← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
"Trump is going all out to undermine free and fair elections"
00:42:17
With just over 100 until the midterms, Donald Trump is going all out in his efforts to undermine free and fair elections.
Loading summary
Transcript59 lines
- [00:00]
Nicole Wallace
MS NOW presents the chart topping original podcast the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week, Senator and Pastor Raphael Warnock.
- [00:10]
Michael Waldman
Our country goes through these moments, these fits and starts, and I take my cue from the likes of John Lewis. When you don't know what else to do, keep walking, keep walking across that bridge.
- [00:20]
Nicole Wallace
The Best people with Nicole Wallace Listen now. For early access ad free listening and bonus content, subscribe to Ms. Now premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [00:37]
Jackie Alemani
Hi everyone, it's four o'clock in New York. I'm Jackie Alemani in for Nicole Wallace. With just over 100 days until the midterms, Donald Trump is going all out in his efforts to undermine free and fair elections. Vote Beat is reporting that Donald Trump has decapitated the agency in charge of helping states administer their elections. They write this quote, President Donald Trump fired all three remaining members of the U.S. election Assistance Commission on Thursday, abruptly disabling the only federal agency devoted solely to election administration at a moment when Trump has sought to reshape federal voting rules. The firings leave the four member commission with no commissioners, meaning it cannot take official action until new members are installed. The firings also come days after the Supreme Court granted the president power to fire leaders of independent agencies, weakening a legal framework that for decades has insulated bipartisan federal commissions from direct White House control. Trump fired the two Democratic members while the Republican was very generously allowed to resign, leaving the organization, which was created by Congress, leaderless heading into the midterms. Politico notes that the agency has long been in Trump's crosshairs. They write that, quote, trump issued an executive order in March of 2025 demanding that the EAC change the national voter registration form to require proof of citizenship, which was blocked by a federal judge. He also sought to block the EAC from distributing funds to states that did not adjust voter forms to have a citizenship check, which was similarly blocked in court. All of this comes as Donald Trump appears willing to try every trick in the books to take control of our elections earlier today, saying that he refuses to sign a bipartisan housing bill until Congress passes the SAVE Act. As Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes put it, it is irresponsible and dangerous that this administration remains dead set on causing chaos for our election officials across this country. This move undermines the integrity of nonpartisan election administration. A desperate Donald Trump fighting tooth and nail to undermine democracy is where we begin today. President and CEO of the Brennan center for justice at NYU School of Law, Michael Waldman is here. Plus with me at the table is NYU law professor and legal analyst Melissa Murray. But first, I want to start with Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. Thank you all for joining us this morning. Secretary, you know, I have been listening to all of your comments, as we all have over the past 24 hours, with this latest power grab that the president has taken. And it sounds like your conclusion so far is that in November, elections are going to be potentially fine, that you are all prepared, you have worked with the EAC up until now to prepare for the November elections and that the vast majority of the planning is already done. But what about 2028? How does Donald Trump's move yesterday affect the upcoming presidential election?
- [03:46]
Adrian Fontes
Well, first, thank you very much for having me. And yeah, that is the question. But let's be Honest, we've got 2026 to deal with, and there's still plenty of threats and intimidation that have gone on. There's plenty of interference that have happened from this administration. But I also want to put in context for your viewers. We're also not unconcerned about potential foreign interference. The Iranians aren't exactly happy with us. Vladimir Putin isn't the one who wants us to have a robust democracy here. And so this is one of a whole bucket of concerns that election administration administrators have across the country. Now, this one is a little bit long, more more long term in impact, I should say, because the Elections Assistance Commission does what it says it does. The it assists us in rolling through our elections. So while 2026 looks good, that assistance may not be available for 2028. And a lot of it is very wonky background bureaucratic stuff that would take way too long to explain a lot of. But the purpose of the EAC is really to provide a lot of guidance, a lot of statistical information, a lot of help with best practices, and really assist folks across the country do the things that independent jurisdictions might not be able to do on their own while maintaining states independence as mandated by the Constitution to run their own election. So it really had carved out a solid niche for itself in this election administration world. Very well respected, bipartisan, completely neutral in the way that it worked through things. And this is really, really, I think, as I've said, irresponsible and dangerous on the part of this administration.
