Jake Tapper (6:14)

Attorney General.

Nicole Wallace (6:16)

The traffic stop that we've seen video of from Tennessee where Alberto Garcia was first identified by the local authorities. At the time, the Homeland Security Department declined to take custody of him. What has happened in between that time and in between the time that the government has been arguing that he was not returnable from El Salvador. What has happened since in this investigation that brought you here? Yes.

Pam Bondi (6:43)

The question was in 2021, there was the traffic stop. And what has changed since then? What has changed is Donald Trump is now president of the United States and our borders are again secure. And thanks to the bright light that has been shined on Abrego Garcia, this investigation continued with actually amazing police work, and we were able to track this case and stop this international smuggling ring from continuing.

Nicole Wallace (7:15)

These are recently found facts, right?

Jake Tapper (7:18)

Yes.

Pam Bondi (7:18)

Recently found facts.

Tim Miller (7:21)

To that point, can you just explain when this investigation was opened? The investigation in Tennessee. Can you say when that investigation was opened?

Pam Bondi (7:27)

Well, the grand jury indicted on May 21st. This investigation has been ongoing.

Sadie (7:35)

This case has been hotly debated here in Washington.

Nicole Wallace (7:38)

In your mind, does this resolve that.

Sadie (7:40)

Issue in terms of his deportation and.

Nicole Wallace (7:43)

Should this be seen in any way as compliant with the judge's order to return him to the US and the.

Sadie (7:48)

Supreme Court ruling that the US Government should facilitate return?

Nicole Wallace (7:53)

There's a big difference between what the.

Harry Lipman (7:58)

State of play was before the indictment.

Nicole Wallace (8:00)

And after the indictment. And so the reason why he is back and was returned was because it was an arrest warrant which was presented.

Harry Lipman (8:08)

To the government in El Salvador.

Nicole Wallace (8:10)

So there's a big difference there as far as whether it makes the ongoing litigation in Maryland moot. I would think so, but we don't know about this.

Harry Lipman (8:21)

He just landed today.

Nicole Wallace (8:26)

Jake, cbs.

Matt Dowd (8:27)

I just want to confirm what you.

Nicole Wallace (8:28)

Said earlier, that you're intending to prosecute.

Matt Dowd (8:30)

Him and keep him in an American prison if he's found guilty and then.

Nicole Wallace (8:33)

Would remove him after his sentence is over, Correct?

Pam Bondi (8:36)

Yes. He will be prosecuted in our country, sentenced in our country if convicted, and then returned after completion of his sentence.

Harry Lipman (8:47)

Last one, Sadie, Wall Street Journal.

Nicole Wallace (8:49)

Okay, two. One's on topic, one's off topic.

Pam Bondi (8:54)

Maybe I misunderstood you, but you were mentioning, you know, that he had some.

Nicole Wallace (8:58)

Involvement in these, in a murder, you.

Pam Bondi (8:59)

Know, or was connected to groups that had, you know, involved with this other smuggling ring. But to be clear, the only charges he' facing right now are the like, you know, human smuggling charges.

Nicole Wallace (9:11)

Just the. That's the one offense.

Pam Bondi (9:14)

But the other things that you have talked about are not actually in the indictment. No, co conspirators allege that. And we were clear to say that he is charged with it's not only very serious charges of alien smuggling. And again, there were children involved in that. You know, human trafficking, not only in our country, but in our world, is very, very real. It's very dangerous. And as you saw recently in Virginia, the arrest we made of the MS.13 member, unrelated to this, we learned at that press conference, that's where they bring young children into our country and they start grooming them at middle school age to become Ms. 13. Full fledged members commit violent crimes throughout our country. It is highly organized. It is very dangerous and they are living throughout our country. But no more because they are being arrested. They are being prosecuted and being convicted and deported when appropriate. That's all for today. Thank you.

Nicole Wallace (10:28)

We have been watching U.S. attorney General Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, one of her deputies at the department. I want to bring in my colleague, MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, as well as former U.S. attorney and former deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Lipman. Also joining us, MSNBC political analyst, host of the Bulwark podcast, Tim Miller and MSNBC senior political analyst Matt Dowd. I want to share with our viewers a few more pieces of information that have crossed the wire. Van Hollen, Senator Van Hollen, who had traveled to see his constituent to see Kamar Bago Garcia in El Salvador, is out with this statement. Quote, for months the Trump administration flouted the Supreme Court and our Constitution. Today they appear to have finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States. As I have repeatedly said, this is not about the man, it is about his constitutional rights and the rights of all. The administration will now have to make its case in the court of law as it should have done all along. So Lisa Rubin, moving to the court of law, what we learned today is that a criminal investigation commenced. I think Pam Bondi confirms after he's deported. I didn't hear that as clearly as you did, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's what she confirmed today. Nicole. I was really focused on her description of the conduct and also the allegations that somebody asked about at the very end of the press conference asking, you're making a number of very serious allegations. But I just want to be clear. The charges that are here are just human trafficking charges. They're about the transport of undocumented aliens. And Pam Bondi confirmed that that is true. But if you read this 10 page indictment, it is replete with other kinds of allegations about the trafficking, for example, of firearms, the abuse of female undocumented aliens, the complicity of MS.13 and its role in this alleged human smuggling ring. There's a whole lot more and a lot here that suggests that multiple of the six alleged co conspirators may also be cooperating with the government as well. What she said was when she was asked about the timing and she said, quote, when the bright light of press coverage came to this case, great police work happened. And then when followed up, she said, and Donald Trump was elected. So I'm not sure that there was bright light of press coverage before the deportation, but maybe there was. You're right. We don't have crystal clarity on the timeline. Let me come to you, Harry Lippman, on what you heard today.

Jake Tapper (13:13)

Okay. Something to really keep in mind is federal conspiracy law, which is a very potent tool, is doing a lot of work here. What has basically happened, and this is my read as well, Nicole, is that after there was a lot of this has been the most contentious deportation, they erred and denied it and bobbed and weaved. But this is their way of trying to grab victory from the jaws of defeat. They have found a cooperating witness. There are six of them, as Lisa says, But one in particular in Florida says, I was the head guy here. I ran a whole service with a taxi service as it were, taking people from Texas when they just come over into the interior. And I hired Abrego Garcia a few times. Now, that by itself is enough to give him potential liability for everything that the conspiracy does. So something to keep in mind is even if he's legally culpable for some of this more incendiary conduct that she inappropriately surfaced in the press conference, it may well be through conspiracy law, because there are two charges here. One is he did it on one occasion, and we knew about this in 2022. He stopped by Tennessee police. There are eight people in the car, but they let him go. And then he joins this conspiracy from for nine years. But the head guy in the conspiracy appears to be a cooperating witness in Florida. And the charges of conspiracy work to tag him with everything the conspiracy has done. They do allege one more thing in addition to what Lisa said, that he is a member of Ms. 13. Doesn't have to be to prove the charges. But it's interesting that they proffer that since they've been saying it for a couple months.

Nicole Wallace (15:02)

Let me ask what may be a silly question, but why not present this evidence in the context of his deportation in the first place?

Jake Tapper (15:11)

They want to punish him. You know, they first want to, in fact, get him in jail for a couple years and then deport him, presumably with due process. But I think this really is their way of what's been a very kind of impacted dispute to say, aha, we're bringing him back and he is the bad guy that we said. And I think that's the reason for the conspiracy charges in particular.

Nicole Wallace (15:36)

Is it at all relevant that she said that the bright light of press Coverage is what puts in motion the police work.

Jake Tapper (15:46)

I gotta say, I can't stand hearing her press conferences with the indictments because she goes so outside the four corners. The short answer is no. They're allowed to tell the story at trial of how they initiated this investigation. I think it's pretty clear that they went, she said, there's new information that they went to all these folks and after there was already this raging controversy, and that's when they got the five cooperators as well as this guy in Florida. So it figures in the story, but I think it's entry here into her personal way of telling it is a way of saying, see, we were right all along. Donald Trump was right all along. This guy has been dangerous all along. Although it has everything to do with the conspiracy charges rather than specific conduct that, at least in the indictment, he's alleged to have done.

