donald Trump and his administration confronted with the realities of a deadly and costly and increasingly unpopular war with Iran. Headfirst. Today we'll show you what that looked like. Plus, first it was his attempt to silence the press. Now it's legal oversight. Pete Hegseth moving to put the Pentagon's lawyers under review, essentially eliminating all the guardrails on the military. We'll talk to someone who held that job. A former JAG officer joins us ahead. And later in the broadcast, dissent in the ranks is growing. We'll show you the latest blowback to the war in Iran and Trump's attempts to market it. All that and more when Deadly in the White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [20:56]
Commercial Narrator
Mom.
- [20:57]
Blue Apron Narrator
I saw Dylan's dad make dinner, like actually cook and it was straight fire. He said it was Blue Apron assemble and bake. All the ingredients showed up pre chopped and he just laid it out on a baking sheet and no cap. Dinner was on the table in like 25 minutes. Apparently it's chef designed and has like over 40 grams of protein. That's a lot, right? So maybe we try it. Just saying. You can be the next Dylan's dad. Blue Apron get $50 off your first two orders plus free shipping with code STIR50 Terms and conditions apply. Visit blue apron.com terms for more.
- [21:26]
Commercial Narrator
A better help ad International Women's Day is this March. Time to celebrate all women, the leaders, the caregivers, the problem solvers, the hype friends, the how do you do it? All types therapy can be a space to reflect, reset and reconnect. And BetterHelp makes it simple by matching you with a qualified therapist based on your needs and preferences. No pressure, no guesswork. Visit betterhelp.com for 10% off.
- [21:54]
Frank Kendall
Subscribe to MSNow Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNOW's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Why is this happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite Ms. Now shows ad free and ad Free link Listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, including Rachel Maddow Presents Burn Order. Subscribe to Ms. Now Premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [22:26]
Nicole Wallace
It is day 14 of the war with Iran, and here's where things stand. Six U.S. service members were killed when a U.S. air Force refueling aircraft crashed in Iraq. That brings the number of US combat deaths to 13. Turning to economic consequences of the war, oil prices here at home have soared to $3.63 a gallon, ahead of many families, spring breaks and travel. Donald Trump has lifted Russian sanctions. So now Russia is making an additional $150 million a day thanks to the oil supply crisis that has ensued and leaning into the need for state friendly propaganda. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said out loud today that the sooner Donald Trump's ally David Ellison takes over cnn, the better, an apparent nod to the urgent need to vanquish a free and fair press. That stunning comment came in a briefing at the Pentagon this morning before Hegseth had anything to say about the men and women who lost their lives in that plane crash. Pete Hegseth said this or more fake
- [23:29]
Frank Kendall
news from CNN reports that the Trump administration underestimated the Iran war's impact on the Strait of Hormuz. Patently ridiculous, of course. For decades, Iran has threatened shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This is always what they do, hold the strait hostage. CNN doesn't think we thought of that. It's a fundamentally unserious report. The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.
- [24:00]
Nicole Wallace
Let's read that reporting from cnn. That seems to have made Pete Hegseth so mad he attacked CNN before he honored the men and women who died in service of our nation. Quote, top Trump officials acknowledged to lawmakers during recent classified briefings that they did not plan for the possibility of Iran closing the strait in response to strikes. That's according to three sources familiar with the closed door session. The evidence for this reporting is, frankly, everywhere you look. It explains why Hegseth had to resort to incoherent statements like this.
- [24:32]
Frank Kendall
I want to emphasize what the chairman said about that. The only thing prohibiting transit in the straits right now is Iran shooting at shipping. It is open for transit. Should Iran not do that?