- [05:33]
Jackie Alemani
Okay. Well, I don't want anyone to change the channel, but I do want to get a little bit into that wonky and bureaucratic stuff that you were referring to. Michael, I'm hoping you can answer some of this, but what exactly can the EAC even do now without any Commissioners and any new appointees would need to be confirmed by Republicans or at least what is currently a Republican controlled Senate. How problematic is it going to be if Donald Trump decides to tap people like the figures who he has already tapped, 2020 election deniers, people like Kurt Olson, again, one original 2020 election denier who has now taken on the imprimatur of the state in an official capacity at the Justice Department. What does that mean for our elections and the way the EAC works with states going forward?
- [06:27]
Michael Waldman
Well, you're right that this brazen move is part of a concerted campaign by the administration to undermine the elections. And it's worth rem just how extraordinary that is. That has not ever happened before in American history that the federal government would act this way toward the states and toward elections. The eac, as Secretary Fontes says, doesn't have that much power to do things without any commissioners and it will not be able to do much. And while it is theoretically possible that he could nominate two Republicans and two Democrats who would be where he would find them and the Senate would then need to act, it's pretty unlikely that those seats will be filled by election Day. The one thing to remember, and it's an encouraging thing, he is flailing at this point. He has this strategy and each move that he has made has been blocked in large measure by people, voters, citizens, states going to court and other things. The steps he has tried to take up until now with the eac. He had an executive order last year purporting order the EAC to do all this stuff that has been blocked nationwide by the federal courts. So he is right now 0 and 11 when it comes to court rulings. And the election's getting closer. And I do think that if we all do what we need to do, we can have free and fair elections this year. The key thing is voters need to make a plan to vote and vote early if they can, and not get scared off by all this noise and nonsense.
- [08:01]
Vaughn Hilliard
Yeah.
- [08:01]
Jackie Alemani
That's just another reminder of just what is on the line in these November elections, particularly when it comes to the question of who is going to control the Senate come November. But Melissa, you are oh so often our SCOTUS whisperer and explainer.
- [08:18]
Melissa Murray
This is all the courts.
- [08:19]
Jackie Alemani
Yeah. Explain the timing of this. I mean, is this a direct result of that decision?
- [08:24]
Melissa Murray
Yes.
- [08:24]
Jackie Alemani
Or does it have to do with the some of the other moves that the President has made to consolidate this executive power? Explain it for us.
- [08:33]
Melissa Murray
So first of all, we should understand that the EAC was formed in 2002. This is after Bush v. Gore. And again, it was to help localities figure out how to do their election. So you didn't have a situation like you had in Palm beach county with the butterfly ballot to provide those kinds of resources. So in some ways, the EEAC is born of a Supreme Court decision and now it's demise, at least its hobbling, is also because of Supreme Court decision Trump versus Slaughter, which the court decided in its last week. This was the decision that allowed the President to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, on the view that the president is the entire power of the executive branch. Therefore, because he has the accountability of the executive branch, he should be able to remove individuals who are functioning as executive officials, irrespective of any constraints that Congress might impose. And so, yes, this is a, that was created by Congress, but it is outside of Congress's control to dictate who serves. And now the President has done this. I will say one thing, though, and I agree wholeheartedly with Michael, that the way around this is for individual voters to make a plan and to really focus on how they're going to make their voices heard. But regardless of whether this can actually be successful in eliminating the EAC as a force in the upcoming election, whether just providing guidance, it is sowing chaos. It is furthering the idea that these elections are somehow chaotic, they are disrupted, that there is upheaval. And doing this so close to an election sows the seeds for individuals to look at the outcomes with more skepticism, perhaps to be less assured of the integrity of the outcomes. And that's exactly what this administration wants.
- [10:12]
Jackie Alemani
And look, I don't want to make you lay out a roadmap or a blueprint, Michael, for what this administration should be doing next. But are there any other independent agencies that you feel like the president could go after that could do potentially even more damage when it comes to our election systems and the way November plays out?
- [10:33]
Michael Waldman
I could tell you, but that would be wrong. The fact is that they are now going to try across the government to move the president's power over these agencies. And it is really striking that the very first one that they went after in this manner is the one dealing with elections. Already we see his control over the Justice Department being part of what Professor Murray just said, sowing doubt and wreaking havoc. We know that there have been raids by the FBI and the Justice Department just designed to mess with election officials. And just a few days ago, a federal judge, one appointed by President Trump, threw out the subpoenas of election workers in Atlanta in Fulton County, Georgia, from the Justice Department. The agency I'm most worried about right now is not one of the kind of agencies with letters and Alphabet soup, but the Justice Department that needs to stop trying to put its thumb on the scales.