Nicole Wallace (16:37)

Nicole, can I add something about the timeline, if I can? One of the reasons it's sort of confusing when this investigation started is because there was public outrage about Abrego Garcia's having been deported long before the Supreme Court said, you may not do this and you must facilitate his release and return to the United States. So just to refresh everybody's recollection, Abrego Garcia was on one of three planes that left the United States on March 15th. Two of those planes were the subject of an injunction by a D.C. federal judge who said, if you have to turn the planes around, you do it. And nonetheless, all three of them flew on to El Salvador. But it wasn't until April 10, nearly a month later, that the Supreme Court said, what you did to this particular person who had an order from a judge saying he could not be sent to El Salvador. Wasn't until then that the Supreme Court said, you must facilitate his release and return. And that's when really the drumbeat of public opinion began to turn against the White House. And you saw Trump talking about, for example, the alleged tattoos on his knuckles corresponding to his MS.13 membership because they could not convince people that a father of many children married to a US Citizen who has a special needs child was the threat to America that the White House was portraying him to be. And I guess I want to ask you, Tim Miller, where this conversation goes. I mean, we had the notable political moment of Chuck Grassley's constituents saying to Chuck Grassley, bring him home. All that was about due process. And I wonder where you think what got through to the public was that he was deported without this step being taken, without being charged, without standing trial without having a chance to defend himself from, as Pam Bondi said, I would agree, two very serious criminal charges and a grand jury indictment.

Harry Lipman (18:27)

Yeah, well, to me, I think here's the political opportunity, as we learned today, that they can bring people back from El Salvador, the people that they sent there. And so that is a development that is important and relevant for the other 250 people they sent there. And, you know, I think what do is make this, you know, a court TV drama where you get into all the nitty gritty details of what is what happened in Kilmar Abrego Garcia's life. Nothing any of us know anything about or knew anything about or would have known about or would have cared about probably, frankly, before they sent him illegally to a foreign prison. And so I think that rather than focus on that, like the political opportunity for those of us who've been fighting for due process rights for the people that have been sent to El Salvador is to take the lens back and say, look, our government kidnapped about 250 to 300 people and sent them to a foreign prison. They didn't deport them. They sent them to a foreign prison with no due process. And some of those people might be very bad people. Some of those people might be criminals. Some of those people might be illegal immigrants. Some of those people might have done absolutely nothing wrong. We know at least that a handful of them came to the country legally through legal process. We know at least in a couple of specific cases that it feels preposterous to think that a makeup artist was part of Trenda Aragua, for one example, when it comes to Andre Hernandez Romero. And so I think that talking about that and saying, well, look, you guys could do it right if you wanted to. And Pam Bondi said in that press conference that this is American justice. It's like, no, it's not. American justice is you could, you have many options. They could deport people through the normal deportation process, or they could do what they just did today and show to a court grand jury, show to a court of law that the men that they disappeared to el Salvador, all 200, some odd of them, committed crimes. And I think it's pretty clear that that is not the case. I think it's pretty clear that we wrongly sent some people there. They are going to try to focus on Abrego Garcia because I think they think the specifics of that case is a winner for them politically. But I don't know. I think that there is also an opportunity in the fact that they've demonstrated they can bring people back and they should bring the folks back that they wrongly. I should just say right after this, I'm going down to the Supreme Court and that we're having a rally with the Immigrant Defenders Law Organization that's defending Andre and the other Venezuelans that were wrongly sent to El Salvador.

Nicole Wallace (20:52)

Tim, let me follow up with you, and I know you're, you're involved in those cases, but let me just not let the news cycle get so charged that we forget what we learned from the Trump administration itself. Tricia McLaughlin, a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in a statement on May 21, Mr. Abrego Garcia's deportation was part of a, quote, highly sensitive counter terrorism operation with national security implications. The Attorney General, United States of America just stood before the world and said nothing about a, quote, highly sensitive counterterrorism operation with national security implications. The DHS spokesperson on May 21, about eight days ago, went on to say, we invoke the state secrets privilege over many of the details. Of course, our officials discuss what should be divulged publicly. This just proves they're responsible public servants. You know, their stories have changed so many times. I guess that's my point. I want to share one more piece of information about this specific case that we know from the Trump administration itself. The Trump administration a mistake had been made, that much was clear. The Trump administration had deported a Maryland man named Kilmer to a prison in El Salvador, even though a judge had issued a ruling prohibiting that from happening. When news reached dhs, it set off a days long scramble and clashes among officials in three different agencies over how to deal with what everyone knew had been an error. As it became clear that keeping it quiet was not an option, DHS officials floated a series of ideas to control the story that raised alarms among the Justice Department lawyers on the case. In the days before the government's error became public, DHS officials discussed trying to portray Abrego Garcia as a, quote, leader of the violent street gang ms.13, even though they could find no evidence to support the claim. I guess my question is about, you know, the evidence will stand in a court of law and a jury will decide its veracity. So I'm not making any comment about the evidence, but the process in terms of what we know from Trump senior officials feels reverse engineered.

Harry Lipman (23:04)

Absolutely. I just want to say first, I'm only involved in these cases to the extent that I'm a person that watches the news and has a podcast and is very upset that our government is kidnapping people and sending them to foreign gulags without giving them due process. And I'm going to keep talking about it until those folks are freed and given their day in court as they deserve. And I think that each year point, like the one thing that we know for sure that is evidenced today by what they brought, by what Pam Brondie brought forth in that press conference is that they've been lying about this, like from day one. They've been lying to the courts and they've been lying to the public about the rationale and the case for sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. So maybe there is a good case for a grand jury to put him behind bars in this or to, you know, to suggest that he have a trial and then have a jury put him behind bars in this country. Maybe there's a good case for that. We'll find out. But we know that their case for why they needed to send him to a foreign prison without any due process was premised on false statements. And we know that just by that list of things you just laid out and that matters. Our government cannot just make things up about people and use it as a rationale to send them to foreign countries. That's not how things work in a free country, no matter whether that person has other legal issues which should be adjudicated here in this country.

Nicole Wallace (24:27)

Harry, let me ask you about one more Trump administration official. This is also from the New York Times. On May 21, quote, in the end, a senior Justice Department lawyer, Erez Reveni, who counseled bringing Abrego Garcia back to the US Was fired for what Attorney General Pam Bondi said was a failure to, quote, zealously advocate on behalf of the United States. Now, all that that DOJ lawyer advise was bringing him back to do what Pam Bondi did today, receive due process, face the charges against him and have an opportunity to stand trial and be judged by a jury of his peers. Do you think he will be reinstated by Pam Bondi?

Jake Tapper (25:05)

No, I don't think so. And really this goes right to what Tim is saying. This is a person whose 15 year career was simply ended in DOJ for telling the court the truth. They were fighting a real losing battle here. And I think the effort to sort of dovetail with what Tim's saying was to replace or supersede this due process discourse that they were losing. They were lying about and bobbing and weaving and just not persuading anyone with a new criminal indictment process. The due process stuff now goes away unless and until they deport him again. So this is their way of changing the subject. But still saying Donald Trump, this guy was a really bad guy. And fortunately we were able to show that. But they were getting their brains beat in on the due process discourse. And this enables them to say, see, it's all about criminal conduct before.

Nicole Wallace (26:08)

I think it's important to underscore something that Tim Miller said that we know from Tim Miller and from Pam Bondi that it is possible for the leader of El Salvador to send people back here to do what they're doing to give them due process. And it is possible to abide by like a 7:2 Supreme Court opinion to quote, facilitate if prisoners return to the United States, all positions they had at best flip flopped on. Everyone sticks around. We're going to bring Matt Dowd into the conversation on the other side of a break. We've got more on this story coming up. We've also got this story that we know they didn't want us to talk too much about today. The multi car pileup that no one around the world can look away from. It started yesterday like a real social media brawl. The drag down knockout, nasty below the belt Epstein smear fight between the world's richest man and the world's most powerful. We'll ask why any of us should care at all and what the consequences are for real people if this continues to go lower and lower later in the broadcast. How our nation's veterans and our nation's security are both at risk from the work and the fight between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. How their few could threaten those equities even further. All those stories and much more when DEADLINE White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere revival. Lisa, Harry and Matt. You know, Matt, a couple of poll numbers have stuck in my mind over the last four months. You know, one is New York Times Sienna polling that says 87% of all Americans support the deportation of adjudicated criminals. And that is very much in line with what President Obama pursued a policy to make happen. 9, 15 and 12% of Americans support deporting people that haven't committed crimes other than being here illegally, married to Americans who have jobs here who have been here for decades respectively. It would appear that if they can prove in a court of law after giving him due process that he committed crimes, that that would be something that in the main Americans support. But I wonder what you make of the process and how it's fleshed out. Such a, I use the word reverse engineered, but such an incompetent and incomplete process.

