“Warnings of electoral wipeout”

Summary

Podcast Summary: Deadline: White House – “Warnings of Electoral Wipeout”

Introduction

In the July 1, 2025 episode of Deadline: White House, host Nicolle Wallace delves into the seismic political developments following the Senate Republicans' passage of a contentious spending bill. Titled “Warnings of Electoral Wipeout,” the episode dissects the implications of the bill, internal Republican tensions, and broader impacts on American citizens. Additionally, the episode touches on high-profile legal battles and the Trump administration's aggressive immigration policies.

---

1. Senate Republicans Pass Trump’s Mega Bill

At the heart of the episode is the passage of a sweeping spending bill by Senate Republicans, colloquially known as Donald Trump’s “one big beautiful bill.” Despite significant internal opposition, the Senate voted 50-50 to approve the bill, with Vice President J.D. Vance casting the decisive vote. Three Republican senators opposed the measure, highlighting fractures within the party ([00:50]).

Key Provisions:

• Medicaid Cuts: The bill slashes Medicaid funding by $1 trillion, jeopardizing health insurance for 11.8 million Americans ([00:50]).
• Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: It extends tax breaks predominantly benefiting the nation’s wealthiest individuals and corporations.
• Funding for Deportations: Enhanced financial support for Trump’s aggressive deportation initiatives ([00:50]).

Notable Insights:

• Fiscal Concerns: The New York Times warns that the bill could trigger a “seismic shift in the nation's fiscal trajectory” and elevate the risk of a debt crisis ([00:50]).
• Public Disapproval: Polls indicate low approval for the bill, with only 29% support in one survey and 38% on Fox News ([02:00]).

Quote:

“The deficits that this bill generates could begin a seismic shift in the nation's fiscal trajectory and raise the risk of a debt crisis.” – The New York Times ([00:50])

---

2. House Passage and Republican Dynamics

As the bill moves to the House of Representatives, Republican lawmakers find themselves navigating deep ideological divides. Both the far-right House Freedom Caucus and moderate Republicans from blue states express significant reservations.

Internal Conflicts:

• Elon Musk’s Primary Threat: Billionaire Elon Musk has threatened to fund primary challenges against any Republican who supports the bill, adding pressure to an already tense situation ([02:00]).
• Senator Murkowski’s Concession: Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska secured special provisions for her state, but acknowledged that the bill’s detrimental effects would extend to 49 other states ([04:41]).

Guest Insights:

• Sam Stein, Managing Editor of The Bulwark: Discusses how Senator Murkowski’s support was pivotal yet controversial, emphasizing that the majority of the GOP likely won't revisit the bill after it passes the House ([06:20]).

Quote:

“Republicans swallowing a political poison pill in the form of Trump's signature legislation is where we start today.” – Claire McCaskill ([03:07])

---

3. Implications for States and Constituents

The bill's repercussions are poised to hit red states hard, especially those heavily reliant on federal programs like Medicaid and SNAP.

Affected Areas:

• Healthcare: States like Iowa, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina face massive Medicaid cuts, risking the closure of rural hospitals and loss of healthcare for vulnerable populations ([07:00], [09:00]).
• Economic Impact: The removal of subsidies and increased healthcare costs are expected to exacerbate economic hardships for millions ([08:48]).

State-Level Reactions:

• Iowa: State Representative J.D. Scholten, campaigning to unseat Senator Joni Ernst, highlights the bill’s unpopularity, noting that 55% of Iowans oppose it ([23:40]).
• Alaska: Senator Murkowski’s limited concessions for Alaska contrast sharply with the broader negative impact, raising questions about the bill’s fairness and distribution ([04:41]).

Quote:

“This is just about building wealth for a small percentage of people at the expense of the health, safety, and security of the general population.” – Representative J.D. Scholten ([27:25])

---

4. Trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs: Partial Verdicts and RICO Charges

Shifting focus, the episode explores the high-profile trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, who faces multiple charges including a racketeering conspiracy under the RICO Act.

Trial Developments:

• Partial Verdicts: Jurors have reached verdicts on four of the five charges, leaving the racketeering conspiracy count undecided ([32:11]).
• Complexity of RICO: The RICO charges are intricate, requiring proof of both a criminal enterprise and participation in multiple predicate crimes ([34:14]).

Expert Analysis:

• Christy Greenberg, MSNBC Legal Analyst: Explains the challenges of the RICO charge, emphasizing the need to prove a criminal enterprise and multiple conspiracies ([37:12]).
• Charles Coleman, Former Prosecutor: Highlights the implications of partial verdicts and the potential for further deliberations ([57:56]).

Quote:

“Any other criminal enterprise, just because they're family members or close, doesn't mean that they're not working to help him both commit crimes and cover up crimes.” – Charles Coleman ([61:15])

---

5. Reactions from Democrats and Future Political Landscape

Democrats express significant frustration and concern over the bill’s passage, framing it as a betrayal of American values and an electoral disaster.

Senator Richard Blumenthal’s Response:

• Outrage and Urgency: Blumenthal condemns the bill as a “big, blatant betrayal” that will inflict lasting hardship on millions, particularly vulnerable populations ([88:02]).
• Economic and Humanitarian Impact: Emphasizes the real-life consequences, such as increased healthcare costs and the closure of essential services ([89:06]).

Democratic Strategy:

• Targeted Messaging: Advocates for a dual approach in messaging—national narratives on healthcare and localized impacts in affected communities ([29:18]).
• Accountability for Republicans: Calls for holding GOP lawmakers accountable for passing unpopular and harmful legislation ([92:47]).

Quote:

“We're talking about not only kicking thousands of Iowans and millions of Americans off health insurance, but we're talking about closing rural hospitals, rural nursing homes, rural OB/GYN units.” – Senator Richard Blumenthal ([90:40])

---

6. Trump’s Visit to Florida Immigration Facility

The episode also covers President Trump’s visit to a new ICE detention center in the Florida Everglades, symbolizing the administration’s hardline stance on immigration.

Facility Overview:

• Location and Conditions: The detention center is situated 37 miles from Miami in a subtropical wetland, home to alligators and pythons, raising concerns about humane conditions ([100:00]).
• Political Theater: Criticized as a sinister setup targeting ordinary individuals rather than actual criminals, reflecting the administration’s punitive approach ([101:35]).

Expert Commentary:

• Jose Javier Rodriguez, Former Florida State Senator: Highlights legal and humanitarian issues, including the misuse of emergency powers and the potential for increased detainee deaths ([103:32]).

Quote:

“They are going to send innocent people to tent cities in the middle of the Florida Everglades on the taxpayer dime.” – Amanda Carpenter, Protect Democracy ([101:51])

---

Conclusion

In this episode of Deadline: White House, Nicolle Wallace navigates the turbulent waters of Republican legislative maneuvers, exposing the profound and widespread impacts of the newly passed spending bill. Coupled with high-stakes legal battles and aggressive immigration policies, the discussions underscore a nation teetering on political brinkmanship with significant consequences for millions of Americans. As the episode wraps up, Wallace previews upcoming discussions on the potential electoral fallout and continued legislative battles.

---

Notable Quotes:

• “Republicans swallowing a political poison pill in the form of Trump’s signature legislation is where we start today.” – Claire McCaskill ([03:07])
• “This is just about building wealth for a small percentage of people at the expense of the health, safety, and security of the general population.” – Representative J.D. Scholten ([27:25])
• “We're talking about not only kicking thousands of Iowans and millions of Americans off health insurance, but we're talking about closing rural hospitals, rural nursing homes, rural OB/GYN units.” – Senator Richard Blumenthal ([90:40])
• “They are going to send innocent people to tent cities in the middle of the Florida Everglades on the taxpayer dime.” – Amanda Carpenter, Protect Democracy ([101:51])

---

Key Takeaways:

• Legislative Overreach: The passage of the mega bill signifies Republican dominance but at the cost of deep internal divisions and public disapproval.
• Electoral Risks: The unpopularity of the bill poses substantial risks for Republican lawmakers in upcoming elections.
• Human Impact: The bill's provisions threaten millions with loss of healthcare, closure of essential services, and economic instability.
• Legal Battles: The Sean "Diddy" Combs trial illustrates the complexities of high-profile legal cases and their broader societal implications.
• Immigration Policies: Trump’s aggressive stance on immigration, exemplified by the Florida detention center, highlights the administration’s punitive approach and its contentious reception.

This episode serves as a critical analysis of the current political climate, emphasizing the far-reaching consequences of legislative actions and the fragile state of bipartisan cooperation in Washington.

Transcript

[NetCredit Representative]

NETCredit is here to say yes to a personal loan or line of credit.

[Progressive Representative]

When other lenders say no.

[NetCredit Representative]

Apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner.

[Progressive Representative]

Banks and serviced by NetCredit. Applications subject to review and approval.

[NetCredit Representative]

Learn more at netcredit.com partners netcredit credit to the People Deadline White House is.

[Alicia Menendez]

Brought to you by Progressive, where drivers.

[Progressive Representative]

Who save by switching save nearly $750 on average.

[Alicia Menendez]

Plus auto customers qualify for an average of 7 discounts.

[Progressive Representative]

Quote [e-mail] to see if you could.

[NetCredit Representative]

Save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

[Alicia Menendez]

National average 12 month savings of $744.

[NetCredit Representative]

By new customers surveyed who save with.

[Progressive Representative]

Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023.

[NetCredit Representative]

Potential savings will vary.

[Alicia Menendez]

Discounts not available in all states and situations.

[Claire McCaskill]

Hi everyone, it is four o' clock here in Washington D.C. i'm Alicia Menendez in for Nicole Wallace. Dismal polling, multiple warnings of an and a primary threat from the world's richest man. Well, none of that deterred Senate Republicans from passing Donald Trump's mega bill. In the end, The Senate voted 5050 to pass the bill. J.D. vance breaking the tie. Three Republican senators voting no. And now the bill heads back to the House. Republicans on both ends of the spectrum have major issues with it. Now a reminder, the bill guts Medicaid to the tune of $1 trillion, kicks 11.8 million people off their health insurance. Also, the tax cuts can be extended for some of the richest Americans. Not to mention it turbocharges funding for Trump's mass deportations. It also threatens the fiscal future of this country. The New York Times reporting that the deficits that this bill generates, quote, could begin a seismic shift in the nation's fiscal trajectory and raise the risk of a debt crisis. Those are just some of the reasons both the far right House Freedom Caucus and moderate blue state Republicans have reservations about the bill, which by the way, no longer has the Trump branding of the, quote, one big beautiful bill. Democrats managed to strike that name out during votes this morning. There's also the polling on the legislation. As we reported yesterday, just 29% support the bill in one poll. Even a poll from Donald Trump's favorite network, Fox News puts approval at 38%. Also puts Republicans between a rock and a hard place between Donald Trump and the Elon Musk, Trump's one time political political benefactor. The feud between the two erupting in the last two days with Musk threatening to use his billions to fund a primary challenge to any Republican who votes for the bill. When all is said and done, that would mean that the vast majority of the House and Senate GOP will have crossed Elon Musk's red line. Republicans swallowing a political poison pill in the form of Trump's signature legislation is where we start today with former Democratic senator and MSNBC political analyst Claire McCaskill. And here with me in Washington, managing editor of the Bulwark and MSNBC contributor Sam Stein. Sam, talk to me about how this came together in the final hours.