- [11:33]
Jackie Alemani
And Secretary Fontes, you know, when we are looking at Donald Trump's obsession with relitigating the 2020 election despite having all levers of power at his disposal right now and finding nothing, no vast conspiracy theory, not winning anything in the courts, there is this news this week from the Arizona Mirror. A DOJ letter threatening Arizona election officials prosecution, as Fontes calls it, intimidation. I'll read a quick the US Department of Justice on Tuesday sent a letter to the Arizona Secretary of State's office threatening to prosecute election officials who knowingly count the ballots of non citizens or keep them on voter rolls. A near identical letter was sent to more than a dozen other states on Tuesday, ranging from Democrat led Michigan to deep red states like Georgia and Tennessee. Secretary, I'm wondering how you received this message, whether you think it is sort of implicitly a sign that the administration recognizes that they're not going to be able to fulfill this 2020 conspiracy theory and are instead pivoting to these one off prosecutions and trying to make sort of as many individual arrests as possible, get some scalps, show them to the boss and potentially hang on to their jobs and their positions of power. Or do you think that this is strictly an intimidation mechanism?
- [12:58]
Adrian Fontes
There's nothing implicit about this was an explicit threat to elections officials across the United States of America. But here's the other thing about it, and I heard the word desperate come up a couple of times. Here's how desperate these attempts to stop us from doing our jobs on behalf of voters are. That same letter was sent to North Dakota and North Carolina, a Republican and a Democratic Secretary of State. They don't have anything to do with elections at all whatsoever. They don't do voter registration, they don't do ballots, nothing. And so what we have here is this flailing administration really pulling out all the stops here. And you know, it's comical and really kind of laughable because in it they basically said even you as the chief election officer might be subject to criminal prosecution. Guess what guys, the statutes that you mentioned in your letter don't apply to me because I don't do voter registration. The counties in Arizona do. And I sent them a letter when they first wanted my voter rolls and explained to them exactly how voter registration Works. I pointed to the elections procedures manual in Arizona, gave them everything they would have needed to become familiar with how Arizona's elections work. This is a desperate attempt by the Department of Justice, and we've got a really dangerous pattern building here. The Slaughter decision was about the ftc. This decision is about the eac, the firing of independent parts of our government. Take a step back and look at all of the other independent agencies that we have that impact business, education, the law, medicine, technology, all of the other sectors of our society. This is really bad for business. If you're investing in America, do you want to invest in this uncertainty? Do you want to invest in not knowing exactly who's going to be doing what and the potential upheaval every single time we get a new executive? This is just bad governance when you look at the bigger picture. And I don't think that this is what's going to make our next 250 years as amazing as the last 250 have been. I think this hurts us as a nation that can govern itself well and be the stable, guiding force that the world needs right right now. And so we are being weakened by this administration, certainly in where our elections are concerned, as you were talking about. But I think every other sector of society that has a vested interest in the success of this nation needs to be very concerned about this presidency and its move towards absolute control in the form of one person.
- [15:41]
Jackie Alemani
Yeah. And Secretary, that argument that you just made that this is bad for business, threatening the stability of these independent agencies across the board, is something Melissa said that I thought that Chief Justice John Roberts might have taken into consideration when being a part of this decision making process with Trump v. Slaughter, but it seems like it wasn't. I mean, what happens next?
- [16:09]
Melissa Murray
Well, I'll push back a little bit. I think the secretary is exactly right that the instability is not good, certainly for foreign investment or investment more generally. But the Slaughter decision, which effectively helps to deregulate the environment or around the ftc, may actually be good for business. I mean, if you look at the array of people at the second Trump inauguration, I'm always struck by the fact that Rebecca Slaughter, when she was talking about the inauguration, noted that many of the moguls who were behind the president were individuals who headed companies that the FTC was in active investigations of or were in active litigation with. So it is good for those businesses that they are deregulated. And we've seen that the court has been attentive to the prospect of global economic instability with their decision in Trump V. Cook, saying that the Fed is somehow different, though we're not exactly sure why the Fed is different.