Matt Dowd (28:34)

Well, I was, before you said the word reverse engineered. It was the word, the word I was thinking actually to me, and I'm not a lawyer on this and I defer to legal issues and all this, the whole thing smells. I mean completely smells. Because even watching Pam Bondi's press conference, my takeaway from that is it's deplorable because what she basically is making an argument, one she doesn't even presume this person is innocent. She just makes these outlandish claims and then says, oh, but we're only filing charges for these couple. But we're going to make these outlandish claims because it's going to serve the public relations standpoint in this. The whole thing is they, they, they violated this guy's, this man's civil rights in, in violation of not one, but multiple court orders. And then it, you know, and we'll get a better sense of the timing of this. What it looks like happened is they were caught and then in order to quote, unquote, save the PR war, they don't sort of apologize and said we messed up on due process and it's unfortunate and we'll do that. They don't do that. What they immediately sounds to me and looks to me like they do is go and say full bore, let's sick our attack dogs on this. Find something. Because if all of this was known when he got deported and, and I would throw any, I would have argued with anybody that it wasn't true. They would have presented this evidence months ago. And so it all like they, they screwed up. They violated his civil rights. They, they, they violated court orders. And then when they were caught, they were busted. They still didn't follow a Supreme Court order. And that their, their, their rationale now is, oh, by the way, we did all this wrong. But he's a bad guy because we've decided he's a bad guy and we found a bunch of evidence. Therefore what I think they're trying to argue is trust us on all future endeavors because we found a bad guy even though we did it wrongly. And that's what stinks about this is that it's a complete ends justify the means. And even our press conference today was a total end. Just it wasn't seeking justice and it's not what American justice is supposed to be. It is basically we're going to engineer this in such a way as we decide somebody we don't like and we're going to do with them with what we want. And when they're caught. When we're caught, we're going to bring the full force of the American government to try to find anything we possibly can to rationalize the mistakes we made to begin with.

Nicole Wallace (31:08)

And again, Matthew, there's a lot of reporting in the record that quotes from internal documents from the Trump administration that corroborates your theory. Let me read from some of that. This is again from the New York York times story from May 21. They write that Mr. Raveni, who's the DOJ lawyer who admitted that he'd been mistakenly deported in a series of email correspondence, says this to a group of other officials in the Trump administration. The Kilmar Abrego case, quote, potentially jeopardizes many far more important initiatives of the current administration. If the government fought and lost, it could have legal repercussions, not least of which for the nearly 140 Venezuelans who were sent to the same facility under the authority of a rarely used wartime law, the Alien enemies Act of 1798. Ultimately, three courts, including the United States Supreme Court, pushed back against the Trump White House, ordering Trump officials to at least take steps toward freeing Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia. But Mr. Trump and some of his top aides have taken a defiant stance, insisting that Mr. Abrego Garcia will not be coming back to the United States. It is a reversal. It is, as with the tariff story that we leave with most days, it is a changed position. It is absolutely appropriate. Right. If someone has committed crimes to deport them. That is not at all the story that they have been telling about this man and this case, as the story points out, to three courts, including the U.S. supreme Court. Yeah.

Matt Dowd (32:45)

And it's almost as if all of us who've been raising this due process concern, everyone on this panel, including you in this, have been raising this due process concern and constitutional concern that we have in this. It's almost as if what they're doing. And her attitude today, Pam Bondi's attorney General's attitude today, was very underlined. This was all you annoying people out there that constantly talk about the Constitution and due process and all of that, all you annoying people. Well, look what we did. We found he was a bad guy. And even though we, we annoyed you and all this Constitution stuff and, and it, you know, this, you know, superfluous arguments that you're making, I'm speaking as if for them. We found out he's a bad guy, and we've determined he's a bad guy even before he's actually put before a jury. In a court of law and is able to defend himself. That's what this is. It's we, we, we annoy her and Donald Trump because we're making an argument that the constitutional protections belong to everyone. And they're basically like, he's bad. We decided it, it doesn't matter.

Nicole Wallace (33:50)

It's an unbelievable moment, I think, in this, a real inflection point in the second Trump administration and something we'll, I think, be talking about for a while. I mean, I was just so struck by Pam Bondi's causal tie between the, quote, bright light of press coverage and the incredible police work that followed. And obviously that's, to Harry's point, probably happens all the time. But for her to say that out loud about a case that has really brought for the first time ever, the president of our country to say, I'm not sure that it's my job to uphold the Constitution. I don't know if upholding the Constitution is my job, Harry. Yeah.

Jake Tapper (34:29)

And I just want to make a very quick follow on legal point because I agree with everything he said. That's going to be the battle at trial. If it goes to trial, they're going to try to get in this backstory that everyone knows. And the law, just to cut to the chase, is they're probably not going to be able to do that. They'll want to have all these details about the prosecution, the investigation, the terrible egg on the face of the United States and probably a jury will not hear it.

Nicole Wallace (34:57)

Harry Lippman, thank you for joining us. Lisa, you're going to be back in the next hour with us. Matt Dowd sticks around. When we come back, we'll turn to the breakup that I think everybody saw coming. Right. This was not a foundationally sound relationship between two stable men. What is at stake, though, for the rest of us in the ugly, ugly split between Donald and Elon? That's next. Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area. With spacious floor plans, flexible living spaces and home technology packages, you can enjoy more cozy moments and sweet memories in your beautiful new home. With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more@drhorton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal housing opportunity builder. Hey, guys. Finding the perfect gift for the food lover in your life is easy thanks to Gold Belly. Gold Belly ships America's most iconic foods straight from world famous restaurants right to your door. So if you want to treat someone to Joe's Stone Crab from Miami, Franklin BBQ from Texas or desserts from famous foodies like Ina Garten or Martha Stewart. Goldbelly has you covered with free shipping anywhere in the country. Just go to goldbelly.com and for a limited time get 20% off your first order with promo Code Gift. That's Promo Code Gift. If you're looking for new ways to get ahead, then you're our kind of person. We're Udemy and we help learners like you upskill in AI, productivity, leadership and management and more. Learn at your own pace from real world experts. You can also prep for certifications that show employers what you know upskill for the career you want@udemy.com now back to your regularly scheduled listening the ugly, rip roaring feud that gives anything you've ever seen on reality TV a run for its money that is still ongoing between Elon Musk and Donald Trump is that proverbial crash scene that no one can look away from today. Donald Trump referred to Musk as, quote, the man who lost his mind in an interview with ABC's John Carl, adding that he's not talking to him. He's not going to call him first. He's, quote, not interested in talking to Elon Musk. And to keep the bad breakup parallel going where you throw out all the stuff you ever got from your ex and all the T shirts you ever borrowed from them, there's reporting now that Trump's considering giving away the Tesla he bought at a highly appropriate event on the White House lawn two months ago that experts at the time described as a blatant violation of ethics rules. Corruption playing out in public, they said. Senator Chris Murphy called it that at the time. But beyond the schoolyard taunts and the very public, very nasty feuding between the two men, the spectacle, I likened it yesterday to two tarantulas in a bowl. The reason we care and the reason we're covering it for a second day is one, Trump doesn't want us to and two, there are real stakes for the American people and how this ends. The stakes speak to the enormous power Elon Musk inappropriately accumulated slash purchased. Take, for example, Musk's threat to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which he later retracted after somebody on his platform asked him to. On X Politico reports this, quote, musk's threat would deprive the US of its only assured way of supplying the International Space Station and bringing on and off astronauts. If executed, NASA would instead have to rely on Russia to bring supplies and astronauts to the station. Imagine that. Elon Musk or Russia? Not clear what Trump would choose right, at least not to me. The threat was in response to Trump who attacked Musk by saying, I'm going to end all your federal contracts for all of Musk's companies. Something that again, ethically and normally might be the right thing to do, but because he's so embedded, would cause utter chaos for the US Military if it's done in the spirit and context and the moment of this fight. Washington Post reports this quote. Over the years, SpaceX has become a vital contractor launching sensitive national security payloads such as satellites that provide missile warning, battlefield communication and guide munitions to precise targets. NPR reports this quote, SpaceX's Starlink satellite network is a player in a multi billion dollar federal effort to expand Internet access to underserved parts of the country. Trump is fine with all that commingling of his donor and the United States federal government and Musk's businesses, all those contracts on which NASA, the Pentagon, millions of actual human beings depend on. Until Musk went there, attacked his big, not so beautiful bill, and invoked his presence in the Epstein files. Something for which there is no publicly known evidence. The Bulwark puts it like this quote, the disquieting reality continues to hang in the air. Major parts of our government rely on a return to goodwill between two of the most arrogant and emotionally unbalanced men alive. In what world is that not a massive national security risk? Joining our conversation is Tyler Pager. He's a White House correspondent for the New York Times. He's co author of the soon to be released book 2024. Matt Dowd is still here as well. Tyler, where. Where are we? And you know, like sans through the hourglass, you're too young to even know what that is. Days of our Lives soap opera. But where are we in this very public fight between Elon Musk and.