[Progressive Representative]

It's kind of remarkable, honestly. We had a incredibly rushed process with a totally arbitrary deadline in which people were basically adding billions of dollars, taking billions of dollars, crossing up provisions, amending provisions, making changes up into the last moment. And Senate Republican leadership had four holdouts. Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, and Lisa Murkowski. Rand Paul would have moved if they had scrapped the debt ceiling raise in the bill. That was not going to happen because they didn't want to do that, because Trump doesn't want to do that. Thom Tillis had already made his position known and he's retiring now, so that wasn't going to happen. So it came down to basically, could they get Susan Collins, who hinted she was very much against his bill, or Lisa Murkowski? And through a series of provisions, basically gifts to Alaska, they got her vote. And what's kind of remarkable about this is that Lisa Murkowski managed to score some provisions to shield her own state from the devastating consequences of this bill in order to vote for it. And she acknowledged that those devastating consequences will now be inflicted on 49 other states. And she said, well, I'm going to try to fix this, and hopefully it comes back to the Senate in reality. And she knew this, the next step is for the House to just try to pass what the Senate passed, which means it will never come back to the Senate. And so Murkowski took a plunge. Whether she did it because she felt it was honestly coming back or not is up to her to explain. But I think everyone else other than her knew that this is the last time the Senate will likely get its hands on it.

[Claire McCaskill]

Claire, I want you to take a stab what you think Senator Murkowski's calculus was here, but also just more generally what Republicans were thinking and passing legislation that they know is unpopular with the majority of American people.

[NetCredit Representative]

Yeah, Lisa got stuff for Alaska, and I think she probably got herself in a position where she was saying, I won't vote for it. And they said, well, let's do this. For you, let's do that for you. And she said, well, if you'll do this for me. And I'm betting that they kept giving her everything she asked for and then she kind of was in a hole. You know, it would have been like her keep moving the goalposts. I'm not going to make excuses for Lisa Murkowski and what she did. But what about somebody like John Cornyn running in Texas next year? What about somebody like McCormick in Pennsylvania who barely beat Bob Casey? And there is so much about this bill that is politically toxic, Alicia. I mean, the fact that the mere pittance they're giving on taxes, on tips and Social Security, guess what, that goes away immediately after the next presidential election. And then on the other hand, the tax cuts for billionaires, they're permanent and the cuts for Medicaid don't happen until after the midterms. So there is so much cynicism in this bill, they are banking so much that people will buy what they're selling, which is a lie. And what's going to happen, there's going to be real devastation and people are going to feel the pain. And I do believe that the people who voted for this bill will regret it.

[Claire McCaskill]

Tim Miller, your thoughts on this legislation?

[NetCredit Representative]

Well, I agree with Senator McCaskill there. I almost, boy, that would have been an insult calling you Senator Murkowski there for a second. I agree that certainly the swing district Republicans in the House are going to regret this, as evidenced by the fact that Thom Tillis, who is going to have the toughest race of all the Republicans in the Senate, besides maybe Susan Collins, essentially quit over not wanting to vote for this bill. The bill is a big time political loser, but the policy ramifications are very severe. And I just, the Senator Murkowski's explanation for voting for this bill is something that I, it's hard for me to think of other precedents for this, like before this time where, you know, you would have a senator. It's not just her. It's also Josh Hawley and Ron Johnson who are out there saying essentially that this is a bad bill. Hawley's rationale for voting for it is that the Medicaid cuts won't go into place ever, and that he'll, and that he'll fight them in the future. You know, Ron Johnson hasn't even given a rationale for why the bill that he was railing against, he's now voted for. Murkowski said in an interview afterwards that she knows this is going to cause pain to people in other states. And it's not as if Alaska is getting a great deal here. They're just getting a carve out on some of the SNAP reimbursement so that it won't be quite as painful for people on food stamps in the state. That's not a great deal for Alaska. So voting for it just because the Alaska deal is less bad than the rest of the country, when you recognize that it's going to cause a lot of pain in the rest of the country, that's not even getting into the ICE side of it, the cuts to energy production. The Murkowski rationale for supporting this is extremely befuddling. And there really was no rush. I guess she felt pressured by Thune and maybe President of the United States, but she's bucked him before. So it's a flummoxing decision to pass a bill that so many people who even support it recognize it's serious flaws.

[Claire McCaskill]

So what happens, Sam, now in the House?

[Progressive Representative]

Well, bill goes to House. The House Republican leaders are saying they want to move it tomorrow, which, I mean, sometimes you just got to step back and say, what are we doing this for? Right. Like, everyone who is voting, those billionaires.

[Claire McCaskill]

Need their tax cuts asap.

[Progressive Representative]

Oh, tax cuts aren't expiring tomorrow. You have some time here. The debt ceiling's not being hit tomorrow. But to Tim's point, it's like everyone who's voted for this bill. Not everyone. Most people who's voted for this bill have been like, well, it's really a bad piece of legislation, but, you know, we'll fix it later. Fix it before you pass it. Right. Like, there's no. This is. It's hard to underscore how much this is so arbitrary. Trump wants to sign a bill with fireworks going off behind him because it's July 4th. That's like, literally the entirety of this reason. So they could hit the pause button and say, instead of voting for passage, why don't we get it right and then vote for passage, which is, you know, how you would normally operate.

[Claire McCaskill]

And he can have his fireworks back.

[Progressive Representative]

You can have your fireworks. Push the fireworks back. We'll allow it this time. You asked what happens next. So it's gonna go to the House. House Republican leadership is like, we're gonna vote for it tomorrow. What we know now is that a number of House conservatives are publicly saying they don't like what the Senate did because it doesn't abide by the framework that they had passed initially in the House. And by that, I mean, it doesn't cut enough for them. Mike Johnson had made a deal with them. He'd said that the Senate was going to actually cut more. It does not cut enough for them. So they have a choice. They can say, no, we don't like this. We want to revise it and cut it even further, the Senate's version, and then send it back to the Senate. But I think we all sort of know that we've seen this before, right? House conservatives huff and puff and then when their bluff gets called, they fold. And so I fully expect people like Victoria Sparks, chip boy, to make a big stink and then ultimately, you know, get some sort of promise down the road that they will address their concerns and then vote to pass it.

[Claire McCaskill]

And the New York Republicans, the salt.

[Progressive Representative]

Issue, which was the big hang up for them, is resolved. It actually got resolved with the deal with the Senate. The question is, can they stomach these Medicaid cuts? And Tim's point, can they stomach the clean energy cuts? I've seen nothing really to indicate that they're going to take a firm stand. And the history on them taking stands even worse than the history of conservatives taking a stand.

[Claire McCaskill]

Claire, you have the president saying he wants the House to take up the Senate version of the bill. You think that happens?

[NetCredit Representative]

Yeah, I think it happens. I can't tell. I mean, I can't take any of these people seriously at this point. I mean, Ron Johnson, you know, and Josh Hawley are two great examples. I mean, Josh Hawley is actually saying, I'm going to work the next two years to get the Medicaid cuts out. All he had to do was vote no. That's all he had to do. The bill wouldn't have passed. The Medicaid cuts wouldn't have passed. They would have come back around with something else to try to get the tax cuts for the wealthy. Because let's be honest about this, Alicia, what they care about are the tax cuts for the wealthy, period. They don't care about the deficits. They don't care about the debt. They don't care about health care. They don't care about clean energy and job creation. They all they care about, all of this is in the name of making the tax cuts that Trump did in 2017, which favored the wealthy by enormous margins, permanent. That's what this is all about. And they are willing to bet that the American people won't pay close enough attention and get mad enough to throw them out of office because they have done this. And I think that the House will pass it. I think they will. You know, I have nothing to tell me that they're going to have any more sense than the Senate just had.

[Claire McCaskill]

Yeah, Tim, I think what we're all trying to assess and Claire sort of touched on it, there are these political cross pressures. The fact that there are a lot of Republicans who felt that part of their mandate was to help their billionaires and millionaires extend that tax. They've got Donald Trump breathing down their neck. But then you also have the Musk of it.

[NetCredit Representative]

All.

[Claire McCaskill]

Right. The fact that he's publicly threatening Republicans with a primary challenge that didn't seem to move anyone. And I wonder, Tim, what you make of that?

[NetCredit Representative]

Yeah, a couple of things. I don't think that the Musk primary threat moved anybody, because Republican primary voters have shown again and again over the last decade that what they want is loyalty to Donald Trump. And so you can threaten people and say, I'm gonna run a bunch of ads in your district, but a lot of these guys already have a lot of ads running in their district. And if the ads aren't potent enough to resonate with Republican voters, then it's not gonna work. A primary is not gonna work. And so I just don't think it's a very credible threat for Musk. We'll see. Who knows if he can go out and recruit candidates. It's easier said than done. Maybe it's possible, but I think that's why you haven't seen that movement on that. And I just kind of want to slightly quibble with something that Claire said and just sort of expand. I think there are three reasons why they voted for all this. I think, yes, as she mentioned, the tax cuts and the extension of the Trump tax cuts, I do think is something that is important to these folks, in part because of their donors, in part because of ideology. But there are two other things. Number two is Trump just wanted something like Trump just. That's why he calls a big, beautiful bill. He just wanted to be able to say that he passed something. And as silly as that sounds like these guys didn't want to get crossways with Trump and Trump. The devil was not really in the details for Trump on this bill. He would have said anything, was the big, beautiful bill. He was even, I think, open to not extending the top tax bracket when Bannon was suggesting that for a while, Trump just wanted something done. So it was a we need to please Mr. Trump part of this. That's number two. And number three, I just don't think we can understate the importance of the ICE funding here now, again, they could have pulled that out and put it in another bill. But J.D. vance said this explicitly last night on Twitter. He said all of the other stuff, all the stuff that you guys in the media and the Democrats are complaining about, about the cuts to health care and the cuts to food stamps. He's like, all that is immaterial. What really matters is that we're getting enough money to ICE so they can put more migrants in jail. And I think that there is a part of the Republican base for whom that is even more animating now than the tax cuts. And some of the people in the Senate and house, and certainly J.D. vance and Stephen Miller in the White House. And so I think that making sure they have money to continue to send these masked thugs into communities to put people into detention centers without due process is a genuine policy view that not every Republican that voted for this has, but that some of them have. And that was a big motivator for getting this passed.