- [16:59]
Jackie Alemani
Secretary Adrian Fontes, Michael Waldman, thank you so much for joining us today. And Melissa is sticking with me. And when we come back, how Donald Trump's appeal of the aging Carroll sex abuse and defamation cases has showcased just how closely aligned one elite corporate law firm is to the Justice Department. We'll look at that. Plus, another day, another construction project at the White House House. And there's fear this time of cutting off the public from the people's House and that it would become a permanent wall of isolation for this president. And later on in the show, speaking of an isolated president from corruption and self dealing to the rising costs of just about everything, how Donald Trump is exposing just how out of touch this White House has become. We'll get to all of that and more when Deadline White House continues after the break.
- [17:51]
Michael Waldman
Simone Sanders Townsend and I have known each other for more than a decade, tussling over politics and policy when she worked in the White House. And I reported on it.
- [18:00]
Melissa Murray
And now we're friends and colleagues. And on our podcast, Clock it, we are positioning ourselves at the intersection of culture and politics.
- [18:08]
Michael Waldman
Clock it is where we talk about what we see and hear in the news. So you can start to clock it, too.
- [18:14]
Nicole Wallace
Clock it with Simone and Eugene. All episodes available now. Now,
- [18:24]
Jackie Alemani
A high profile law firm that bent the knee to Donald Trump is starting to pay the price with the firm's work on Trump's cases dividing their employees. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that, quote, when law firm Sullivan and Cromwell took on Donald Trump as a client last year, its co chairman, Robert Giuffre, drew a red line for partners who are wary of working for the polarizing president. Giuffre vowed that the firm would not work to overturn the two jury verdicts that E. Jean Carroll won against Trump. They would only represent him in his appeals of his felony convictions for falsifying records and a civil fraud judgment. That's according to people familiar with the matter. But now, quote, the nearly 150-year-old firm has crossed that line. Sullivan and Cromwell in recent weeks has come to Trump's aid in one of the Carroll cases, deepening the firm's relationship with the president as well as a rift within its ranks how far it should go to accommodate him, the people said. Giufra and others at Sullivan and Cromwell have been helping Trump's legal team prepare requests to the Supreme Court to review the $83 million verdict. That's according to people familiar with the firm's work, that brief could be filed as soon as this week and is due by the end of the month. The decision to take on the Carroll cases came after Trump's personal lawyer, Boris Epstein, urged the firm to do so. A spokesman from the firm tells the paper, however, the decision to represent Trump was undertaken after thorough discussion with the firm's nearly 200 partners. I want to bring in Ms. Now senior investigative reporter Carol Lennig. Also joining us, former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI and national security and intelligence analysts Michael Feinberg. And Melissa is still with us. Thank you all for joining today. There's really so much to dig into here, but Carol, well, I want to start with you and sort of set the table for the setup that the president has been able to finagle here by having Sullivan and Cromwell essentially serve as, not just as his personal lawyer, but what also seems like an extension of the Justice Department. Where do we start here with this relationship that has blossomed?
- [20:42]
Carol Lennig
You know, I think from talking to sources about this, what I'm picking up is that ever since Bob Giufra, the co chairman of the firm, essentially played this litigator, mediator, liaison role for the president when the president was threatening executive orders against law firms and the Sullivan and Cromwell co chairman reached out to try to help work with a competing law firm to assuage their concerns about being under the thumb of this executive order, this punishing order. And of course, that was Paul Weiss. People have been very concerned at the firm and in the legal community about the unusual and sort of, if you will, stretching role of Sullivan and Cromwell. It's highly unusual for a law firm to play that kind of role when the president sort of on a jihad against law firms that he believes have not been supportive enough of him or have have represented individuals or hired lawyers he didn't like. Of course, those executive orders were ruled unconstitutional, but it was a, a very leading light in the law firm world, the co chairman of Sullivan and Cromwell that decided to help negotiate some sort of deal over that. EO really a big surprise. The law firm is really in an internal, I don't know how best to say it, Jackie, an internal war, a lot of strife over this choice that Bob Druffer has made to align himself so tightly with Donald Trump. And of course, Jamie McDonald, his partner in many of these cases representing Trump, is now recommended as the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Nobody finds that very surprising that Donald Trump wants another loyal former defense lawyer of his in his administration.