Tyler Pager (41:02)

Yeah, I think we're just waiting to see what the next step might be. We saw Elon Musk, as you mentioned, Nicole, position himself as willing to potentially have a detente with Trump. Responding to people on X last night who were encouraging him to lay down the weapons and sort of return to some semblance of a relationship. But the President has seemingly shown no interest in that outreach. White House officials telling me that the President had no plans to call Elon Musk, despite some reporting that that may happen. Trump doing a round of brief interviews with reporters this morning saying he's not all that concerned about Elon Musk, and he's focused on the economy and the bill that Musk has spent the last several days sailing on social media. But, Nicole, I think your point and your intro here is really important. It's easy to get caught up in the war of words and the personal insults and taunts, but what lies at the heart of this relations is of two of the most powerful men in the world is an extreme reliance on the federal government, on some of Elon Musk's companies. And so that threat from President Trump yesterday about potentially cutting those contracts and subsidies and other relationships between the government and most companies represents not only an existential threat potentially to Musk companies, but also to the operations of some of the critical functions of the US Government. So, obviously, this alliance was forged in sort of unpredictable ways over the campaign trail. Musk poured his own money into helping Trump get elected. And then we saw them rummage through the federal government, through the Doge effort. But beyond that, the relationship between the government and the private companies is really quite critical for both parties. And so I think that there is some interest, at least from allies of both men, of lowering the temperature. But as we saw yesterday, it's quite unpredictable what could come next. And so we're just watching both of their social media platforms that they own, X for Moxit Musk and Truth Social for Trump, to see what direction this might head in next.

Nicole Wallace (43:13)

Tyler, I don't want to let the seriousness of the charge that Musk makes get lost in the flurry of barbs. This is what Elon Musk said about almost exactly 24 hours ago, quote, time to drop the really big bomb. Real Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day. Is there any line of open reporting that supports that? Where is that? What is that? Where does that come from?

Tyler Pager (43:49)

Yeah, there is a lot of nuggets and details about speculation about Donald Trump's potential naming in those files. Part of it comes from the fact that Trump did have a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. White House officials countered that assertion by Elon Musk very aggressively last night, saying there's no evidence of that, and also noting that Trump, you know, severed his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. But that accusation from Musk is essentially the equivalent of Musk Musk going nuclear on Trump, really leveling a severe accusation against the president that the president and his allies were very frustrated and disturbed by. So it is, as you said, a serious accusation. There is no known evidence of Trump being noted in those files or named in those files. But you're right, Nicole, it's important to note that must DID level, not just that one post that you showed, but a series of posts linking Trump to Epstein and those documents. And I think, just to take a step back, one thing we should note is obviously the trove of documents about Jeffrey Epstein has been a cause celeb for the MAGA base and Republicans who have pushed Trump to fully release all of those documents. So part of that, that dig there from Musk was. Was sort of an appeal to that MAGA base that has been salivating over the potential that they would get full purview into those documents.

Nicole Wallace (45:20)

Yeah. And I think it's important for viewers of our program to know. Actually, my viewers may already know this, but for a broader audience to understand it, cross pressures. Kash Patel, and I always forget his name, Dan Bongiano, Bongino, because they have sort of flirted with those conspiracy theories before they were inside the government. So it's a real live wire in the MAGA base. And before anyone says, well, there are unfounded rumors, I mean, so was the notion of that Trump had won in 2020, and look what that led to. I want to bring Matt Dowd in on all of this, as well as the nuclear response. I mean, this is mutually assured destruction. If we're going to keep the nuclear parallels going, I want to show that to you. It comes from Steve Bannon, and it involves deporting Elon Musk. Matt Dow gets in on this. On the other side, he crossed the Rubicon. You can't. Listen, it's one thing to make comments about the spending on the bill. There's another thing about what he did, okay? You can't sit there and first of all, try to destroy the bill. You can't come out and say, kill.

Tim Miller (46:23)

The president's most important legislative occurrence of.

Nicole Wallace (46:27)

This first term, number one. Number two, he crossed the Rubicon by this outrageous comparison to the Epstein trials about saying President Trump should be impeached and replaced by JD Vance.

Kyle Lewis (46:39)

This is so outrageous.

Nicole Wallace (46:40)

And has crossed the line. He's crossed the Rubicon and there's no going back. Oh, baby, we've all crossed the Rubicon. Matt Dowd. You get the last word.

Matt Dowd (46:50)

I mean, I'm struggled, you know, to come up with the appropriate cultural reference for what's going on here. I've, you know, I've thought about King Kong versus Godzilla. I thought about Freddy versus Jason, the best one I could come up with. And it's like Alien versus Predator, because it basically describes both of them. All of those three things have in common is that when that fight occurs, there is a ton of collateral damage and innocent people suffer in the midst of that. And as I watch this unfold, my only hope in this is this sort of immature bro culture that Donald Trump and Elon Musk both seem to sort of celebrate and become a part of that. We look at that and say maybe that's not the direction we should elect leaders from or bring people into the government from these like two adolescent boys who are sitting in their basement playing a video game. And one gets mad and calls, says his girlfriend's ugly. And the problem is the video game is connected, like Matthew Broderick's character in War Games to a real world actions. And they're sitting there saying, okay, if you say that I'm going to launch this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this. And the amount of collateral damage that can come from this, you know, this. As I say, Alien versus Predator fight, drag out, drag down is, is amazing. But I hope it gives us an insight in the idea of maybe we should pick our leaders a little bit differently.

Nicole Wallace (48:21)

But what breaks the cycle, I mean, I think it also Matt Dao reveals the hermetically sealed information bubble.

Matt Dowd (48:32)

That'S. That's been part of the problem. But I think part of what can break the hermetically sealed is when two titans of the movement begin to go after each other. And then I think you're left with a lot of people in the MAGA world of like, I thought I was supposed to love Donald Trump and love Elon Musk and all what they're doing. And now it looks like they hate each other and they disagree with what they're doing. Where am I supposed to go? I'm my hope is that part of this unfolding while incredibly embarrassing on the global stage and incredibly destructive because of the levers of power that exist in the country and who might get hurt in this. It might reveal to people that maybe just voting for people because you want to own the libs isn't the right strategy.

Nicole Wallace (49:17)

We can hope. I'll associate myself with your hope. I'll take a second to defend adolescent boys. I am the mother of one and they do not act like this. I'll stick with tarantulas and a bowl. I think they do. Tyler Page and Matt Dowd, thank you for being part of our coverage. Still ahead for us Senator Chris Van Hollen will join us on the breaking news. We started the hour with on Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return to the US and the charges he now faces. The next hour deadline White House starts after a quick break. Don't go anywhere today. Do you have any concern about some of the government cuts under the Trump administration, how that might impact veterans? I do because he's trying to cut some of the veteran benefits that we're having, which I think if you serve, you should be able to get the.

Tim Miller (50:06)

Benefits that's due to you. But now he's coming in, he's trying.

Nicole Wallace (50:10)

To cut this part and that part.

Kyle Lewis (50:11)

This is very much about veterans and it shouldn't be a party based issue, in my opinion.

Nicole Wallace (50:18)

So you don't see this rally as like an anti Trump or anti administration rally? Well, it can be anti the administration.

Harry Lipman (50:23)

As long as he remains anti veteran.