[Claire McCaskill]

Claire, I want to give you a chance to respond, because if you put those two pieces next to each other, the choice and the priority becomes clear, which is they wanted more money to continue their mass deportation program. And if that meant that, you know, million people needed to be kicked off their health care, then so be it. I mean, there is a little magic with numbers here that tells you about who and what it is they're prioritizing.

[NetCredit Representative]

No question that Stephen Miller, certainly, and obviously J.D. vance and others in the Republican Party have it in their head that they somehow are going to win over the majority of Americans by arresting and detaining people that are in this country, sometimes for decades, many times, and most times, in fact, so far, having no criminal record. I think what the American people usually say in polls is they're all for getting people out of the country that are committing crimes, that have not played by the rules, that are here without legal status if they commit crimes. And I think most Americans are for that. But that's not what's going on. And with this money being added, and let's just keep in mind that the money that they are allocating for that is dwarfed by the amount of money they're spending on rich people and making sure they get richer. So, yes, they are funding ice. Yes, they're giving another big bunch of funding to the Defense Department, but they are giving a whole lot more money and increasing the deficit and increasing the debt, all by primarily by giving lots and lots of money to corporations and rich people.

[Claire McCaskill]

This part about Medicaid, the way you have the president messaging it is by just shooing it away as though it's all about waste, fraud and abuse and as though they're not people who legitimately deserve these services. Take a listen to what he had to say.

[NetCredit Representative]

Are the concerns about the Medicaid cuts though? Mr. No, no, we're not going to be playing with Medicaid. Only waste broader than a million Americans.

[Alicia Menendez]

Could lose their the Democrats have it wr.

[NetCredit Representative]

Yeah, waste, fraud and abuse. In fact, if you look at what's gone on, we've gone way back.

[Alicia Menendez]

We take care of Medicaid, we take care of Medicare.

[NetCredit Representative]

They will blow Medicare and Medicaid because they have no idea what they're doing, just like they don't have any idea what they did on the border. They have no idea Medicaid is in big trouble with the Democrats.

[Claire McCaskill]

Anyone who loses their health care coverage that is because of waste, fraud and abuse.

[NetCredit Representative]

Fraud only waste, fraud and abuse, which.

[Alicia Menendez]

Is what everybody wants.

[Claire McCaskill]

It's a little bit of that weave you've heard so much about there. Sam Stein. But listen, there's been great reporting in the New York Times about the fact that a lot of the Medicaid stuff is actually sort of their theory here is that they can have people not sign up because they change deadlines, because they change paperwork, because they simply make it more difficult for people to get access to all of this. That is not tackling waste, fraud or abuse.

[Progressive Representative]

Yeah. I will see your New York Times reporting and raise it. Bulwark reporting by it's a very bulwark Tuesday here.

[Claire McCaskill]

Go ahead.

[Progressive Representative]

But this is death by paperwork for a lot of people. And when I say death in some cases, literally, literally because when you do not have access to health care, which is what will happen when people do not have access to Medicaid, you have worse health outcomes and sometimes you will die. And yes, it's all paperwork. It's bureaucracy, it's work requirements. It's people having to show that they're looking for work. It's people having to show why they can't look for work. And there are countless studies because states do versions of this, much less of this, that show that people will fall off the rolls and that's not waste, fraud and abuse. You can spin it, you can weave it, you can say, well, you know, if people are able bodied they should be working, they should be on employer health insurance or you can say, well, you know, there's illegal immigrants who are taking these benefits and therefore we are cracking down on this. But by and large, which is what.

[Claire McCaskill]

Jay do Mance the argument he was making.

[Progressive Representative]

And this is all intertwined, as Tim notes, around this idea that if you can go after illegal immigration. And the other thing is, you have to understand one of the political factors here is that the Trump coalition, more Trump voters are on Medicaid than Democratic voters. And so they have to sell this to those people who are their constituents. And one way they do it is by saying the illegal immigrants are taking these health care benefits away from you. And we are going to stop that to strengthen the program so that you can access it. It's not accurate. It is a distraction. And they are hoping that if they just repeat it enough, it can become politically palatable for them till you go.

[Claire McCaskill]

To fill out your paperwork and realize you got a problem. Claire McCaskill, Tim Miller, thank you both so much for starting us off. Sam, you are sticking with me. When we come back, despite knowing the consequences it will have on millions of people all across this country, a majority of Republican lawmakers today still willing to sell out their constituents, constituents to Donald Trump. We're going to talk with someone from one of those red states looking to unseat one of those senators. Plus, Donald Trump traveled to deep red Florida in the Everglades today, a new detention facility built on a swamp surrounded by alligators and pythons. The president and the governor of Florida touting the new facility as the future and the model for the administration's immigration agenda. And later in the show, a leading Democrat on Captain Capitol Hill is going to be here with me in Washington on what's next as we move closer to final passage of Trump's domestic spending plan. All those stories and more when DEADLINE White House continues after this.

[Progressive Representative]

Building a business may feel like a big jump. But on deck small business loans can help keep you afloat with lines of credit up to $100,000 and term loans up to 250,000. On deck lets you choose the loan.

[NetCredit Representative]

That'S right for your business.

[Progressive Representative]

As a top rated online small business lender, OnDeck's team of loan advisors can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit ondeck.com for more information. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtibank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota.

[NetCredit Representative]

All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. We all belong outside. We're drawn to nature.

[Claire McCaskill]

Whether it's the recorded sounds of the ocean we doze off to or the succulents that adorn our homes, nature makes all of our lives, well, better. Despite all this, we often go about our busy lives removed from it. But the outdoors is closer than we realize. With alltrails, you can discover trails nearby and explore confidently with offline maps and on trail navigation. Download the free app Today.

[NetCredit Representative]

MSNBC Films presents season two of the hit series.

[Progressive Representative]

From NBC News Studios.

[NetCredit Representative]

Leguizamo Does America, hosted by John Leguizamo. I'm here to meet with some exceptional Latin people leading the way. Premieres Sunday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC. This is going to impact the life of every single American negatively.

[Progressive Representative]

It is going to hammer our economy.

[Alicia Menendez]

And it is wrong and it is mean.

[NetCredit Representative]

And I cannot believe that people refuse.

[Alicia Menendez]

To do their job and represent their.

[Progressive Representative]

People that they were sent to Washington.

[NetCredit Representative]

To represent and instead are just pledging.

[Progressive Representative]

Fealty towards someone pushing such a damaging piece of legislation.

[Claire McCaskill]

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear railing against the impact that Trump's deeply unpopular domestic spending package will have on a state like his. A state which voted for Donald Trump by over 30 points. Red states, many of whom are heavily dependent on federal funding for programs like Medicaid and food assistance, are set to be some of the biggest losers from Trump's bill in Iowa. Analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit, estimated 86,000 Iowa residents would lose Medicaid coverage. Both Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst today voted to push through Trump's bill. Our next guest is State Representative J.D. scholten, running to unseat Senator Ernst. Sam is back with us as well. Representative Scholten, good to see you. So Iowa voted for Donald Trump by over 13 points. But you got new polling suggests even in in your state, the bill is deeply unpopular. A June poll found that in the state, 55% of Iowans oppose the one big beautiful bill that name can rest in peace. Are you seeing that as you campaign across the state? Do people know about this legislation and do they understand what's in it?

[NetCredit Representative]

Oh, absolutely. There's been rallies against this. We call it the billionaire bailout bill. It's very unpopular.

[Progressive Representative]

And the only you have the fact.

[NetCredit Representative]

That Joni Ernst had her famous thing. That was a month ago. And her apology, quote, unquote, apology video from the cemetery was literally a month ago.

[Progressive Representative]

And that really drew.

[Claire McCaskill]

Let me just remind our. Let me remind our viewers, Representative, what it was that Joni Ernst said. She said, well, we're all going to die. And then in her apology, she visited us from a cemetery. But go ahead.

[NetCredit Representative]

No, then that's exactly right. And that's when Iowans really locked on this bill and we've been holding rallies all across the state talking about what's in bill and how bad it's going.

[Progressive Representative]

To be for Iowa. We're talking about not only kicking thousands of Iowans and millions of Americans off health insurance, we're talking about closing rural hospitals, rural nursing homes, rural ob GYN.

[NetCredit Representative]

Units, and that will impact the urban centers.

[Progressive Representative]

And so this bill is exactly the reason why I decided to run for this race is because how awful it is.

[NetCredit Representative]

And it's going to be a massive wealth shift from working class Iowans and working class Americans to the super wealthy and younger people to the older generation.

[Claire McCaskill]

Sam Stein, do you remember an entire lifetime ago when the Biden administration was hitting the road to sell, build back better? Tell me why Donald Trump is choosing to visit Iowa in order to tout legislation that has not officially even been passed through both chambers.

[Progressive Representative]

Well, this is a pattern that has repeated for the past like four or five administrations. Right. You pass a bill, it's major in scope, I guess in the Trump first Trump, they didn't pass Obamacare appeal, but more or less the same pattern. You pass legislation, it's major in scope and then you say I'm going to be the one that actually sells it to the public. And Biden's idea was he was going to sell, build back better and infrastructure. Obama had to do the same with the stimulus and Obamacare. And oftentimes people just don't feel it or people don't get it or in this case, the perceptions of the bill are negative and you have to reverse them. So Trump recognizes that that's why he's hitting the road. The one thing that is working somewhat in his favor and I don't think it's really in his favor because the polling's fairly concrete. Now, the public does not like the bill. The one thing that I have seen it was a Democratic group put out some polling and that was that it hasn't totally broken through. And by that people don't really know about it. It hasn't because of its rushed nature, it hasn't set in. Only 8% in this poll knew that it cut Medicaid, which is one of the primary features of the bill. And so while Trump, Trump needs to sell it if he wants to get it above water, Democrats also have to actually let people know about it. And Democratic outside groups are trying. But I do think there's a lot of elasticity there and I think a lot of the public just hasn't. They may have heard about it, but they don't actually know about it yet.