- [22:51]
Jackie Alemani
Melissa, I'm wondering if you think that crossing this kind of red line actually causes real reputational damage. Because if you look back at Trump, one, there are plenty of lawyers who graduated from that administration after January 6th and still went on to get top jobs at some of these firms, like Jones Day, for example. I mean, Bill Barr is still practicing law. Is this just business as usual? And I guess, do we need to sort of just accept the reality that if there is a Republican administration that is in power, someone needs to play along? And Bob Giufra is just that person at Sullivan and Cromwell.
- [23:30]
Melissa Murray
So when lawyers are admitted to the bar, they take an oath to defend the Constitution. Part of the Constitution includes rights for defendants, including a right to vigorous defense. And so, you know, one could argue that Sullivan Cromwell is doing that. But I will say that I think there is a different kind of ethos right now. The attacks on the law firms by the president, I think, strike many as perhaps a bridge too far. Like, this is really a calculated effort on the part of the administration to remove some of the resources that might have been available for groups who would challenge this administration going forward. So during the first Trump administration, places like Paul Weiss, like other law firms, routinely were representing pro bono. Some of the organizations that were suing the administration or challenging the administration now because of those settlements or simply because some law firms are just worried about becoming part of this, you know, sort of legal crosshairs situation, may not be willing to do that kind of work anymore. So the president has actually been very effective in removing a whole cadre of resources that would be available to challenge, to criticize, to be skeptical of his administration. And we should understand that as a means of silencing dissent. And it's a really big thing. And I think going forward, people within the legal industry will understand it in that way. I'm not sure that all of the law firms that have gone along with this, that maybe jumped in bed with the administration in this way, are necessarily going to have the same outcomes that they did after the first Trump administration.
- [25:04]
Jackie Alemani
Speaking of ethos, I want to play a sound bite from Nicole's ace interview with Jack Smith last week. It feels like, based on what Jack Smith said, Covington has been an outlier. When you're looking at the law firms. Let's give it a quick listen.
- [25:19]
Jack Smith
My perspective on this is that in the moment we're in, which is a pretty dire moment, right, what we're facing, that we should be uplifting the people who are doing the right thing, and you Know, I'll give you an example from my life. I resigned a special counsel. I know I need to get a lawyer because the President has said he wants to jail me for doing my job. And so I retain lawyers Covington and Burlington. As soon as that becomes public, the president and the Justice Department target that law firm. And they do it because they don't want me to have counsel. They don't want to have anyone represent me. What happened next was the very day that happened to Cole, the lawyers at the firm called me up and said, jack, don't worry about it. We're there for you. They did not blink for a second. As you know, that's very different than how some other law firms behave. I think we should focus on things like that in separating a firm like Covington and Burling from other ones that didn't show courage to come forward.
- [26:20]
Jackie Alemani
Michael, why do you think Covington and Burling made the calculus to stand up to the President?
- [26:27]
Michael Feinberg
Integrity. I'll confess, having spent some time in a different capacity in the big law firm world, I have a pretty jaundiced view of that. And it is very fashionable among lawyers. We learn it in law school, and it's reiterated when we take the bar, and it's reiterated at whatever firm we go to work for that we view ourselves as defenders of the principles of democracy. But the fact is, the legal profession has changed immensely over the past few decades, and it is now, more than anything, functionally a profit making machine. And I think that the reason that many of these firms were, say, willing to stand up during the George W. Bush administration or during the first Trump administration against government policies is because those policies were largely controversial. So there was a large portion of the country backing them. The Bush administration and even the first Trump Justice Department were not going to illicitly leverage government power to punish them for exercising First Amendment rights and for representing people who needed counsel, and just there wasn't going to be much reputational harm from it. When George W. Bush's chief of staff spoke out against the attorneys who were representing Guantanamo defendants, everybody, including other conservatives and media outlets, came down on him for that.
- [28:06]
Jack Smith
That.
- [28:07]
Michael Feinberg
But what we're seeing now, that there is reputational costs to opposing the Trump administration and real potential pushback in terms of your freedom to represent clients and earn a living. In other words, because opposing Trump could affect their bottom line, they're folding. And look, I have friends at Covington, I have friends at Paul Weiss. I'm not making a sweeping generalization about everybody in any of these firms. But it's clear that as institutions, the overwhelming majority of them care nothing for constitutional norms or the rule of law and everything for maintaining a high profit and partner ratio.