Nicole Wallace (50:26)

And you see Donald Trump in this moment as very much as anti veteran. There you had it. Very much at this moment, Donald Trump is anti veteran. Hi again, Everybody. It's now 5:00. In New York today, on the 81st anniversary of D Day, roughly 2,000 veterans and their allies are rallying on the national mall in D.C. advocating for the rights of those who served our country and protesting the Trump administration's drastic cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The va. Elon Musk's DOGE team already made slashes to the department. The slashes disrupted care that is given to our country's vets, where we saw things like clinical trials delayed, contracts being canceled and support staff fired. Back in March, a leaked memo from the department chief of staff revealed a plan to majorly restructure, which includes cutting more than 80,000 jobs from the agency that would take place later this year. The Trump administration, including VA Secretary Doug Collins, maintains that essential positions would not be cut and there would be no, quote, surprise firings. But with the magnitude of the proposed staffing cuts, it begs the question, how could care for our vets possibly go uninterrupted? Currently, the Veterans Affairs Administration serves more than 9 million vets each year and provides care at nearly 1,400 health care facilities. Additionally, veterans themselves make up 25% of the agency's workforce. So this chipping away at resources and funding and staffing and the safety of those who sacrificed their time, their efforts, in most cases their physical and mental well being in service of our nation is only magnified as Donald Trump continues his ridiculous crusade against his former bestie, Elon Musk, A fight our friend Paul Rykoff puts in stark terms. He posted this Quote, keep in mind, this is also now an open fight between the commander in chief and one of the biggest and most significant defense contractors in America. Our troops and military will be caught in the middle. America is less safe for it. Putin is thrilled and our enemies are celebrating. That's where we start the hour. Some of our favorite experts and friends. U.S. navy veteran Kyle Lewis is back with us. We first met Kyle when we were covering Trump's first Trump and Musk's first round of cuts to federal research funding, funding that has saved Kyle's life when he was battling stage four cancer. Kyle attended today's Unite for Veterans rally, joining us at the table, host of the Independent Americans podcast, founder and CEO of Independent Veterans of America, Paul Reichoff is here and host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, president of the National Action Network, the Reverend Al Sharpton is with us as well. Kyle, tell me about the rally today on the mall.

Kyle Lewis (53:23)

Yeah. Great to see you again, Nicole. It was fantastic. Great vibe. But that's always going to happen when you get a bunch of veterans together. Even though we don't agree on everything. Dropkick Murphy's were fantastic. Senator Tammy Duckworth was absolutely amazing as always. So it was a very supportive vibe. It was great. Very brotherly, but also very resolute and committed. We all know what we're doing out there.

Nicole Wallace (53:51)

It's interesting that you point out there are political issues on which veterans, like any other group of Americans disagree. Is there a common cause now in rallying against the Trump administration's cuts?

Kyle Lewis (54:07)

Yeah, there absolutely is. And what's happening against veterans is just a microcosm of what the rest of the country is looking at as well. And the big two that we're talking about here are healthy health care and jobs, right? Healthcare for our veterans, including people like myself that has been wildly disrupted. And then veterans who have lost their jobs for no real reason, certainly not for performance based issues like was lied about back in February. But the common cause now for a lot of us that wore this uniform, is the social contract that exists between us and this country. And that was was we are going to go to war for you. We're going to fight to defend the freedoms of every American, everyone in this country. When we come home, you're going to take care of us. And that has never been questioned. In fact, that's something that's been a campaign issue for parties for decades now, centuries really, is that we take care of veterans. This is the first time that this is so egregiously happening. And there's an actual war against veterans by a current sitting administration. And so there is definitely a common cause now which is this is absolutely not right. We have this contract that all of us veterans and all the American people agree to as well. You're going to provide us with health care, we're going to get access to, we're going to get things like jobs, we're going to get things like education, all these other benefits that veterans receive that are currently under attack by Donald Trump and his administration. It's certainly provided a unique unifying rallying cry.

Nicole Wallace (55:40)

Kyle, you're not the first veteran to say that, that this feels like and in your view a quote, war against veterans. I wonder what you think it says about our politics that that's not a three alarm fire for Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

Kyle Lewis (55:54)

Yeah, right. I will say this, this issue has been going on as you mentioned, you know, since February and I've been in the middle of it. I've been fortunate enough to be meet with several elected leaders. I will note they are all on the Democratic side. There is not a single sitting Republican lawmaker that has agreed to meet with myself, with some of my fellow veterans, with vote vets, some of the other groups. I'm certainly not seeing it any of the town halls. I'm not hearing any of it on CNN or C SPAN or msnbc. The Republicans have just been completely are just hiding on this issue. They're being complete cowards. The party that, you know, claimed to stand up for veterans for so long, at least my entire lifetime, that's been the reality, right? Oh, Republicans take care of veterans and it's so blatantly not happening now. I mean it's that whatever you want to call it, fig leaf that existed before, it's gone now. It's completely gone now. Never again will a veteran trust a Republican that says I'm going to be there for you after you get me elected. That's gone.

Nicole Wallace (57:02)

That's amazing. I mean have you tried to see Speaker Johnson or Leader Thune?

Kyle Lewis (57:08)

Speaker Johnson? I have not. Mostly senators from some of my colleague states who are impacted by a lot of the VA hirings and, and we have not received welcome invitations from any of them yet.

Nicole Wallace (57:27)

If you got in front of Thune right now, what would you say to his face?

Kyle Lewis (57:34)

I don't know right now. You'd have to come back to me on that one.

Nicole Wallace (57:37)

I'll come back to you on that. We have evidence from time to time that some Republicans catch certain important guests like yourself on this program. Paul Rakoff I'll let you jump in.

Tim Miller (57:48)

81 years ago, young Americans stood up in defense of our values. And every generation of American veterans and military folks have stepped forward to defend our values. Some of them have laid their lives on the line, given their bodies. And now, again, veterans around the country, in D.C. and in shadow rallies, 40, I think, around the country are standing up in defense of our values, because that's really what this is. This is an attack on our values. It's an attack on our community.

Nicole Wallace (58:12)

But.

Tim Miller (58:12)

But it's also attack on all Americans, and it's starting with us. You and I have been talking about this for months. I think it's more than a canary in a coal mine. It's really a harbinger of what is to come. And what you're seeing with veterans is that they are holding the line in defense of our democracy, of our values. But also they have been uniquely targeted in these cuts. They disproportionately serve. One third of federal workers are veterans, and they are being fired. And they're standing up and saying no to that because we want to continue to serve. But they're also saying no to the entire atmosphere of intimidation, of threatening to fire people who serve across the government. And they're answering the call. And I think they're becoming what I called, I think, in the past, a patriotic purge. You know, Trump led by purging people in the military and veterans and FBI folks, and now they're forming the backbone of the opposition. And Elon Musk is leaving Washington with a pretty notable distinction. He's probably fired more veterans in six months than anyone in American history.

Nicole Wallace (59:05)

Wow.

Tim Miller (59:06)

And that is politically radioactive. And I think Trump is going to probably take advantage of that. But that's what they're both facing now, is this is uniquely unpopular across partisan lines, and veterans are punching back first. And I think what happened in Washington today is just the beginning, and Americans will follow.

Nicole Wallace (59:21)

I mean, Trump is a symptom of all this, obviously. But the enablers, to me, feel like as important of a part of the story. I mean, House Republicans represent people that, at least in the old days, they used to know. People used to know the veterans in their community. They would be involved in showing the government's gratitude and appreciation. They know where the VA hospitals are. They, in normal times, fight for them. I mean, what is happening in our politics that Republicans in the House and Senate aren't being held accountable for what they're doing to our veterans?

Tim Miller (59:56)

I don't think they've gone back to their communities enough. And I think you're going to see that this summer because the VA cuts and attacks were also after the other cuts. Right. We saw first a DOD Hegseth was in place. Collins came afterward. And I've long said that everything they're doing in this country, they're starting at the Pentagon. Well, HHS and FBI and the VA are coming in line after that. So you're going to see similar types of cuts. You could see similar compromises of data. Think about all the health care data that's up for grabs at Elon Musk could now hold hostage because he's had folks inside the Department of Veterans Affairs. And of course, there's a symbolic value of being able to first take down the Pentagon, put hegset there. VA's kind of been below the radar for most Americans, but for veterans, it's front and center. And I think especially this summer, you're going to hear from veterans and Republicans are going to hear from veterans, especially in their home districts.

Nicole Wallace (60:44)

Rev, I feel like there's a story that's hard to get at and it's all these realignments, right? Veterans who are as diverse as their political views as any group of Americans coming together in opposition to these draconian cuts. And this really something bigger than that, breaking the compact that we have with our veterans. Social Security, which I'm convinced Donald Trump thinks is like a philanthropic handout, not something I don't think he understands with that line. This is people's money they pay into. All these contracts being broken do not fall. I mean, as many people from Democratic leaning households as Republican leaning households at 62% and 62% have received Social Security benefits or someone in their house has. So there's not a partisan breakdown from who benefits from that. The VA community coalescing around opposition to these cuts against the Trump administration. What is sort of happening in our communities that's hard to get our arms around, maybe at a national level politically?