[Claire McCaskill]

You have Rep. Scholten, the president coming to Iowa. If you had five minutes with him, what is it you would say to him about this legislation and his priorities in general?

[NetCredit Representative]

Well, I'd talk bring up what he talked on the campaign trail about.

[Progressive Representative]

He closing loopholes for Wall street, private equity, things like that.

[NetCredit Representative]

He talked about these things and I think we believed or folks believed that.

[Progressive Representative]

He was going to do some of this stuff. And here he is just giving a.

[NetCredit Representative]

Huge bailout to the super wealthy. The people who visit him at Mar a Lago.

[Progressive Representative]

Well, working day everyday Iowans are really.

[NetCredit Representative]

Struggling and Sam's right, you know, it hasn't broken through. I I'm playing professional baseball right now and my teammates are not the most politically focused at the forefront of their minds. And some of them are asking what's, what's in this bill. They know something's happening, but it's 900 and some pages. They don't know exactly what's going on.

[Progressive Representative]

And so it, it is our responsibility.

[NetCredit Representative]

As Democrats to go out there and talk about how horrible this is for not only rural communities, not only urban communities, but for how impactful this is going to be for everybody. You're going to have the choice between getting kicked off healthcare or paying more for health care.

[Claire McCaskill]

Well, especially in your state because Iowa was among the states to adopt Medicaid expansion under the aca. So just a little bit of reporting. The bill's cuts to Medicaid include adding work requirements for recipients, increasing the frequency of eligibility checks and adding cost sharing for some expansion enrollees. Your Republican colleagues, are they concerned? Because I've heard from public, as we had Republicans on from Alaska last night who were talking about the fact that it's like these resources still need to to exist. What happens is just they begin to shift to state budgets.

[NetCredit Representative]

Right. And we're as a state, we're getting.

[Progressive Representative]

Bankrupt, especially from the voucher programs and for education that was passed a couple years ago.

[NetCredit Representative]

But one of the things I'm very frustrated about is you saw like Lisa Markowski, she fought to get stuff for her.

[Progressive Representative]

Where's Joanie, where's, where's Chuck Grassley in this?

[NetCredit Representative]

What are we getting as Iowa for their votes in this? And we're not getting much or anything. And there's a whole agriculture side of this that nobody's talking about that will lead to further consolidation of farms and further consolidation in the agriculture industry. And that's going to hurt Iowa even more.

[Claire McCaskill]

One of the things that I am thinking as I hear senators speak is that there has to be a national democratic message on this, but then there also has to be a hyper targeted message that talks to rural communities, that talks to communities where cost of living is high, but they might not have gotten the same relief as some of these millionaires or billionaires. Do you have a sense of the most effective message?

[Progressive Representative]

No fair. I mean, I think if past is prologue, you could talk about health care as the central one. First of all, Democrats have a already baked in favorability with the public when it comes to healthcare. Secondarily, you saw it with the Obamacare appeal debacle that happened in 2017 where Democrats could just say they are coming to take away your health care. And you saw it with Obamacare passage where it was like he just made it more expensive for you to pay your premiums or you can no longer see your doctor. The reason healthcare works is that it kind of works in a two pronged way. One is obviously everyone worries about their health and what would happen to them if they were to get sick and they have a trust relationship with their doctor. They might like their local hospital and if it's struggling because it's bill, that's profoundly important to them. But the second thing is obviously it's economic, right? Like everyone knows that at one big health emergency you can be staring down bankruptcy or that you'd have to turn to your family and friends and beg them for money if you do not have health insurance. And so that's an economic argument. So for potency's sake, I think healthcare obviously works with Democrats. But to your point, each district has its own messaging here. The stuff around green energy subsidies, solar and wind. There are factories. I saw one story where there's a factory in Tulsa where it's got 700 million. I'm probably getting the numbers wrong, but it's a $700 million factory and they were dependent on these subsidies and now they're like wait a gone. And what does that mean for Tulsa? Right? Like, so that district might be different than something in Iowa, but I think universally health care probably is.

[Claire McCaskill]

And nothing messages quite like people feeling the impacts of these cuts. Iowa State Representative J.D. scholten, thank you so much for joining us. When we come back, Trump says the Florida Everglades is just the beginning. A new detention center built specifically for its cruel and harsh conditions could become a standard for the President's immigration agenda. We're going to look at how that came to be. That's next. We have News in the trial of Sean Diddy Combs. For more, let's bring in MSNBC's Lisa Rubin. Lisa, what do we know?

[Alicia Menendez]

Lisa what we know is that the jurors have told the judge here, Judge Arun Subramanian of the Southern District of New York, that they have reached a verdict on count counts two, three, four and five. Those are four of the five charges against Sean Combs. But they have been unable thus far to reach a verdict on the 1st and some might say the most important count. That's the count that charges Combs with a racketeering conspiracy involving a variety of allegedly unlawful acts over a span of more than a decade. Those acts include kidnapping, arson, bribery, and then, of course, sex trafficking and transportation to commit prostitution.

[Claire McCaskill]

Okay, Lisa, we knew that there was the possibility that this was going to be the most complex of the charges. Talk us through why that is.

[Alicia Menendez]

Well, I think, Alicia, part of what's complicated here, RICO is always complicated, but part of what's complicated here is twofold. One, Combs was alleged to have used his business associates in committing crimes. In order to have a racketeering conspiracy, you have to have more than one person who has conspired to commit.

[Claire McCaskill]

Right.

[Alicia Menendez]

Who has conspired to commit more than one crime. I'm sorry, I'm hearing myself in my ear. But aside from conspiring to commit more than one crime, you also have to show that there is an enterprise. And here, because Combs worked with many of the people who he employed through his legitimate operations, that's different from the usual RICO context in which we think about, for example, organized crime or street gangs. Here his co conspirators were members of his security team or his chief of staff, his personal assistants. Those were the people that the prosecution said were his co conspirators here. The other thing that's particularly complicated is that the women he is alleged to have sex trafficked were in most of the cases, people who were involved in years long consensual romantic relationships with him. That's something that the prosecution doesn't contest. What they say, on the other hand, is that over time, Combs used a combination of force, fraud and coercion to get them to participate, and a bunch of unwanted unconsensual sex acts that were commercial by virtue of the fact that he also brought in prostitutes, are escorts to participate in those with him. So the combination of the sort of interwoven consensual and non consensual relationships and the fact that people in his business life are his alleged co Conspirators is part of what makes this such a complicated case.

[Claire McCaskill]

Alicia, Lisa, can you remind us what it is that we know about this jury and what you make of the amount of time that they spent deliberating these charges?

[Alicia Menendez]

The jury is composed, from what I remember, of more women than men. The other thing, though, that I think is important is that they've only been deliberating for a short period of time. It's Tuesday. They started their deliberations yesterday. They have sent a variety of different notes looking for clarification from the judge. One thing I thought was particularly interesting is that one of what lawyers call the predicate acts, meaning one of the crimes that the conspiracy is alleged to have agreed to commit is drug distribution. And they asked a question about what it meant to distribute drugs. The prosecution said in both their closing argument and in their rebuttal, drug distribution for purposes of federal law is nothing more complicated than obtaining or possessing drugs and giving them to another person. They alleged. And they had people testify to the fact that Sean Combs was constantly plying his two ex girlfriends, Cassie Ventura and a woman known only to the jury and to us as Jane, with variety of different kinds of drugs, from ketamine to cocaine to mdma, which we know as Ecstasy. And the jurors wanted to know, well, if somebody just hands that to somebody else and they ask for that, is that what the law would consider drug distribution? To me, that signified that they hadn't necessarily reached a verdict that Sean Combs was guilty of. Of either sex trafficking or transporting people for the purposes of prostitution. Those are the standalone charges against Sean Combs. Counts two through five involve a count each of sex trafficking and transportation with the intent to commit prostitution vis a vis his two ex girlfriends, Cassie Ventura and the woman known as Jane. But those are also part of the alleged RICO conspiracy. And again, I'll remind you and our viewers, in order to find that Sean Combs is guilty of this RICO conspiracy, one of the things the jury has to find is that he conspired with others to commit at least two or more of these underlying crimes. If they believe that Sean Combs was guilty of sex trafficking and transportation to commit prostitution, they might not have had that question about drug distribution and what it, you know, what it entails to commit drug distribution for purposes of violating federal law. I'm speculating here because, of course, we don't yet know what verdict they would reach if they could reach a verdict on count one. All we know is that some of the jurors have said look, we have some jurors here who are unpersuadable. The government's response is to ask the judge for something known as an Allen instruction. That's when the judge goes back to the jurors and says, look, I understand that you have been unable thus far to reach a verdict, but then I'm going to ask you in good faith to go back to the jury room and, and see if you can reach resolution on this.

[Claire McCaskill]

You have actually both sides asking the jurors to continue to keep delivering once that instruction is given. Lisa, if the judge decides to give it, what then generally happens? How much longer can we expect them to go in and to deliberate?

[Alicia Menendez]

Alicia, I'm having some technical difficulties here, and I can't hear you in my ear right now, but one.

[Claire McCaskill]

Okay, let me, let me restate the question for you, Lisa, which was.

[Alicia Menendez]

Thank you. Go ahead.

[Claire McCaskill]

There we go. Which is, it's actually to our understanding, because we have producers who are currently watching what is happening. It is our understanding that both sides have asked for the jury to go back and to continue deliberations. I want you to talk us through that from the perspective of both the prosecution and the defense, why they would want those deliberations to continue.