- [28:55]
Jackie Alemani
Well, we will continue to take those jaundiced but nuanced views just after the break because no one's going anywhere. Credibility questions continue with Trump's top federal prosecutor in Chicago scolded by a judge. We'll tell you why next.
- [29:13]
Nicole Wallace
Nothing beats tradition like weekly game nights at Mom's House and Tostitos crafted with masa made the traditional way, starting with whole corn kernels with flavors worth gathering around like a hint of lime and Mexican street corn and no artificial colors, flavors or preservatives. That's the Tostitos way. Bring Tostitos to your next game night and you'll be winning either way. Tostitos tradition matters.
- [29:41]
Jack Smith
Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening? A special crossover episode with the hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast.
- [29:49]
Melissa Murray
I think the Supreme Court massively misplayed this end of term. My solution would be more trying to address the underlying structural issues that allow us to get to a point where a minority faction that is not committed to and antagonistic to the rule of law can get power. The bigger fundamental problem is that we have never done the work in this country of actually wrestling with our deep seated antipathy for a multiracial, multi faith, pluralistic democracy.
- [30:21]
Jack Smith
That's this week on why Is this Happening? Search for why is this Happening? Wherever you're listening right now, and follow
- [30:29]
Jackie Alemani
One of the Justice Department's most valuable assets is its credibility, especially in the courtroom. But that credibility is increasingly in crisis. In Donald Trump's Department of Justice, judges have repeatedly admonished DOJ lawyers in court. The latest was in Chicago yesterday, when U.S. magistrate Judge Laura McNally found that Chicago's top federal prosecutor, Andrew Boutros, violated her secrecy orders. At issue was a July 1st press conference where Boutros announced charges for alleged Trend Aragua gang members. Judge McNally addressed Boutros in court yesterday that the announcement of the charges was a clear violation of her order, according to a transcript of yesterday's hearing that was obtained by Ms. Now, Judge McNally told Boutros, quote, what do I know is that your statement acknowledges that you were aware when you went up there that there was a sealing order in place. We are back with Michael and Melissa. Carol Lennig had a run off to do some very important reporting, but Melissa, okay, a sealing order, obviously maybe not a huge deal, but am I wrong there? I mean Is it? Or I'm wondering if this is just sort of. If there is a feeling that if you break something like a sealing order, it is just sort of a mission creep, a path to an even bigger court order that you're going to violate. Or is this in and of itself dramatic?
- [31:56]
Melissa Murray
You're being so generous right now. I mean, to me, the fact that the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois is defying an order, even if it's a minimal order, is kind of wild. The U.S. attorney's office is a repeat player in front of these judges, whether they're magistrate judges or district court judges, or going up to the appellate, like the 7th Circuit in Chicago, like they're always going to have business before these courts. The fact that you would risk angering a judge is honestly kind of wild. You know, one thing I will note about Andrew Boutros is that his appointment is actually a little unorthodox. Maybe not unorthodox for the Trump administration, but certainly unorthodox for other US Attorneys, which is to say that he was not appointed through the traditional process, which is usually the president nominates you, you go through the Senate confirmation process, and if the Senate votes and confirms you, you were the U.S. attorney here. Boutros was appointed in April 2025 by then Attorney General Pam Bondi to a temporary position. When that position was set to expire, the judges of the district appointed him to continue in that role. So it's not a traditional Senate confirmation in the way that we've seen with most US Attorneys historically. And I think that might perhaps explain, you know, I don't think so.
- [33:14]
Jackie Alemani
That this is more incompetence rather than, I don't know if it's maliciousness.
- [33:19]
Melissa Murray
I don't know if it's incompetence. I just think if you haven't gone through the whole rigmarole of like being vetted, having to cancer for your past choices, maybe you're just a little more free and easy about things. I don't know.
- [33:31]
Jackie Alemani
Right. Well. And maybe don't realize just how important, as you just laid out, that relationship between generous.
- [33:40]
Melissa Murray
I think he has to realize this. I mean, I just don't know if this Department of Justice cares. And it may be the case that he is more beholden to the Department of Justice than the broader apparatus in which he works.
- [33:51]
Jackie Alemani
Well, Michael Boutros suggested that he was ordered to go to D.C. for the press conference that he held with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche if it was ultimately Blanche's decision, and that he applied pressure on Boutros to violate the court order. What kind of message does that send?