Tim Miller (61:42)

I think that the reason it's hard to get our arms around it is there's a realignment going on in the country where people that were opposite party, opposite thoughts politically a few months ago are now finding themselves aligned. You have to remember when these veterans who served this country, whether they were serving for those of us on the left or the right, have to go to Washington at a time that many of them have been fired and the guy that fired them is saying out loud that you wouldn't be president if it wasn't for me. Well, what does that mean? I Mean, you've never heard a statement that undercut democracy more and moved more toward an oligarchy to say Donald Trump wouldn't even be the president if it wasn't me. I did the Congress. So here you have the richest man in the world who fired veterans, talking about, I put you in the White House and I'll call you any name I want. And these veterans fought to preserve a country, whether they were on the right or the left, that they believed had democratic principles. And they're there in the mall not doing what was done January 6th. They're there raising a question of whether or not this country stands up for what they fought and put their life on the line for. When I was in high school and college, we fought the Vietnam War, but we saluted Vietnam veterans. It's now like all of us are cast aside while two billionaires have a temper tantrum at the expense of the country.

Nicole Wallace (63:09)

Kyle, I want to ask you how your access to the health care that you need and that you credit with saving your life has been since we've last talked.

Kyle Lewis (63:19)

Yeah. So my story personally is actually a good one. I had my five year checkup on my cancer ordeal and I'm doing well. I have no growth and no spreading. And so fortunately, I don't require any additional treatment, which I couldn't get anyway. Though I did confirm that at my hospital, Johnson Johns Hopkins, my clinical trial has no money associated with it. So if I needed to get those drugs right now, I couldn't get it through that clinical trial. Now, my doctors at Johns Hopkins are fantastic people and there are apparently workarounds that exist that I won't get into. So there are still things happening. Doctors are, I guess that's the point that you should take away here. Doctors are making things happen for patients in need where there are funding shortfalls now caused by this administration.

Nicole Wallace (64:19)

But it's an extraordinary. It sounds like it's tricky, right? You know, you don't say too much about your district.

Kyle Lewis (64:24)

It is. Nope. Yeah. There's no roadmap for this. It seems like every case is different, Right? They have to look, there are extenuating circumstances for everyone's treatment, treatment. And so they have to find workarounds that way.

Nicole Wallace (64:37)

So while doctors have to find workarounds, let me ask you how you feel about Donald Trump's military parade? Trump told Kristen Welker, my colleague over at NBC News, that the parade's price tag, which could reach $45 million, would be, quote, peanuts compared to the value of doing it. How does that land with you as someone who would have to find a complicated workaround should you need more medical care for something that we're very happy is in remission. But how does it land when you're having to sort of navigate this moment? And Trump thinks that $45 million would, quote, be peanuts compared to the value.

Kyle Lewis (65:15)

Of doing it right now. Let's talk about the military suicide hotline operators that were fired, some of the people that helped deal with our veterans in their deepest and darkest hours, hours when they come back home and those people lost their jobs. Why don't you spend 45 million paying those people their money? Spend 45 million on childcare for military members. Spend 45 million, you know, providing additional transportation to rural areas where veterans already have trouble getting to medical facilities. Anything that you do would be better than spending it on a parade to stroke the ego of the this guy.

Tim Miller (65:55)

Paul, I think the money's important, but the attack on our values is even more important because the part about the parade that's most significant is this is un American. We don't do that here. That's what they do in North Korea. That's what they do in Russia. And it's bigger than just the political stunt that it will become for Trump. You're asking the troops to be a part of a political parade. So you're thrusting them into the middle of his culture war, of his political, political agenda, where there will undoubtedly be, I'm sure, peaceful protests to counter protest the parade. But he's continuing to thrust our veterans and our military into the most divisive issues of our time. Whether it's the parade, it's the border, it's gay rights, I mean, everything. He's using the troops as a cudgel to try to drive that through. But there are actually troops involved. So 19 and 20 year olds are going to have to march in this thing on his birthday next week in Washington. And I think think they're going to have a problem with how it feels in their hearts. It's not what they signed up for. And that's what I think should be most outrageous to all Americans.

Nicole Wallace (66:52)

Well, it's the reporting about the first time he tried to do this. I think his first idea of having a military parade for himself, which as you said, he could have only, I mean, I think he came back from Bastille Day celebrations in France and had seen it, but as a tradition, it happens only in North Korea. I'm not sure that Russia still does them and I don't think China does Regularly as well. Trump wanted this for his birthday. And in the reporting about the efforts to scuttle this, it came out that he didn't want any wounded veterans marching with him. He didn't want any amputees or anyone who had been wounded in service of their country. And that is the vein of reporting that the Atlantic pursued that ultimately culminates in, quote, suckers and losers. The only people that die for their country are, quote, suckers and losers. So it feels like. Like it's a big political stink bomb for Donald Trump.

Tim Miller (67:40)

Yes, and it continues to be a political prop that he wants to use. I mean, that's how he uses Hegset. That's how he uses Tulsi Gabbard. It's how he uses a lot of people in uniform. And when they push back, like Milley did, he goes in a different direction. But there was also another direction.

Nicole Wallace (67:55)

He's threatened to court martial.

Tim Miller (67:57)

I mean, there was also something else that was, I don't think, reported at all or under reported. Usually on Memorial Day, there is a White House reception that the President hosts before Arlington. Like last week. That didn't happen this year. He didn't do it. And it's been precedent that the president always does that. All the veterans groups, a lot of people who are marching today go to the White House, and then everybody goes together to Arlington. But that was canceled.

Nicole Wallace (68:18)

Why?

Tim Miller (68:18)

I don't know why. That's what I hope every reporter in America asks him today.

Nicole Wallace (68:22)

I'll try to get that question asked. Kyle, I'll give you the last word.

Kyle Lewis (68:28)

Thank you so much. If I could, if I could use it to bring up one issue that is really bothering right now that's outside the scope of what we've been talking about, is these horrific ICE deportations that we're seeing in our communities. These guys are rolling up in full militarized gear and going after dishwashers and day laborers and other innocent people and just absolutely terrorizing communities. First of all, that alone is absolutely, horrifically wrong, and I hope everyone agrees with that. Secondly, I. I do want people who maybe aren't as informed to understand that that is not the US Military doing that. The US Military is not going to come rolling into neighborhoods and start arresting people. I think part of why we're seeing this increased, militarized look of police in the last month, quite frankly, it's really taken hold is this whole idea of using the Insurrection act and martial law was shot down back in April. This thing that everyone thought might actually happen since then, we've seen an increased use of militarized police and ice. I should say this is really at the federal level using military vehicles, uniforms and whatnot. These wannabes are not the US Military. These guys are not veterans in a lot of cases. Don't confuse that. And please help stop these horrendous deportations any way you can.

Nicole Wallace (69:49)

It's a subject we're going to be talking about in our next conversation with Senator Van Hollen. Thank you for that, kylo. We'll continue to turn to you. Paul Rykoff, thank you for joining us today. The Rev sticks around for the hour. When we come back, much more on the breaking news that we started with last hour. The return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to US Soil to face criminal charges. Senator Chris Van Hollen, who met with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, will be our guest along with with one of the ACLU top immigration attorneys. That conversation is next. Also ahead, a former federal prosecutor is leaving an elite law firm that cut a deal with Donald Trump for a firm that instead decided to fight an executive order. We'll bring you that reporting on the latest example of how capitulation to Donald Trump is backfiring. Deadline. White Houses will continue after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Alright, listen up. The only gift that any dad wants on Father's Day is Gold Belly. Gold Belly ships the most iconic foods from the best restaurants across the country straight to his door for free. Let him kick back and chow down on award winning barbecue from Texas, Epic deep dish pizza from Chicago or colossal pastrami sandwiches from New York. Make dad feel like an absolute legend this Father's Day. And go to goldbelly.com to get 20% off your first order with promo code daddy. That's 20% off@goldbelly.com code dad. This season, let your shoes do the talking. Designer shoe warehouse is packed with fresh styles that speak to your whole vibe without saying a word. From cool sneakers that look good with everything, the easy sandals you'll want to wear on repeat. DSW has you covered. Find a shoe for everywho from the brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas, New Balance and more. Head to your DSW store or visit dsw.com today. Busy work weeks can leave you feeling drained. Prolon's five day nutrition program rejuvenates you at the cellular level with boxes labeled by day so you know exactly what to eat. Developed at USC's Longevity Institute, Prolon supports biological age reduction, metabolism, skin health and fat loss, loss when combined with proper exercise and Nutrition, get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe at prolonlife.com PandoraProMo these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. Products are not intended to diagnose, treat or prevent disease. See site for details. You could get him back. There's a phone on this desk. I could. You could pick it up and with all the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, send him back now. And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that. But the court has ordered you to facilitate that. I'm not the one making this decision. We have lawyers who want to do this, but the buck stops. Eyes off.