- [24:44]
Nicole Wallace
Well, yeah, okay. Donald Trump also finds himself in a scramble to contain the soaring energy prices in the wake of the Strait of Hormuz, effectively closing without ships being shot at, blown up or lit on fire. Like we said, the average price of a gasoline or a gallon of Gasoline in the United States is $3.63 today. It was $3.59 yesterday, $3.32 one week ago and $2.94 one month ago. Price of gas was something Trump felt so great about. He actually bragged about it Tuesday night in his State of the Union. The war started late Friday. The Trump administration announced that it is lifting sanctions on Russian oil, oil that's currently at sea until at least April 11. On that, the New York Times writes this. They call it a qu in America's effort to punish Russia for its war in Ukraine. As for a longer term plan to either reopen the Strait of Hormuz and fix what has been declared the greatest oil crisis in history, end quote. The Trump administration has not articulated a clear plan to the American people. That lack of clarity from our government leaves us with only reporting to help us try to understand what might be happening next. Three U.S. officials tell the Wall Street Journal this, quote, the Pentagon is moving a Marine Expeditionary Unit and more warships to the Middle east as Iran steps up its attacks in the Strait of Hormuz. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has approved a request from CENTCOM for an element of Amphibious Ready Group, an attached marine expeditiary unit, typically consisting of several warships and 5,000 marines. I want to bring in New York Times reporter Julian Barnes. Also joining us, financial commentator for the Financial Times and writer of the Unhedged newsletter Robert Armstrong is here. Also joining us, former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall is here. He is now a senior fellow at the center for American Progress. Secretary Kendall, let me just ask you about those movements. What do they signal?
- [26:49]
Frank Kendall
Well, it's an additional element of force, but it's not a very large element. There's a battalion of Marines there, some air capability as well. It's not a large enough force to really sees the area around the Strait of Hormuz. It does give another incremental capability, but it's not a game changer at all.
- [27:09]
Nicole Wallace
So Julian, let me come to you on the reporting, which seems to be what got Pete Hegseth all grumpy this morning. Quote, the Times reports this American military planners have prepared for decades for the possibility that Iran could try to close the Strait. The Strait of Hormuz is a difficult, almost impossible problem to solve through military means alone. That's retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Clinton Henote, who served as a senior air strategist in the Middle east in the 2000s. At the time, he was asked to study military approaches to Iranian aggression, including a scenario in which Iran attacks shipping in the strait. His team concluded that while the US could use advanced sensors and precision strikes to mitigate Iranian attacks, they could not stop them completely. The shipping lanes are too narrow and the vessels are too vulnerable to a mix of rockets, missiles, and swarms of small craft. The only way militarily to guarantee the waterway is open to move from mitigation to control would be to take and hold the Iranian territory bordering the strait. What does that portend?
- [28:18]
Frank Kendall
Look, this is a really hard problem. The military did know it was a problem, but it's also clear that the Trump administration didn't focus on it enough. Donald Trump knew oil prices would go up, but now that they've gone up as much as they have, you know, we are told that this is an issue that's really seized his attention, worried him, seized the conversations, and it you could tell from the news conference this morning that General Kaine and Pete Hegseth had. It's just not an easy problem to solve. You know, there. For all the ships that the US has in the strait, getting control of it is a difficult problem. Look, they're using rockets to hit projectiles to hit the ships. There's reports that we have confirmed that they are beginning to mine the strait, and not with big naval vessels, but with small boats. These are very hard things to knock out all the small, small boats. And General Kane just talked about a kind of lengthy timetable to get back control of the Strait of Hormuz. You heard, you read about General High Note talking about, you know, the need for land forces. And, you know, President Trump has been very reluctant on that. He is. He's doesn't necessarily want even a small force in there. But when you're talking about how do you get control of this strait,
- [29:54]
Margaret Donovan
the
- [29:54]
Frank Kendall
Marines are an option you have to consider, and that's gonna be a tough problem for the White House.
- [30:02]
Nicole Wallace
Robert, it's disorienting to see that Trump's feedback loop is so tied to the markets and gas prices. But it is clear on day 14 that Trump's feedback loop is so tied to the markets and gas prices. Your thoughts on what that means?
- [30:23]
Robert Armstrong
The US Economy is in pretty good health right now, but the trends aren't great. What I mean by that is we have a low unemployment rate, but there is not very much job creation. Consumer spending is growing still in real terms, but the rate of growth is slowing. And one thing that could make those sort of weak trends weaker still is higher gas prices. We know that consumers respond to big spikes in fuel prices by cutting spending elsewhere. There could also be an impact on things like inflation expectations, which again, make households careful about how they spend. So both in terms of direct impact and indirect impact on sentiment, gas is kind of the connective tissue between this war and the American economy.