- [34:08]
Michael Feinberg
Well, it sends a message about Todd Blanche that we already know, which is that he is largely without scruples if it involves being of service to the Trump administration. But it's more interesting what it tells us about Andrew Boutros. It tells us that he was not willing to say no and do what Justice Department employees have traditionally done when told to violate court orders or break policies, which is resign. Show integrity, show a belief in the rule of law, in the policies that guide you, and in the law you've sworn to uphold, and walk away. I think Melissa's diagnosis of Boutros maybe not feeling bound by the same strictures as other US Attorneys is actually spot on, because I want to add one wrinkle to the wrinkle Melissa already stated, which is that there have been a number of US Attorneys in this administration who have been appointed by the judicial district, by the judges when the Trump administration was not timely or proper in doing its own appointment. Andrew Boutros, to my knowledge, is the only one against whom the Trump administration has not pushed back. So it is reasonable to ask, why are they unwilling to let judges appoint U.S. attorneys in other districts, but in this one set of circumstances, they don't mind. And it's fair to ask that question in light of the fact that this is not the first time his office has been reprimanded by a judge. There were massive irregularities in the grand jury presentment for the Broadview Six, to the point where not only were the charges dropped, but DOJ is offering without a fight to pay all of the defendant's legal fees. I cannot begin to articulate how out of the norm that surrender is. They know they messed up beyond any possible repair. And at a certain point, nobody in the Northern District of Illinois is going to take Boutros office seriously, and they're not going to win any cases.
- [36:26]
Jackie Alemani
Melissa, we don't have that much time left. It sounds like you might have an answer to that question that Michael Feinberg just posed. But I also am wondering just if we can take a step back and you can talk about the larger issue of this trust deficit, of this loss of credibility of. Of the Andrew Boutroses of the country.
- [36:44]
Melissa Murray
So I don't have an answer to Michael. I was just indicating that Melissa and Michael are doing a total mind meld, because that's what I thought as well. Like, this is not unorthodox for this administration. It is unorthodox for US Attorneys appointments through history. Most presidents have done it. The traditional way with Senate confirmation. This is unusual. And I think maybe this is one of the consequences of that. The trust deficit cannot be overstated. The Justice Department operates in these localities and they are repeat players in front of these judges. When the judges do not trust you. And this has happened, there was a judge on the 3rd Circuit who reprimanded the U.S. attorney's office again for improprieties in some kind of process that was before the court. And like when you're a repeat player like that, you have to have the trust of the judge. Like, there has to be some kind of presumption of regularity that you're above board when you lose the judges in your district, it's a problem.
- [37:34]
Jackie Alemani
I'm sorry to separate the mind meld right now, but Michael Feinberg, thank you so much for spending time with us today. And after a break, new reporting that the Trump administration is considering permanent security fencing around the White House complex. We'll show it to you and look at why next. Donald Trump's latest unprecedented White House construction project is renewing concerns that the administration is trying to push the people, quite literally out of the people's house. The Washington Post was the first to report today that the Trump administration plans to install new fences on Pennsylvania Avenue outside of White House, and that according to three sources, quote, the White House and Secret Service would be able to close the new fences and prevent pedestrian access in front of the White House if they determine there are security risks. I want to bring in Architectural Digest senior White House reporter Vaughn Hilliard. Okay, but seriously, Vaughn, can you talk to us about what the plans are for the latest renovation that this president has undertaken, which is this new fencing?