Jake Tapper (72:38)

No, no, no, no.

Nicole Wallace (72:39)

I follow the law.

Chris Van Hollen (72:40)

You want me to follow the law.

Nicole Wallace (72:41)

If I were the president that just wanted to do anything, I'd probably keep him right where he is. Court says what the law is. After months of stonewalling the court, giving judges, including the Supreme Court justices and the American people a run around, the Trump administration is doing what I think people believe they have the power to do all along. It is bringing Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States. But he is coming back to face criminal charges that Attorney General Pam Bondi announced last hour. Joining our conversation is Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Holland. He met with Abrego Garcia at an El Salvador prison back in April. Also joining us, the deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants Rights Project League Alert. The Rev is here as well. Senator, I know this is your first national interview, but you've. So I guess what's your first response to the news?

Chris Van Hollen (73:36)

Well, Nicole, this is a victory for due process. It's a victory for the Constitution. It should not have taken this long. I mean, as you indicated, the Trump administration dragged its feet for a very long time, ignored a 9. 0 order from the Supreme Court. But it's important that Abrego Garcia now come home and have his due process rights upheld in a court of law. You know, I've said repeatedly, repeatedly, this is not about the man Abrego Garcia. This is about his constitutional rights and really the rights of all of us, that if President Trump, Trump and his administration can trample the rights of one person, the rights of all of us are at risk. So they didn't want to do it. They said he'd never set back foot back in the United States again. But I think because of the pressure from the courts and from others, they realized that not following the Constitution, at least in this Instance was the wrong path. I don't know if this is going to be prelude to complying with other court orders, but at least this is a good day for the rule of law.

Nicole Wallace (74:46)

Senator, Attorney General Pambandi made a point of thanking Bukele at the beginning. Do you what is your sense of what the facts are around whether or not he would have sent him back absent criminal charges?

Chris Van Hollen (75:04)

Look, Bukele and the governor of El Salvador are only holding Abrego Garcia and others because they're being paid by the United States to do so. They have no separate independent criminal charges pending against any of these individuals. I know that because I asked that question directly to the vice President of El Salvador who I met with and he admitted. I released the tapes because it was an on the record conversation where he admitted very clearly that they were just paying. They, you know, they were taking people because they were being paid to.

Nicole Wallace (75:39)

ProPublica is reporting that the vast majority of Venezuelans sent to seekot were not convicted of any crime. They write the Trump administration knew that the vast majority of the 238 Venezuelan immigrants that sent to a maximum security prison in El Salvador in mid March had not been convicted of crimes. The data indicates that the government knew that only 6 of the immigrants were convicted of violent crimes. They go on to detail what they are. That's where public support lies. Even for Trump's policies. 87% of Americans support deporting, adjudicated violent criminals. What do you think? This case and Pam Bondi alluded to it today, she called it, quote, the bright light of news coverage of this case. What do you think it has revealed about where the American people are?

Chris Van Hollen (76:26)

Well, Nicole, I do know in the case of Abrego Garcia that the polling that took place right after my visit to El Salvador indicated that the American public believed that he should have his constitutional rights upheld, that his due process rights were important because they recognized the connection between protecting his rights and protecting the rights of others in America. And I still firmly believe that across party lines, the American people believe that you should not be deprived of your liberty without having your day in court. And so I think it's never wrong to defend the due process rights of people who reside in the United States. And I do think that's where the majority of Americans are when they focus in on the facts.

Tim Miller (77:16)

Senator, as you have stated, this clearly give us how you distinguish, distinguish between people rallying around the person Abrego Garcia and what happened to him. Because a lot of us that have participated in civil rights and all try to make symbols out of the victim, but you've been very careful not to make him the symbol. But what happened to him the symbol, how important is that? And how do you continue to thread that needle?

Chris Van Hollen (77:47)

Well, Rev, thanks for making that distinction. And that is a distinction that I've made, because my view is it's up to courts to resolve the factual questions. And in this case, Judge Zinnis, she's the federal district court judge in the case, has really pled with the Trump administration to come forward with facts and present them, you know, as sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. And they've not made any of these claims in her courtroom. They've not ever brought any criminal charges against Abrego Garcia. And so my view has been, you know, to the administration, put up or shut up in a court of law. So if they're now going to take this case into the courts, as they should have, you know, from the beginning, before they just took him off the streets of Maryland and deposited to him in a gulag in El Salvador, then that is, that is the due process that we've been fighting for. And again, not just for his case, but for others. And I think that, that Americans understand that everybody deserves to have their rights respected. That's what the Constitution is for.

Nicole Wallace (79:00)

Senator, in the time that you spent with the family or with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, were you aware of any of the things that are detailed in today's indictment?

Chris Van Hollen (79:12)

Well, I've heard reports from the administration. I mean, they've been saying various things over social media, some of which are included in this indictment today, some which are not included in this indictment today. I've been following the court proceedings. So, for example, Judge Zinnis, who's the district court judge, as I mentioned, said that the administration, the Trump administration, had provided no evidence to her about any connections between abrego Garcia and Ms. 13 or any other terrorist activity. That was what the judge said. Now, look, if the Trump administration has other charges that they want to bring in a court of law, then that's obviously their prerogative. The most important thing here is that it happened in a court of law where the Trump administration has to make its case under penalty of perjury, not over social media. And where Abrego Garcia can have his lawyers. I mean, his lawyers have never had the chance to speak to him. I'm the only one who spoke to him because I went to El Salvador to make sure that he was still alive. I mean, his wife and his mom didn't know if he was alive. So now he's back, he's facing these charges, but he will now have a lawyer there and he'll have the benefit of having the charges discussed ultimately in a court of law where his due process rights should be protected.

Nicole Wallace (80:41)

Senator Chris Van Hollen, thank you for taking the time to talk to us about this. US we appreciate you.

Chris Van Hollen (80:46)

Thank you.

Nicole Wallace (80:46)

We're going to bring Lee into the conversation on the other side of a very short break. Stay with us. Lee, I know this is a evolving story, and I want to talk to you about everything on your plate today. But first, your reaction to the charges and the decision and the ability, frankly, that the administration clearly had all along to bring Kilmar Bago Garcia back to the U.S. yeah.

Sadie (81:14)

So I don't know enough about the charges, obviously, and I'm not going to speak to the specific charges. What I will say is it's fairly coincidental, maybe suspicious that all of a sudden he's being indicted. I think it looks like a way for the administration to get around the Supreme Court's ruling saying just he was erroneously removed, just bring him back the normal way. All of a sudden there's an indictment. So, you know, that seems fairly coincidental. Obviously, I don't know all the facts in the indictment, but I think to your point, and the larger point is it does confirm what I think everyone's always known, is that the administration can pick up the phone at any time and get people out. And in our case, Judge Boasberg ruled that the more than 100 Venezuelan men who, who were erroneously sent there without any due process need to be brought back into U.S. custody. The administration has a few more days to present the plan. We'll see what they do. But certainly that's not the way to bring all these men back, is to have indictments. They need to bring them back in normal ways.

Nicole Wallace (82:22)

Let me read from Judge Boasberg's ruling in the alien enemies case, your case before him. Defendants must facilitate plaintiffs ability to proceed through habeas and ensure that their cases are handled as they would have been if the government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process. Absent this relief, the government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action. Talk about where things stand before Judge Boasberg and the sort of of the ripple of his ruling this week.