[Alicia Menendez]

That's really interesting that the defense wants them continue as well. Let me go through what I think the psychology of the defense might be right now. Let's go back to what I was saying earlier about the RICO charge. There are eight different underlying predicate offenses that the government has alleged here. They range from kidnapping and bribery and arson to some of the sexual crimes at issue here. Given that they asked that question about drug distribution again, my first thought yesterday was, wow, maybe they didn't all agree that Sean Combs is guilty of sex trafficking or transportation with the intent to commit prostitution by flying his ex girlfriends to various places across the country for purposes of engaging in commercial sex acts with them. If that's the case, if I'm the defense and I believe that they've reached verdicts in my client's favor on 2 through 5, I want them to keep going. Because ultimately your hope is that they won't be able to reach a guilty verdict on the RICO charge and that Sean Combs walks away free and clear with a clear not guilty verdict that would result not only in his not doing time for these crimes, but his being released from the detention in which he has been held for well over a year at this point. I'll remind you and our viewers, Sean Combs right now is the most famous resident of Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center. He has been there since his arrest. He has lost all access to his homes and his cash. He has been humbled by this experience. We have heard lots about the conditions in this jail, which are nothing other than completely disgusting. And so if I'm the defense here, Mark Agnifolo, Brian Steele, Tenny Garagos and others, I'm going to want the jury to keep going because I think ultimately I might get to a not guilty verdict on that count. Conversely, if I'm the prosecution and I know that things haven't gone my way on 2 through 5 or I'm speculating as to that, I'm going to want to keep going because I might have the belief that there are enough jurors there who believe he's guilty on some of these other counts, meaning that he has conspired to commit things other than sex trafficking and transportation with the intent to commit prosecution prostitution, that I might ultimately get a guilty verdict if people who are unpersuadable and might not be really listening to instructions have to go back in there and produce a verdict. I'll also tell you that this is a holiday weekend. There's nothing that jurors hate more than being forced to come back after a holiday weekend. Everyone has an incentive in making this over and done with. It's unclear, however, which way that pressure cuts. Sometimes that can cause people who are really on the edge to finally relent and say, okay, I see what you mean, the guy is guilty. But on the other hand, sometimes it causes people to dig in more and say it doesn't really matter. We're not going to get to that. And that's when you could have the possibility of Sean Combs being not guilty on all five counts.

[Claire McCaskill]

Alicia, Lisa Rubin, I'm going to ask you to stick with us. For those of you who are just joining us, the jury has reached a partial verdict in the Sean Combs trial. Trial let's bring in NBC's Rahima Ellis from outside the courthouse in New York City. Rahima, it is my understanding you were in the overflow room as that note came in from the jury. What can you tell us about the mood inside the room?

[Alicia Menendez]

It was a surreal moment to be.

[NetCredit Representative]

Even in the overflow room and watching.

[Alicia Menendez]

What was happening inside the actual courtroom.

[NetCredit Representative]

The attorneys for Sean Diddy Combs were huddled around him. They were standing.

[Alicia Menendez]

He was seated. They put their hands on his shoulders.

[NetCredit Representative]

A couple of the attorneys, they clasped their arms around one another.

[Alicia Menendez]

His head was bowed. There was a lot of conversation.

[NetCredit Representative]

There was Agitated conversation from one attorney and exaggerated. We didn't know at that moment what.

[Alicia Menendez]

Was going on, but apparently the attorneys knew that there was a partial verdict.

[NetCredit Representative]

That had been suggested by the jury. And. And it was a moment that was almost breathtaking in that his mother was.

[Alicia Menendez]

Behind him prior to more information coming out.

[NetCredit Representative]

Perhaps she was leaning back with her arm over the chair that she was on.

[Alicia Menendez]

And then a moment changed and she sat up more straight in her chair and looking. She had on sunglasses, so I couldn't.

[NetCredit Representative]

You couldn't see what was in her eyes, but you could get a sense that this was a mood that was uncomfortable for Sean Combs. It was a mood that says they were uncomfortable for his attorneys.

[Alicia Menendez]

They don't know what it is unless they know something more than we know right now. But the word is that we would hear the verdict. If it's going to be determined that they will read the verdict, it would.

[NetCredit Representative]

Be read in the open courtroom. But it was a very uncomfortable, unsettling moment to watch this man who had.

[Alicia Menendez]

Risen to such extraordinary heights in his career, in his business, in the world, in terms of popularity, to see him.

[NetCredit Representative]

So humbled, if you will, with others standing around him, trying to comfort him.

[Alicia Menendez]

And again, not knowing why. We don't know what the verdict is. We only know that there is a partial verdict. And knowing that there is a partial verdict, Alicia, has created a tension and anxiety in that room that even though I wasn't in that room watching what.

[NetCredit Representative]

Was happening, it was palpable.

[Claire McCaskill]

Rahim, Alice, I'm going to ask you to stay with us as we keep all eyes and ears on that courtroom. But for now, let's bring in former Criminal Division deputy chief at sdny, MSNBC legal analyst Christy Greenberg. She spent hours in the courtroom witnessing testimony in this case. A few questions for you, Christy. One, walk us through these counts and remind us of the bar that had to be cleared in order to prove the racketeering conspiracy.

[NetCredit Representative]

So the one count that they are stuck on is the racketeering conspiracy count. That's count one. And for that count, the prosecutors need to show that there was a criminal enterprise here. And what that means is that there was a group, there was an organization of people working together with common criminal purpose and a common course of criminal conduct. And they have to prove two different offenses for racketeering activity. Now, by two, meaning to act. So, for example, one of those is drug distribution. If they can show that Combs and other co conspirators distributed drugs twice, that would count towards the racketeering conspiracy. You could check that box. And notably, the jurors asked about drug distribution. They asked for a clarification on the jury instructions. That is the most straightforward racketeering act that was charged as part of the racketeering conspiracy. So I thought that was notable. And it seemed to suggest that the jurors were looking at the lowest hanging fruit to get them to the racketeering conspiracy. But what's also notable for the racketeering conspiracy is that the jurors came back and said, look, we're deadlocked here because there are certain jurors that cannot be persuaded that follows on another juror. Not that we got yesterday where there was a problem with one juror in particular, where they said after less than two hours of deliberating, there's one guy who cannot be moved and he's not following the judge's instructions. So it seems like maybe that's where the tension is on that racketeering conspiracy. As to the other counts, two counts of sex trafficking of both. One for Cassie Ventura and one for Jane Doe. And then two counts of transportation for prostitution, again for Cassie Ventura, one for Jane Doe and for sex trafficking, you need to show that Diddy used force, fraud or coercion to cause them to engage in the sex acts, the commercial sex acts, these freak offs. And then for transportation for prostitution, they don't need to show that these were non consensual. All they have to show is that he was knowingly arranging for the escorts and for the women to cross foreign or state lines for the purposes of engaging in prostitution. And so that count is the least serious count. It's the one that doesn't carry a mandatory minimum in prison. And that's the one that would be the clearest for them to pass that hurdle. But it sounds like, again, the jury has a verdict on four counts. Generally speaking, they have been deliberating for two days. The jury requested information that was, it was very specific with respect to incidents where the prosecutor's alleged force and coercion were used. With respect to Cassie. As a former prosecutor, I can tell you, listening to what they requested in the transcript, that is a good sign for the prosecutors. They were focused on exactly what the prosecutors want them to focus on in those transcripts. And so I feel, given the timing, that we're only two days into deliberating. That's relatively short for a case that's gone on for over a month, given the time of deliberation being relatively quick, and the fact that they were asking about the right Things I feel pretty confident that there is a likely conviction on the sex trafficking counts and the transportation for prostitution counts, at least. As to Cassie Ventura, the fact that they didn't ask anything about Jane suggests, you know, hard to say, but again, given the quick timing, that you're likely to see convictions there as well. So again, we'll wait and see. But it sounds like from reports of what is going on inside the courtroom that the defense attorney have a very similar take because it sounded like combs his head was hanging. It sounded like he was very emotional, that his attorneys were hugging and were kind of surrounding him. They clearly think this is bad news as well.

[Claire McCaskill]

You referenced Cassie Ventura. She was, of course, the key witness during this trial. There are indelible images of her very far along in her pregnancy as she talked about freak offs, becoming a job where there was no space to do anything else but to recover and just try to feel normal. For those who were not following this trial to the degree that you were, Christy, reminded us of some of the things that we heard from that witness stamp.

[NetCredit Representative]

Okay, I will try not to be too graphic here at all, but it's hard because so much of the testimony here was really disturbing and really graphic. There's a lot of discussions of violence. Violence, obviously that there was the one incident where we've all seen the hotel hallway incident where Combs visual viciously beating Cassie Ventura. And what's important about that is that prosecutors can tie that incident to the sexual conduct because again, there had been a freak off happening in the hotel room. And when people say, well, why didn't she leave? Why did she stay? Exhibit A is the video that we all saw. She's trying to leave a freak off and he's dragging her by the hair to come back so that even that one incident alone can be sufficient to prove sex trafficking. You know, there's a lot of discussion of, oh, there are a number of text messages where, you know, the women seemed like they were interested. And prosecutors explains those by saying, well, he expected them to send those kinds of messages to seduce him. So don't take those at face value. But even putting those messages aside, let's say some of the acts were consensual. Prosecutors don't have to prove that every single act was non consensual. They just need to prove one time, one time that she didn't consent and that he used force, fraud or coercion. They prove that once. That is sufficient for a conviction. And to be clear, that sex trafficking count that carries a 15 year mandatory minimum in prison is an extremely serious charge here. But in addition to that, she described numerous incidents again where she was connecting violence, not just standalone violence, but violence, to these freak offs. She also talked about coercion. There was one, an incident in particular where she talked about being on a commercial flight from France to New York, a nine hour flight where he played these videos he had taken that she thought he had deleted. He played those for nine hours straight on a commercial flight, threatening her to release those videos unless she engaged in a freak off. So after the flight, they get to New York City, he asks for a freak off. She agrees because she doesn't want him to embarrass her and release these videos. That is as clear a textbook example of coercion to induce sex trafficking to induce the sexual conflict conduct as I've seen. So again, there was a lot of examples along those lines. Those were the two that really stood out. And those were two that prosecutors highlighted for the jury in their closing arguments and said focus on these two. If you can get to even one of those two, if you believe Cassie, you have to convict Sean Combs.

[Claire McCaskill]

Christi Greenberg, I'm going to ask you to stay with us. Lisa Rubin, we have learned that Sean Combs children, his mother, are back in the the courtroom. What more are you hearing.