- [31:26]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah. I mean, and to your I think making a broader point about how people feel about the economy as well. It is something that is so in people's faces the same way, or perhaps even more so than grocery prices. I'm going to ask all of you to stick around. I have to sneak in a quick break. We'll all be right back. On the other side,
- [31:44]
Frank Kendall
it's tax season, and at LifeLock, we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it. Guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com specialoffer for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.
- [32:14]
Blue Apron Narrator
Mom, dad, I'm not throwing shade, but the whole New Year's resolution thing kind of slippin. No offense. Anyway, my best friend Jenny's dad crushing it. He uses Blue Apron. He says he ordered one pan assemble and bake meals and these things called meal kits. They're all super easy to make. He keeps yelling, protein and fiber, baby. Also the food. We tried it. So good, so maybe check it out or whatever. Blue Apron get $50 off your first two orders plus free shipping with code STIR50 terms and conditions apply. Visit blue apron.com terms for more a
- [32:45]
Commercial Narrator
better help ad International Women's Day is this March. Time to celebrate all women. The leaders, the caregivers, the problem solvers, the hype friends, the how do you do it? All types. Therapy can be a space to reflect, reset and reconnect. And BetterHelp makes it simple by matching you with a qualified therapist based on your needs and preferences. No pressure, no guesswork. Visit betterhelp.com for 10% off.
- [33:12]
When are you going to know when it's over?
- [33:14]
Nicole Wallace
When I feel it, okay? I feel it in my bones. Will you ask anybody in particular?
- [33:18]
Frank Kendall
Would that be some of these a joint decision?
- [33:20]
Nicole Wallace
I deal with people. I have great people.
- [33:22]
Frank Kendall
What are the dynamics when you have a big decision like Iran or Venezuela? Are people speaking up and speaking their minds? Even if I let them speak their
- [33:32]
Nicole Wallace
mind, and they do.
- [33:32]
Frank Kendall
And we have some differences, but they never end up being much. I convince them all to let's do it my way.
- [33:41]
Nicole Wallace
We're back with Julianne Robert and Secretary Kendall. Secretary Kendall, what's the impact on the men and women of the military to hear that the commander in chief is basically making decisions by his own telling, based on his gut and his quote? Bones,
- [33:56]
Frank Kendall
it's really a hard question to answer. Nicole. Look, we have a very professional military people are going to do their jobs. They're going to do them very professionally. I think there has to be some question about where is this all leading, what was the plan, what is the strategy? And we've heard a number of different versions of that. I think it's helpful for the military to have a clear objective, a clear mission. Julian described the situation in the straits very accurately. It's a very tough problem. It's a problem we've been looking at now, I've been looking at in scenarios for 20 or 30 years now. It's going to take a large force. I think our military people, our professionals understand that. And you're probably going to have to have a significant ground force and you're probably going to have to stay there for a while and you're going to take a lot of casualties doing that. That's what it would take to get a determined Iran to a position where we could assure shipping that it was safe to go through the straits. And that's not where we are now. And I don't see a clear path to get there anytime soon.
- [34:48]
Nicole Wallace
I mean, Julian, it seems so bananas that this is how we're going to stumble into a ground war in Iran, that they didn't either make clear enough to Trump what the impact on the global economy would be when shipping couldn't go through the Strait of Hormuz. He talks about straits and it's not clear he has a full grasp on oil flow. Maybe he does and his rhetoric just keeps it a state secret, I don't know. But is this really where the gravity is moving toward that, that one of the objectives now is to keep gas prices down, to get shipping moving, and the way to do that is to put troops on the ground in Iran.
- [35:30]
Frank Kendall
So it's a good question. I mean, one thing we know about Donald Trump is that he does not like a long conflict. Right. We, you know, this is what is so different about this war right here. Venezuela was planned to be a very in and out operation. He put a strict limit on his bombing of Iran last year. This seems potentially much more open ended. We're now talking about ground troops. But if we know Donald Trump and everyone in America is an expert on Donald Trump, we know that he is going to probably balk before he really commits to something that's going to be a long term presence on the ground. So I think it's too early to say that we're going to have a marine operation taking one of the islands in the straits or doing something. But we have to be asking these questions. We have to try to figure out what their plan is and what the options that people are putting before him are.