Sadie (82:58)

Yeah, so I mean, I think this is the big ruling because he is talking about the entire class of men who were sent to seekot that first night, March 15, under the Alien Enemies Act. And so we're talking about, you know, roughly 135 men. We'll see how the government handles it, whether they appeal immediately, whether they present him with a plan to bring them back. Given what. What I've seen so far from the administration over the last few months, I'm not optimistic that they're going to come in with a concrete plan for bringing everyone back. I think they're either going to appeal it or potentially stonewall Judge Brosberg's ruling. I hope not. But, you know, Judge Brosberg was absolutely clear. These men were deported without any due process. And you and I have talked, Nicole, about due process and the rule of law. And I think people get that at an instinctive level that. But it's not such a complicated concept. It just means the right to actually defend yourself. If you ever said to someone, look, they're accusing you of this, and just tell them you didn't do it. And they said, no, no, no, you have no right to even say you didn't do it. People would say, wait, that can't be. That's not, you know, the American way. And so I'm hopeful the administration just has come to the conclusion they need to bring people back. But I think given the way they brought up Reagan Garcia back, it doesn't necessarily give me hope that they've turned the corner.

Nicole Wallace (84:19)

President Barack Obama deported, I believe, the most people out of any American administration, and there were. That administration was sued multiple times. I'm sure you were involved in some of those cases, but I don't recall this number of illegal and unconstitutional constitutional exclamation point riddled rulings from judges. Why. Can you just give me a baseline or use the Obama years as a baseline? Why are they having such a hard time doing something that they have an enormous amount of authority to do legally?

Sadie (84:55)

Yeah, yeah, that's a great question. Because we have said in court over and over, and Judge Boasberg has said it over and over, the administration remains, remains free to deport people under the laws as long as they give them due process and they are actually deportable. This administration is not satisfied with that because they don't want to give people the right to defend themselves. If all these people who are now sitting at CECOT were able to go into court and show that they're not gang members, I think the administration knows that very few, if any, would actually be labeled gang members by a court. And so they don't want to deal with that. And they also want the dramatic effect of sending people to seekot. And that's not what this country should be doing. You know, if they have a basis for deporting someone and they give them due process, we have said all along that's what those laws are there for. But it doesn't seem to the administration dramatic enough. It wants those videos of these men's head being shaved in ckot. And I think that's the real difference between what prior administrations have done and what this administration's done.

Nicole Wallace (86:02)

I mean, Lee, you also, I think, just illuminated the thread from child separation and that which was described by a Republican appointed judge as child abuse. And this one, that it's not. What is allowed, what is legal is never enough, is never extreme enough. Leigh, an enormous, enormously busy day for you. Thank you for taking some time to talk to us about all of it.

Sadie (86:28)

Thanks.

Nicole Wallace (86:29)

When we come back, the latest example that cutting a deal with Donald Trump isn't just bad for democracy, it's bad for your bottom line. The law firms that capitulated to Donald Trump are being rocked by an exodus of high profile attorney attorneys. The latest example today is Damian Williams, the former top federal prosecutor in Manhattan who led the prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams. He is leaving Paul Weiss. Paul Weiss was the first firm to strike a deal with Donald Trump. Williams is joining Jenner and Block, one of the firms that fought the executive order against it and won in court against Donald Trump. Williams adds to the growing list of high powered attorneys exiting Paul Weiss after four partners left last month to start their own firm. Statement from Jenner and Block today, Williams says this quote, I've seen firsthand how this firm expertly tackles the toughest cases and lives its values. I'm excited to join a team with an extraordinary depth of legal talent that doesn't shy away from hard fights and delivers results that matter. Joining our conversation is New York Times investigative reporter Mike Schmidt. The Rev is here as well. Mike, you had the first reporting on this incredible scene of Brad Karp, the head of Paul Weiss, heading down to the Oval Office and striking what you've called a true social post deal with him. This seems to be backfiring on a weekly basis now for Mr. Karp.

Kyle Lewis (88:04)

Yeah.

Nicole Wallace (88:06)

The long tail of the deal seems to have had the most dramatic impact on Paul Weiss. And I think that's largely because Paul Weiss had such a reputation for being a Democratic aligned law firm before they made this deal. Brad Karp was the essentially the face of the Democratic legal resistance in the first term. They engaged in a different, you know, cases in which they sued the government and helped people that were being targeted by the Trump administration. Karp's firm helped prepare Kamala Harris for her debate. And really, you know, if you ever saw a fundraiser for lawyers for Biden, you know, Brad Karp's name would be first. So I think that the thing is that Paul Weitz had a larger sort of sense to it, where there was a sense of a larger mission than your average law firm, where there was a feeling that not only were they doing typical legal work, but that they were doing pro bono work and work on issues that had a greater purpose to it. And I think that when they made this deal, there were people there that couldn't live with it. I also think that what we're seeing here is some of the blowback from the Democratic base. Some of the loyalists, lawyers who left last week, including Karen Dunn, had been in favor of the deal. But what some folks at Paul Weiss have said is that they couldn't deal with the blowback that came from Democrats about the fact that they made the deal and that that was one of the reasons why they had left. Whatever the case, the firm has lost Jeh Johnson, the firm has lost these four lawyers a couple of weeks ago that went to form their own firm, and then they lost Damian Williams. Damian Williams was a big H for them to hire. The former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams clearly has larger political ambitions and didn't think it was tenable to remain at Paul Weiss. I will say that some of the corporate lawyers at Paul Weiss are happy that these people have left. There you have it, Rev, you get a quick last word.

Tim Miller (90:20)

Well, I know Damon Williams. I've not talked to him since he decided very talented, very principled, went on some cases that he knew his base community would not understand. He believes in following the law. And I think that from what I know of him, that's what he decided to do by leaving Paul Weiss. I was not surprised, even though I've not talked to him. He's a principled guy.

Nicole Wallace (90:44)

Yeah. And that seems to be the fault line here. Mike Schmidt, thank you for your reporting on this and for spending time with us. Rev, thank you for being here for the little hour. It was topsy turvy and we were glad to have you here with us. We'll see you this weekend on Politics Nation. There's more breaking news since we've been on the air. The Supreme Court has ruled to allow the Department of Government Efficiency that's Doge, Elon Musk's former pet project, immediate access to our Social Security data, including sensitive personal data. They're going to allow that while legal challenges play out in the lower courts. Justice Katanji Brown Jackson dissented from that decision, questioning the need for the court to intervene on an emergency basis, essentially asking why the nation's highest court has intervened in this question at all, writing this quote, the government wants to give Doge unfettered access to this personal, non anonymized information right now before the courts have time to assess whether Doge's access is lawful. In essence, she writes, the urgency underlying the government stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to one for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes. That sentiment has traditionally been insufficient to justify the kind of extraordinary intervention the government seeks. But once again, this court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them. Wow. Another break for us. We'll be right back. At a personal and somewhat vulnerable level, I want to say that you are not only the best viewers of any cable newscast anywhere, you are also the best listeners of our new podcast. So thank you. And I want to tell you that starting Monday, you can listen to the next episode of the Best People podcast. It's my conversation with Kara Swisher. I showed you a little bit of it yesterday. She has her finger on the pulse of literally everything and everyone in the news right now, especially, especially Elon Musk. We can all agree government needs reform for the past, I don't know, million years, but the federal workforce is the one that would benefit turns out some efficiencies and they would appreciate the efficiencies. That's what he's open here. He can't find fraud. He can't find much fraud. Well, just like Trump can't find the people who are adjudicated criminals to deport.

Pam Bondi (92:59)

Correct.

Nicole Wallace (93:01)

Right. You have to like dig them up and they're usually hard working people. And one of the things I think that it's shown is that we run a pretty good government and the only way to really cut things is to deal with health care. That's just like, let's be honest, reforming health care would go a long way. But that's too hard. That's right. Nobody wants to do it because it's easier to wield a chainsaw and scream your dad and go after. And he went after things. I'll tell you that were regulating him for the first time. And so of course it's all in his self interest. All in his self. And that's the same with all these guys. It is. Wow. I needed to hear more. You can hear the whole conversation with Kara Swisher starting Monday wherever you get your podcasts. If you want to listen right now to the ones that are out there, scan the QR code on your screen and subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access and ad free. Listening to this episode and all upcoming episodes of the Best People. Another Breakfast Us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes for another week of shows. We are grateful. This season, let your shoes do the talking. Designer Shoe Warehouse is packed with fresh styles that speak to your whole vibe without saying a word. From cool sneakers that look good with everything to easy sandals you'll want to wear on repeat, DSW has you covered. Find a shoe for every heel from the brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas, New Balance and more. Head to your DSW store or visit dsw.com today.