[Alicia Menendez]

From Rahema's reporting and from Christy's reciting it is the fact that Sean Combs seems to be upset and requiring some comforting from his attorneys casts what we know so far in perhaps a different light than I originally saw it. And particularly I want to come back to what Christy was saying about the connection between the violence of a non sexual nature and the sex traffic trafficking charge. Because in many cases like this, a defendant's lawyers will do what Mark Agnifolo did, which is to try and separate and sever the sort of physical abuse from allegations of sexual abuse or rape or assault or even sex trafficking is here. And the prosecution would really have none of that. And I just want to read to you some of Maureen Comey's rebuttal because I thought it was so powerful in, in reshaping how we think about sex trafficking. Our colleague Danny Savalos wrote a column where he said this isn't really what the sex trafficking laws were designed to do. We tend to think about sex trafficking victims as meek, as akin to modern day slavery, and that's not what we have here. And to that I'll give him Maureen Comey as a rebuttal in her rebuttal. In a case like this, when there's just so much violence sometimes you see, can lose sight of just how awful it is each individual time. The physical pain of being kicked or hit by someone you love, the anguish mentally of having someone who's supposed to love you hurt you. The fear of never knowing what might set him off, when he might lash out again. So when the defendant told Cassie to set up a freak off, what choice did she have? This is a man who could and would take away her livelihood and her home, who could and would extort her parents. And there was testimony and evidence to that effect that he did in fact extort her parents with respect to $20,000 that meant a huge deal to them, but obviously was minimal to him. Who could and would beat her is how Maureen Comey finished that. Alicia, again, hearing that Sean Combs was so upset makes me think that particularly where the event at the Intercontinental is concerned, and we're all familiar with that now, unfortunately, replayed videotape again and again that shows Sean Combs kicking and hitting her in that hotel lobby. What prosecutors did here is say that wasn't a fight between them. That was part and parcel of what was going on in the freakoff. The escort was still in the hotel room. Sean Combs wanted to avoid drawing security back to the hotel room, so he did not go back to the room. He wanted Cassie back into the room because he wanted to continue that freak off for his own sexual gratification. And at the same time, he wanted to make sure that hotel security was not paying attention, that the police didn't get involved. And so what did he do? He clung to her and wouldn't let her. He made sure that she maintained fear of him while that was all going on. But make no mistake, that wasn't just about him abusing her. That was about him trying to maintain control of her and get her back into the room so the sexual contact could continue. Again, prosecution not allowing that tie between the physical violence and the sex trafficking to be severed, but telling the jurors this is part and parcel of the same conduct. This is part of the coercion that makes this sex trafficking, as opposed to somebody who has a sexual predilection that might be different from yours and mine.

[Claire McCaskill]

Christy for viewers who are just joining us, the jurors in the Sean Diddy Combs trial, they have reached a verdict on some of the charges. They have thus far been unable to reach a verdict on the racketeering charge. Christi I want to return to this question of the the Allen charge and whether or not the judge here is going to make the determination that an Allen charge is productive. Can you just sort of pull back the curtain for us both explain what the Allen charge is and also what is likely going into this judge's consideration?

[NetCredit Representative]

So essentially, in layman's terms, the Allen charge is basically, go back to the jury and you say, look, it's only been two days. You say that you've reached an impasse, but you need to take more time. It's your job to deliberate. It's your job to continue to talk about these matters. We think that you should go back and do your duty and continue to try and see if you can find some common ground here. It's too early in the game, essentially, for you to say that there is no way forward. There may still be an opportunity for consensus. Go back and keep working. That is, again, in essence, kind of a bit of a talking to of what the judge, I expect, will say in this Allen charge. And again, sometimes they work. Oftentimes they don't. And it may be that, I mean, again, we're talking about 5pm right now. I would expect that it is likely we will see this jury back tomorrow to deliberate, that this is not going to continue this evening. They may benefit from taking the night when you have a jury that is at an impasse. And again, what I thought was fascinating in the jury note is they said there are jurors, plural, that are unpersuadable. So it sounds like it's not just the one that they had reported an issue with earlier. There's multiple. So given that, maybe cooler heads will prevail, Everybody gets a good night's sleep, comes back tomorrow and keeps going. What I do expect is that at some point, if this continues, that, yes, it may be that the judge then says, okay, they've tried, they continue to try. They're all acting in good faith and they just can't reach a consensus on that count. And then he will take the verdict on the other counts, but he's not going to jump there just yet without at least giving them this instruction and hoping that they can work through it.

[Claire McCaskill]

We have the judge back in the courtroom. Our producers are going to continue to listen in and bring us any news as we have it. For now, though, Christy, would you talk to me about the dynamic in a jury room when it is not simply one holdout, but rather a faction of holdouts, how that dynamic plays out?

[NetCredit Representative]

Yeah, that is a tough situation. One thing I will say about this jury, having observed them throughout this trial for the most Part, I'd say they have been incredibly engaged. Many, I would say most of them have been taking copious notes through both the prosecution and the defense's examinations. They have been punctual. And so they clearly have strong views about the case. I think anybody who's been sitting in the courtroom has had very strong views about the case, having been both in the main courtroom and then spent some days in the overflow room. Just viewing, even from the tensions that are in the courthouse among people who are attending this trial, seeing how tense it has been in those discussions that people are having about this case, I imagine that is translating somewhat into the jury room. But again, what I find a bit fascinating about this is the jury has come to consensus on the two sex trafficking and the two lesser sex crimes. Those crimes are also predicates for racketeering activities. So if, for example, you believe, and again, my suspicion is that the jury has reached a guilty verdict. Again, I don't know this my suspicion based on timing and what they asked to see, that they've reached a guilty verdict on the sex trafficking and on transportation to engage in prostitution with respect to Cassie Venture. If that is the case, then they have checked the box for racketeering activity with respect to rico. So then the question becomes the other elements for RICO are, was there a criminal enterprise? Was there a group of coconspirators working with Combs with that common purpose, this common course of conduct? And it sounds like that may be the sticking point. So I think that's really interesting. One thing that the defense attorneys, I think did really effectively in the closing argument was to put up a photo of Combs and his entire organization. And it's all of them smiling and happy. He's got family members there, he's got long term friends, he's got his security guards, his personal assistants, a large group of people, and they're all smiling. And he said, does this look like a criminal enterprise to you? This is a family. These are people who worked together. These are people who loved each other and were moved by each other. And this is not a criminal enterprise. This was, yes, he had a personal, personal life that was, as the defense counsel described it, you know, unorthodox. But, you know, this was these people that worked for him were doing a job. He had legitimate businesses. They were not there to service a criminal enterprise. My, you know, my response to that sitting there was, yeah, I mean, families can be criminal enterprises for rico. You know, put up a photo of any mob family and you'll see just that Just because they're family members, just because they're close, doesn't mean that they're not working to help him both commit crimes and cover up crimes. And the evidence of that was overwhelming. So this idea that they all weren't working to, as one of the prosecutors said in the closing, to serve his kingdom because he referred to himself as a king, that they weren't there to serve the kingdom. I mean, they. I mean, that is exactly what RICO requires you to have this common purpose. Their common purpose was to do what Sean Combs wanted. And many, many instances that we heard about at this trial that was criminal, whether it's arson, kidnapping, drug distribution, bringing the drugs to these freak offs to these hotel rooms. I mean, it just ran the gamut. But again, even if the jury wasn't getting there, if they've already come up with the fact that there is sex trafficking and sex crime, that would be enough. Clearly, I think what they are hung up on is this idea of an enterprise. And unfortunately, I thought the evidence of that was overwhelming sitting there. But I can also understand, given how effective defense counsel was in describing that this isn't what you would see, for example, with the Mafia, with the mob. This doesn't really quite fit rico. Sounds like that may be persuading at least some of these jurors that, that they can't get there on the RICO count, at least not yet.

[Claire McCaskill]

Lisa Rubin, we're learning that the judge is going to repeat part of the jury charge. I know he mentioned pages and lines. Can you give us a sense of where the sticking point is?

[Alicia Menendez]

Yeah. There's still a disagreement about whether or not he's going to add some language to this, but here's at least, Alicia, what both sides seem to be agreed on as at least a bare minimum. I'm going to read to you from, from the jury charge. And it basically reminds the jurors it is your duty, and I'm quoting as jurors, to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement. Each of you must decide the case for himself or herself, but you should do so only after a consideration of the case with your fellow jurors. And you should not hesitate to change an opinion when convinced that it is erroneous. Discuss and weigh your respective opinions dispassionately without regard to sympathy, without regard to prejudice or favor for either party, and follow my instructions on the law. Again, your verdict must be unanimous, but you are not bound to surrender your honest convictions concerning the effect or weight of the evidence. For the mere purpose of returning a verdict or solely because of the opinion of other jurors. And it continues along the same lines right now. From what we can tell from our producers who are in the the room, the prosecutors want to add another sentence that is something that was offered in Michael Avenatti's prosecution, saying that there's no reason, if this case were tried again, that another jury would be any more competent than you. The defense has lodged an objection to that, saying that goes way too far and that the judge's proposal of re reciting his existing instructions from the jury charge would be the most wise and prudent thing to do right now. We're not yet quite at a decision point, but that's where we are right now at 508 on the second day of deliberations, as Christy just noted.

[Claire McCaskill]

Alicia Christi Greenberg, that sort of additional language is often a sticking point at this point in the process. Fear that adding language could actually in some ways influence the jury. Interesting to me that the emphasis is not on clarifying any of the language around RICO charges specifically, but rather sort of the overall jury charge to endeavor to do that. This without bias and in no rush.

[NetCredit Representative]

Yeah, it sounds like they are not. It's unclear exactly what the sticking points are as to rico. So he certainly, the judge certainly could go through that RICO count again, but it's not clear that they are necessarily confused or requesting any clarity about that count. It sounds like. Like there are people who just strongly disagree on that count. And so I think that's why the focus is really on do your duty. You've sat here for over a month and heard this evidence, which has been difficult to hear, and you've all done really your duty in listening and paying close attention to that evidence. And so that additional sentence of who would be in a better position to. To make this decision than you, who have done your duty and who have been here day in and day out paying close attention. And so I understand the need to try to. Like I said, you're almost trying to. It's a little bit scolding in a way of telling them like this is your public service here to reach your result and don't entrust this to another jury to do it. You're capable of getting there. So that's why I think the prosecutor very much want that stronger language, obviously, for the defense. If you're looking for the jury to hang on that count, you don't want to scold them as much. You kind of want to let them believe disagreement's okay, because that's the result that you want. So that's why you have two sets of lawyers coming up with different languages to how to instruct the jury here.

[Claire McCaskill]

Lisa Rubin, it is my understanding that the judge is revising and extending his remarks. What is he saying?