- [36:39]
Nicole Wallace
I mean, it comes back to Taco, which we have Robert Armstrong to thank. Did you ever think that that would sort of extend beyond tariffs and economic policy to military strategy?
- [36:53]
Robert Armstrong
I never thought that it would and I think that it may not. There's a huge difference between tariffs and wars. And it's very simple. The tariffs, at least until the Supreme Court spoke up, were in Trump's control. Wars are not like that. I wish I'd thought of this line, but somebody else on Wall street came up with it takes two to Taco, and in this case it may take three to taco. The Israelis will have something to say, the Iranians will have something to say, and chance will have something to say. So I think it's true that Trump's inclination will cut his losses and move on. But can he? If the strait stays closed and we're looking at gasoline at 450 or 5 for an extended period, he's going to be in up to his neck. And I don't know how he's going to get out of the situation he's gotten himself into. It may not be possible to tacko.
- [37:57]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah. Thank you all so much for bringing this into such sharp focus in such a short period of time. Julian Barnes, Robert Armstrong, former Secretary Frank Kendall, thank you. Thank you so much. Up next for us, Pete Hegseth announced he's got a plan for military lawyers at the Pentagon. Why? That is alarming news for many in the community. We'll bring you that story next. There are growing concerns that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is trying to gut legal oversight of the Trump administration's conduct at a time of war. In a video posted this week, Hegseth ordered a complete overhaul of how the military's lawyers in uniform, known as JAG officers and their civilian counterparts are organized. Hegseth claimed that the review is part of an effort to, quote, reduce waste. But the Atlantic reports this, quote, his plans have alarmed many current and former military lawyers who see the bureaucratic justifications as cover for what they suspect Hegseth really wants to do, reduce the ranks of lawyers, purge internal dissent and eliminate guardrails designed to restrict the military from carrying out legally dubious orders. I want to bring in staff writer for the Atlantic, Missy Ryan, who's bylined on that reporting. Also joining us, Margaret Donovan. She served as a captain in the army serving in the 101st Airborne Division and later in 5th Special Forces Group. She was captain of the JAG Corps and is the former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut. She's now a visiting lecturer at Yale Law. Let me start with you, Missy Ryan, and just ask you to take us through the reporting.
- [39:32]
Commercial Narrator
Sure.
- [39:32]
Missy Ryan
So Hegseth this week, as you said, released this video where he talks about a big reform to the JAG Corps. His stated purpose is to increase effectiveness and sort of sharpen the legal edge, as he calls it, in order to sharpen the war fighter edge. And it's part of his desire to boost lethality, as he calls it, in the US Military. But and on the face of it, the action that he's talking about sort of reallocating legal duties between the uniform JAG Corps and then the civilian lawyers in the Defense Department seem fairly benign or anodyne. But really they need to be looked at in the context of Hegseth's long standing hostility towards military lawyers who he has repeatedly said sort of represent impediments to the kind of bare knuckle lethality that he thinks the US Military should bring to any conflict. He has used kind of crude terminology to refer to the jags. One of the first things he did when he came into office last year was to fire the top some of the military's top lawyers, saying that they represented roadblocks to the president's agenda. And since then, as your viewers will know, there's been a series of actions that he's taken that have kind of raised the questions about the legality of what he's doing with the Pentagon, including the boat strikes in the Caribbean, now going to war with Iran without any sort of congressional approval, as the Constitution requires. And so I think there's a lot of suspicion and fear among the military lawyers that we spoke with that this is another part of that trajectory and something that could further weaken the legal grounding of the operations that the military undertakes every day.
- [41:21]
Nicole Wallace
What is a single example of, of a military operation that was inadequately lethal, Missy?