- [38:41]
Vaughn Hilliard
Right. I would tell folks, depending on when they're planning a trip to Washington, D.C. they could stick with us in the meanwhile because there's a lot of Construction underway across D.C. we are here right on H and 16th Street Northwest. You see the White House right here behind this temporary fencing. And our friends at the Washington Post suggest that there's engagement and dialogue about potential permanent fencing that would allow to be able to go up all the way from 17th Street street to 15th Street. But we also just here in the last two hours got our hands on the formal pitch to the U.S. fine Arts Commission from the White House for the Lafayette park fencing. This is their formal pitch to the U.S. fine Arts Commission. And I say that because In October of 2025, Jackie, last October, folks will remember that the commission members that were in their positions, well, President Trump fired them and he has installed his allies into these positions. This is temporary fencing, you see. And folks may recall that back in the 90s, folks were still driving down Pennsylvania Avenue right there, up along the fencing line of the White House. And well after 2001, it was slowly pushed back. And usually pedestrians are allowed through. There is construction of Lafayette Park. That is why we are told that it's closed here right now. But as part of this formal pitch we just saw, they're planning on putting up permanent fencing that is 8 to 9ft tall that is supposed to not be scalable here. And of course, the question coming out of all this is, what are, what is the goal of this? What is the agenda of the White House for putting up this fencing? On one hand, you have the security concern, which of course is always very real for the president and his family at the White House. But then the second concern is that we're talking about potential abilities to push out protesters. And in this formal pitch, there is direct references to protests in the past. And folks recall back in 2020, during the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, when the White House pushed protesters out into the streets here, out of Lafayette Park. You also see, typically when heads of state come, there's protests, and you can hear them from the White House. Jackie, you've spent enough days here to know that right through those windows and through those walls, the noise of protesters penetrate. And so the question here that we're beginning to ask is in the days in which there are just simply protests and no direct threats against the president, is the goal of these would be permanent fence to be able to keep people back. You see over here to our right, protesters in support of Ukraine here. And because of the construction underway at Lafayette park, nobody can get really close to the White House unless you're a journalist or you're a staffer at the White House. And so, Jackie, that's where we're kind of trying to figure this out day by day. But I think the one other point that I'd say it's important to note that Trump has installed allies into the US Fine Arts Commission, the folks that will approve these types of plans. And the other one is a national planning committee, which is the one that is overseeing ideas like the arc that the president is planning to install on the other side of the Potomac River. Just yesterday, that committee, they had a meeting, and it is full of Trump allies, his top political advisor, Paul and Gracia, another former DHS official who has espoused white nationalist views in the past. So there's A lot of concerns for folks that are watching this construction happen in real time about exactly what the plans are as folks here will continue to come to Washington, D.C. to see the White House. But just how close can they actually get in the future, Jackie? That's the question that we're asking.
- [42:00]
Jackie Alemani
Yeah, Vaughn, in my conversations with congressional sources this week, you know, they noted that these vanity projects, this just being the latest, are the things that they have seen finally breaking through with voters. And I think it's worth just noting that 56% of Americans disapprove of all of the this construction going on right now, particularly the White House ballroom project. But thank you so much for your reporting and for that new backdrop that may or may not be permanent. Tbd. Vaughn Hilliard, thank you so much. Melissa Murray, thank you so much for spending the hour with me. And when we come back, Senator Mitch McConnell still remains in the hospital after weeks of no updates or a timeline for his return. We'll try and piece together what we know. The Senate is back in session on Monday and Kentucky's Mitch McConnell's health condition still remains a mystery. There are growing calls from Democrats and Republicans alike for transparency. The 84 year old has been in the hospital for the last three weeks with little to no detail from his office. First, there was Kentucky Democratic Governor Andy Beshear who sent a letter calling for a health update. That was then followed by a Republican member of the House who told reporters he doesn't even know if McConnell is alive. And then there are the voters. Take a listen to what one Republican voter told our reporter Alex Tabitt in McConnell's home state earlier today.
- [43:27]
Republican Voter (Alex Tabitt's interviewee)
I think that he should release a picture of himself or one of his aides should release a picture. We have the right to know that he's even conscious. And some of these phone conversations people are claiming to have, like Scott Jennings on cnn, I question that. I, it doesn't, it's not ringing true for me.
- [43:49]
Jack Smith
Why do you think we haven't seen
- [43:52]
Vaughn Hilliard
those videos or those photographs or anything like that?
- [43:55]
Republican Voter (Alex Tabitt's interviewee)
Arrogance. My goodness, your retirement is long overdue. Give up this fight. Give it up. We don't want you, you're not representing us well, so don't represent us at all.
- [44:09]
Jackie Alemani
McConnell's constituents clearly following the news closely. We're going to bring you any update we get on his condition as soon as we learn anything. But after the break, the White House appearing completely out of touch on what it costs to live in Trump's America. We'll get to that when the next hour of deadline. White House starts starts right after this quick break.
- [44:33]
Nicole Wallace
Nothing beats tradition like weekly game nights at Mom's house and Tostitos crafted with masa made the traditional way, starting with whole corn kernels with flavors worth gathering around like a hint of lime and Mexican street corn, and no artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives. That's the top Tostitos way. Bring Tostitos to your next game night, and you'll be winning. Either way. Tostitos tradition matters.