[Alicia Menendez]

Saying, give me one second, Alicia, if you can. He's saying that, look, if the jury continues to deliberate and this happens continuously, meaning they come back again and say they're still stuck, the court is closed on Friday. If the jury deliberations continue through tomorrow and they're still not done, they're going to come back on July 7, or they can make accommodations to keep the court open on the third. But he wants to let them know now if there's a possibility that they could still come back on Thursday. In other words, he doesn't want them to rush to a decision because with the holiday weekend coming up, they don't want to come back on Monday. They're discussing now whether or not there's a possibility that they could come back on Thursday. That may make something people more willing to engage in a longer term reconsideration of their own views if they know that they have that time on Thursday. That's what the judge is really talking about right now. But you know, again, the defense counsel is concerned about that rush. He's saying that I get Mark Agnifolo talking to the judge right now, according to our producers, saying he's concerned that the jury will feel pressured to come to a rush. So he would like them to perhaps have that option, but he wants them first to deliberate tomorrow. Everybody wants to take this in stages. And with respect to the instruction that you, Christy and I were just discussing that the prosecution wants basically saying to them, look, you can do this. Nobody is better situated to do this than you. The judge is not saying never. He's saying no, not now. Let's take this incrementally. Let's first remind them of what they've already been instructed. If they come back to us and say they're stuck again, then I may go beyond my existing written instructions. But the time for that is not yet. Now, we're not in a situation where we have to rush anything. They've only been deliberating for a day and a half. Let's not take this out of proportion right now to the situation that we're in.

[Claire McCaskill]

Let's bring in MSNBC legal analyst and former Brooklyn prosecutor Charles Coleman. Charles Coleman, it is my understanding that you have tried cases in front of Judge Submaranian before, what do we need to know about his courtroom?

[Progressive Representative]

Well, Alicia, that is correct. I have tried cases in front of Judge Sumaranian. This is a very, very thoughtful judge who is going to be concerned about bringing this case to a conclusion, but doing so in a way that does not open himself up for reversal. He is extremely smart, he is extremely thorough, and he is extremely concerned about making sure that all of the hoopla, all the circus surrounding the case does not permeate into a space that allows the jury to rush to a decision and potentially create some sort of reversible error. So he's going to take his time and do everything that he can to explain what he needs to in order for this jury to make a decision. Having tried cases in front of him before and also having tried cases in other jurisdictions, one thing that you know, and Christy can talk about this, Lisa, as well, once the case gets to the jury, you're also looking at the clock, and you can determine a lot by the notes that the jury sends back, as well as the sort of timing of the week. And I think that what we're seeing now is an indication that we're going to have a guilty verdict on at least some of those counts. Obviously not all, but I think that's pretty evident by the timing that we're seeing. But the way that Judge Sue Mehranian is approaching these instructions and this revision around the language is a clear indication that he does not necessarily want to waste or rest, rather, on a partial verdict, but ultimately would like to have this entire case resolved whenever he slams that gavel. And so that's something that you're going to see, this very thoughtful, very methodical, very smart approach without necessarily rushing it, understanding that the jury does want to probably end this before the holiday, but also not forcing them in a way that potentially could cause problems down the line.

[Claire McCaskill]

So our understanding that the judge is now bringing the jury out any minute is going to give them the instructions that we have been talking through. Christy Greenberg, we have viewers who are just joining us. This news is all new to them. I want you to return to these charges. Talk us through them, and talk us through why the RICO charges were the most complex of the charges levied against John Combs.

[NetCredit Representative]

So Sean Combs is charged in five counts. The first count is a racketeering conspiracy. Essentially, what the prosecutors have alleged is that Combs was acting as part of the Combs enterprise. This is an organization, a group of people working together with a common purpose to commit and cover up crimes, as well as do that over a common, there's a common course of conduct. This wasn't just a one off. This was something that this enterprise was engaged in. Now, that does not mean that his businesses did not have a lawful purpose, can have multiple purposes. It could be lawful as well as criminal. But that this was a consistent through line that his employees, his security guards, his personal assistants were all there to serve him, as prosecutors said in the closing, to serve his kingdom. And so they were there to do what he asked. And whether that was committing crimes, getting him drugs, bringing the drugs to the freak offs, committing arson, blowing up Kid Cudi's car, or engaging in these sex crimes, helping cover them up, have to clean up afterwards, all of these things that he used his employees, his staff, the people he paid and that he used money from his enterprises to both commit these offenses as well as cover them up. That's where you get the witness tampering, the obstruction charges that came with it. He tried to get rid of that video that we all saw of him beating and video suspiciously dragging Cassie across the floor. So that is racketeering and that is the count that jurors are stuck on at this point.

[Claire McCaskill]

As to the Christine, let me stop you there only because we have some news from inside the courtroom. Lisa Rubin, the jury back in the room, Combs watching the jury as they come out. Judge Sumaranian asking the them to keep delivering. What more did we hear from Judge Submaranian?

[Alicia Menendez]

Subramanian, Alicia, from what we can tell from our producers, is now giving those same instructions that I read to you and our viewers before the top of the hour. For folks who are just joining us, Judge Subramanian, when learning that there are verdicts on four of the counts but yet the jurors cannot reach a verdict on one of them, floated the possibility that he he would read to the jurors part of his preexisting 62 page jury charge, reminding them not only of the importance of the unanimity of their decision, but that it's essentially okay and even encouraged for them to sit and listen to one another and reconsider whether or not something that they have previously believed is erroneous. He is now reading from pages 58 and 59 of the jury charge, tracking what I read earlier. And I'll just read to you from our producers. He asked them not only that they keep deliberating, but reminded them that they should not hesitate to change an opinion when they are convinced that they should weigh their opinions dispassionately and follow his instructions on the law. That's the judge's way of reminding the jurors the law is what I say it is, not what the defense counsel says it is, not what the prosecution says it is. I have given you the authoritative instructions on what each of these charges require, each of the elements. If you have doubts about that, I am the law on that. Essentially go back and look at the instructions and I'm just going to resume what he's saying. Your verdict must be unanimous. Each of you must make your own decision based on consideration of the evidence and discussion with your fellow jurors. Return to the jury room, and if you are done, I will bring you back to dismiss you. I thank you again. And so as of right now at 5:18, we're expecting the jurors to come back tomorrow and restart their deliberations at 9am they can go until the end of the day tomorrow. It's at that point that the judge may advise them of the possibility of deliberating further on Thursday when the court is supposed to be closed. But there was an agreement today that and instead of letting the jury know that they could possibly deliberate on Thursday, now they're going to wait to see where they are at the end of the day tomorrow. Alicia, so that nobody feels particularly pressured in one direction or another with respect to this first count, the racketeering conspiracy count.

[Claire McCaskill]

Charles Coleman, the jurors have now been sent by Judge Smiranian back into the deliberation room. Your sense of the early conversation that are likely to happen inside that room?

[Progressive Representative]

Well, Alicia, it's hard to get into the minds of the jury and understand what may be going on in that room. But what I can tell you, bar none, is that something like this, that type of instruction really does represent for the defense sort of a last stand. They are going to be hoping that there is someone with a strong enough voice in that jury room who is able to persuade some other juror to perhaps change their mind on the the four counts that they've decided on, which likely are convictions, and that fifth count continue to have some level of disagreement there. The longer that this goes, the more it plays into the favor of the defense. And so just sumarani encouraging them to go back and deliberate, but also noting to them that they can actually change their minds is really a gift to the defense because what they're hoping is that someone can convince another juror to change their mind and potentially get get that four counts that they've decided on, perhaps down to two or three or even one, because that is going to be a win for them. And so, as you're thinking and listening and hearing about the judge giving these instructions to the jury, understand that the four counts that they've already decided on are not set in stone. And it is quite possible that with more time and these types of instructions, that there may be a juror who's able to persuade someone else to say, you know what, I may have thought this way before, but now that I've had additional time to consider it, and I know that we're going to be given additional time having heard these instructions from the judge, I want to change my mind. Of course, it could go the other way, and it could be something that the prosecution benefits from. But I'm thinking that if I'm the defense attorney, attorneys in this case, I'm hoping that when they get this additional time, that it ultimately require results and someone being able to convince another person to change their mind.

[Claire McCaskill]

Charles Coleman, as you were speaking, the judge received a note from the jury saying that they are going to retire for the day, begin fresh in the morning. What does that indicate to you?

[Progressive Representative]

Well, it seems like they may be at an impasse for the night. They may have certain questions that they're deciding that they want to think about as they go overnight. It may be a singular issue. You never know. I suspect that there may be a central question to the fifth count that is is hovering over their head that they aren't able to agree upon. And this may be the thing that they ruminate over before starting again tomorrow. It's hard to determine, but it may very well be if they're deciding that there's no use in continuing today, but we're gonna come back fresh tomorrow that folks have decided. Look, there's a central question that we have to answer. Obviously, we'll never know what that is, but that may be the thing where they've narrowed down the issues that they're considering and waiting until tomorrow with fresh eyes, fresh minds to give it an actual second go.

[Claire McCaskill]

Christy Greenberg, I appreciate that both you and Charles Coleman have worked as prosecutors, and yet Charles gave me the view from the defense team. Can you give me a sense of what is likely running through the prosecution's mind as this jury retires for the day?

[NetCredit Representative]

Well, if I was in the prosecutor's shoes, I'd be feeling pretty good right now, because, again, I agree with Charles here. It is highly likely that there are convictions on at least some of these sex crimes counts, because it really would defy logic that if the jury were a Jury wouldn't find a defendant not guilty of all the sex crimes, but then be stuck on racketeering. If you don't believe the two women, Cassie Ventura and Jane Doe, if you don't believe them and you found Diddy not guilty on those counts, you wouldn't be on the fence as to racketeering. You'd be very clear that you're not guilty there. So I believe strongly that it is highly likely that the jury has found him guilty of at least some, if not all of those sex trafficking and transportation for prostitution counts. And that really what they're stuck on is the racketeering, this idea of an enterprise. But again, if you're the prosecutors, you're feeling good, you've likely got some convictions. And by the way, in terms of, of sentencing, just going ahead, the sex trafficking counts, those are the ones that carry the stiffest sentence. Those are the counts that have the 15 year mandatory minimum term in prison. And looking ahead, let's say that the jury says, you know what, we're not there on the racketeering. We can't come to a verdict there. And you just have the sex trafficking. Well, even at sentencing, the judge can consider acts that, that the jury didn't convict on, even the even acquitted conduct, even hung conduct, that all can be relevant conduct at sentencing for the judge to consider. So again, if you're the prosecutors, you are feeling very good that there is a verdict on four of the five counts after just a day and a half of deliberations. You are feeling good right now. If you're the prosecutors.

[Claire McCaskill]

Court is now adjourned for the day. Let's go back to Raheem Alice, who is outside of the courthouse. Rahima, talk to us about what you were hearing and seeing there.

[Alicia Menendez]

Well, I want to play off of.