- [41:31]
Missy Ryan
You know, I mean, I think that, you know, the, the question you're asking is being answered on, on the flip side in Iran, you know, there's been more than 6, 000 targets hit. And you know, I don't think that there has been in terms of tactics. There isn't really a problem that needs to be solved here that I'm aware of. This is more about I think Hegseth having kind of an ax to grind with any sort of what he would view as an unnecessary battlefield constraint. And that could, that could include what he's referred to as stupid rules of engagement that could refer to as lawyers who he kind of depicts as, you know, pencil necked naysayers who are going to stand in the way of the operators and impede their ability to go after their targets and defend themselves. And so this really does need to be viewed in that way that he's shown already a willingness to fire people that he doesn't feel like are sufficiently loyal to his approach and to the President. And then potentially, you know, the bigger picture here is weaken the institution and, and you know, the 3 million men and women under, under his command in the Defense Department.
- [42:44]
Nicole Wallace
We'll turn this over to Margaret Donovan on the other side of a very short break for a reality check on what's really, what's really under the hood here. We'll be right back. Margaret, I've never met or read about a senior military leader who didn't want legal advisors in the battlefield with them. What is this about?
- [43:07]
Margaret Donovan
Yeah, I mean, I think on one hand what Secretary Hegseth's video said is that he wants jags to be forward deployed. He wants them to be war fighters. And I don't necessarily disagree with him on that. Remember that this is the person who started the boat strike campaign on September 2nd with something that was widely considered a war crime. And he has now started this war with a strike on an elementary school. That evidence looks like it was the United States at fault. So yeah, I would agree that Pete probably needs more lawyers forward deployed with him, but his actions completely undermine that. As Missy had just outlined. He has, he fired, outright fired the top Air Force and Army lawyers and he has been detailing judge advocates away from their units and to U.S. attorney's offices. He's basically given up a bunch of the JAG corps to the DOJ who can't retain their own employees to use these people, use these lawyers instead of advising commanders to be doing immigration cases and to be immigration judges. So the concern that I think a lot of people have with this new consolidation or search for redundancy in the JAG Corps is that it really isn't sincere. He's just trying to find a way to eliminate lawyers. And most commanders do not think like Pete Hegseth thinks. Most commanders want lawyers with them. They want to know that what they're doing is consistent with the rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict. Who wouldn't? War is stressful enough. It's nice to have a lawyer next to you advising you along the way. Pete Hegseth doesn't think like that. And we see what happens when you put somebody like that in charge with how the boat strike began and what we're seeing right now in Iran with what appears to be horrific civilian casualties.
- [44:52]
Nicole Wallace
I mean, Margaret, one of the greatest sort of places where there's political pushback is within Trump's own coalition and is specifically over that strike on the girls school. It would seem that for operational security, for legal protection, for the men and women of the military, and for politics, which Pete Hegseth always has top of mind, it would make sense to have more lawyers. Are none of those messages getting through? Is Pete Hegseth in a bubble of his own making?
- [45:21]
Margaret Donovan
Absolutely. I mean, look, that type of strike happens when you don't have enough eyes reviewing a target. Remember, this is one of the first strikes of the war. You had time to look over that intelligence. You could have put lawyers on that who would have identified that. But when you sideline lawyers and when you send a message that any objection to strikes is not going to be considered, these are the types of results that you get. And the reason why commanders are so reliant on their lawyers is because, particularly when you have, let's say, an air campaign, which is basically what we're doing in Iran, right? We don't have boots on the ground. We just have an air campaign that leaves civilians on the ground just guessing who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Commanders understand. Commanders with actual experience in war understand that it is very important to be the good guys in this type of war and that the civilian population views you as such. If you integrate lawyers into your operations, you have a better chance of delivering that message. But what Pete Hegseth has done through his actions is completely sidelined. That very sage legal counsel that would normally be steadying the hand of a commander making those decisions.
- [46:25]
Nicole Wallace
Just unbelievable. Missy Ryan, thank you for bringing us your reporting. Margaret Donovan, thank you for helping us make sense of it today after the break for us, backlash over the war coming for Donald Trump from all sides is there finally a line or a bottom for some of his most loyal and vocal backers. Deadline Whitehouse continues after a quick break.
- [46:48]
Commercial Narrator
Early birds Always rise to the occasion for summer vacation planning because early gets you closer to the action. So don't be late. Book your next vacation early on VRBO and save over a hundred and twenty dollars. Rise and Shine average savings $141 select homes only.