[NetCredit Representative]

What Christy said a moment ago, just talking about the prosecution feeling really good. Being in the overflow courtroom, I could see both the attorneys on the prosecution side and the defense side.

[Alicia Menendez]

It was a tale of two stories. The prosecution was sitting very stoic, very.

[NetCredit Representative]

Calm, looking at their notes. They were talking, talking very much to one another, very calm.

[Alicia Menendez]

On the other, behind them, there was Sean Combs defense team.

[NetCredit Representative]

And they were moving in a way that was agitated. And it seemed sad, it seemed full, it seemed hurtful. It seemed as though they were filled with emotions. And it was very different.

[Alicia Menendez]

I rode up in the elevator to the note that there was a note with Sean Combs lead attorney, Mark Agnifolo.

[NetCredit Representative]

And he was very affable. We had a quick conversation about what he was doing. And he got off the elevator and went into the courtroom.

[Alicia Menendez]

And the mood changed from what I saw, his look in the elevator to.

[NetCredit Representative]

What I saw from the screen, from the overflow.

[Alicia Menendez]

He was, there was the hugging, there was a sense of comforting. The arms were being put around Sean Combs.

[NetCredit Representative]

His head was lowered.

[Alicia Menendez]

He was looking at into his hands.

[NetCredit Representative]

And when his family came finally into.

[Alicia Menendez]

The room, his sons, his daughter, his mother was already there, he turned around.

[NetCredit Representative]

He smiles at them, gave them a.

[Alicia Menendez]

Thumbs up his hands and a prayerful look. But there was a very distinct difference.

[NetCredit Representative]

In the way these two attorneys and these teams were processing the information, just knowing that a note had been given.

[Alicia Menendez]

To the judge and they were about.

[NetCredit Representative]

To find out what it was going to be.

[Alicia Menendez]

A lot of anxiety on the team.

[NetCredit Representative]

For Sean Combs and it seemed so much less so for the prosecutors recently.

[Claire McCaskill]

Rahima Ellis outside that New York City courtroom for us. Thank you, Rahima. Lisa Rubin, if in fact the jury has reached a guilty verdict on the sex trafficking charge, you have described that to me as groundbreaking. Tell me why.

[Alicia Menendez]

Because, Alicia, usually when we think about sexual assault or abuse prosecutions, we think about the victim and the defendant as either strangers to one another, casual acquaintances, or at best a one night stand gone bad. We don't think about the victim and the defendant, however, as people who are involved in years long romantic or professional entanglements with one another. And I want, I want to read to you again from the lead prosecutor Maureen Comey's rebuttal. In talking about what the nature of those relationships were, she's talking about the three women who were presented to the jury as victims. Cassie Ventura, his first ex girlfriend, Jane Doe, the second, and a woman known only as Mia, who was one of Sean Combs personal assistants. And this is what she had to say. They all told you they loved the defendant. They went through a cycle of happy times followed by abusive times over and over and over again. And they describe for you, all three of them, how confusing that experience was, how they're still grappling with that mix of love and abuse. So when they struggle to explain why they took certain actions, it's not because they're lying. It's because they're doing their best to tell you about their experiences of psychological, physical and sexual abuse perpetrated by a man they are all worshiped. Other prosecutors would have seen this case as messy and too complicated to bring. And this all female team at the Southern District of New York, aided by their supervisors at the time last year nonetheless brought a case against Sean Combs, despite over two decades of him flying above the law to say, no, you're not going to continue this pattern of behavior. Perhaps tomorrow we'll find out, Alicia, whether the jury agreed with the them.

[Claire McCaskill]

Our thanks to Lisa Rubin, to Christy Greenberg and to Charles Coleman for joining us for this breaking news. We're going to take a quick break, switch gears back to politics. A leading Democrat in the Senate is going to be here on the very narrow passage of Trump's domestic spending package. Senator Richard Blumenthal is going to be our guest. So don't go anywhere.

[Progressive Representative]

Building a business may feel like a big jump, but on deck small business loans can help keep you afloat. With lines of credit up to 100,000 and term loans up to 250,000, OnDeck lets you choose the loan that's right for your business. As a top rated online small business lender, OnDeck's team of loan advisors can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit ondeck.com for more information. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtibank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota.

[NetCredit Representative]

All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

[Claire McCaskill]

We all belong outside.

[NetCredit Representative]

We're drawn to nature.

[Claire McCaskill]

Whether it's the recorded sounds of the ocean we doze off, the in to, or the succulents that adorn our homes. Nature makes all of our lives, well, better. Despite all this, we often go about our busy lives removed from it. But the outdoors is closer than we realize. With alltrails, you can discover trails nearby.

[NetCredit Representative]

And explore confidently with offline maps and on trail navigation.

[Claire McCaskill]

Download the free app today.

[NetCredit Representative]

MSNBC's Jen Psaki, host of the Briefing.

[Claire McCaskill]

We've never experienced a moment like, like this in our country, and it leaves.

[Alicia Menendez]

Us all with a choice.

[Claire McCaskill]

Are we gonna speak out or are we gonna be pressured into silence? I've worked for presidents.

[NetCredit Representative]

I've faced the tough questions from the.

[Claire McCaskill]

Press and even threats from the Kremlin. And if there's one thing I've learned, it's that you can't cower to bullies.

[Alicia Menendez]

You don't need to be hopeless.

[Claire McCaskill]

We have our voices, and I will continue using mine.

[Progressive Representative]

The Briefing with Jen Psaki Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC.

[NetCredit Representative]

I advocated for my state's interests. I will continue to do that and I will make no excuses for doing that. Do I like this bill? No. Because I tried to take care of Alaska's interests. But I know, I know that in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don't like that. I don't.

[Claire McCaskill]

Today was the day when Republican lawmakers went from passengers in the implementation of Donald Trump's agenda to co drivers. Because that massive domestic spending bill, the one that adds the federal deficit, that makes steep cuts to Medicaid, that in many cases contradicts the primary interests of Republican voters all across this country, stumbled past its final major roadblock block on its way to passage. It is no small thing. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the sheer number of people impacted by what the Senate unleashed today is quantifiably greater than anything else Trump has done in the last seven months. For instance, we know some 72 million Americans rely on Medicaid for health care coverage, and we know more than 40 million Americans rely on SNAP for food assistance. Make no mistake, Trump's extrajudicial deportations, his use of the military against its own citizens, his purge of vital government systems are all surely incredibly important discussions worth every millisecond of our attention. They affect tens of millions. But what the Senate passed today, its tentacles stand to reach hundreds of millions, for better or for worse. Joining our coverage, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. Senator, what a day. Your reaction to this passage?

[NetCredit Representative]

I am angry. I'm furious. Because this big, blatant betrayal is going to impact, cause, enduring pain and hardship for those millions of people whom you just cited. But I've seen them firsthand. I know that the child who breaks his arm on a playground or the mom who feels a lump in her breast or the senior who's in a nursing home, they're going to go without the care that they need. And it's cruel and stupid. Cruel because obviously they're going to suffer pain and they're going to be potentially without care. But it's also stupid, because postponing care makes it more costly when the illness becomes more serious or the disease becomes incurable. And so. So behind all of these numbers are real people going through real crises. The cutting of this SNAP program, food assistance, veterans benefits, Planned Parenthood, the kinds of cuts that we've seen across the board, all of it just to pay for tax cuts. Trillions of dollars in tax cuts for people who don't need them and balloon the deficit by trillions of dollars.

[Claire McCaskill]

They were redlining this legislation almost as they were passing it. Do you think that there is stuff here that even folks who voted for it don't fully Understand is in there.

[NetCredit Representative]

Absolutely. And you're right to focus on that fact because literally at 4am this morning, we were receiving drafts of paper with red lines notations in the margins. And that was the bill. And the parliamentarian was reviewing provisions up until the morning when we were supposed to begin votes. In fact, votes were postponed from 6am to noon because there had to be review of it by both the minority and majority staff. So there are undoubtedly provisions in this bill like raising premiums, co pays other kinds of really disastrous effects. And it is the first time, I think this is really important to recognize, the first time in our history that we are rolling back care for millions of people.

[Claire McCaskill]

We've talked a lot about the Medicaid piece of it, and I think we're going to continue to hear a lot about the Medicaid piece of this just because of the sheer number of people who are impacted by this. But to your point, there are other elements that we have not heard as much about. So, for example, what does this legislation do to veterans?

[NetCredit Representative]

Veterans receive Medicaid often. They're dependent on it. Veterans rely on rural hospitals. A lot of them are going to close. The reason why Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was so hesitant about this measure is because of its effect on rural hospitals, where a lot of the veterans go. Alaska has a lot of veterans. And so again and again we offered amendments to try to stop premium increases. They're going to come. People don't know how much. Really frightening to people. And that's why this measure is so unpopular with the American people. Two to one against it.

[Claire McCaskill]

I just keep thinking about something that Senator Murkowski said, though, which is basically an acknowledgement that, yes, she was able to get things for Alaska, but the bill was not good for the other 49 states. I understand your job, your task is to represent the people of Connecticut. Is there any sweetener they could have come to you with simply for the people of Connecticut that would have been good enough for you to have sold out the other 49 states?

[NetCredit Representative]

No, my job is to represent the people of Connecticut and I will never contravene their interests. And this bill is seriously bad for them. But at the margins, providing these exemptions and exceptions, that can be used as a disguise, like they used an accounting gimmick.

[Claire McCaskill]

Another fact that I want to talk about that. Can we talk about that? Because I want you to put this very wonky language for me into plain English as best you can. So this is from NBC News. To pass their bill, Republicans voted along party lines to set an aggressive new precedent that will have a lasting impact on the Senate. They used a trick known as current policy baseline to obscure the costs of extending 2017 tax tax cuts, essentially lowering the sticker price by $3.8 trillion. That tactic, backed by all 53 Republicans, hasn't been used in the filibuster proof process before and weakens the Senate's 60 vote threshold. Right. First of all, just explain that to me.

[NetCredit Representative]

Well, to put it in the most simple terms, their view is if you extend a tax cut even though it balloons the deficit, it, you don't need to count it because it's already a tax cut in the law which would have expired, but all you're doing is extending it. So the baseline in essence is moved through this accounting gimmick or trick. And what they did also was to use the reconciliation process, which as you know, is supposed to apply only to the budget it to make very sweeping policy changes or attempt to do it. They tried to, in effect, preempt all state laws on artificial intelligence. We pushed back. We won that fight. But the baseline gimmick essentially disguises the ballooning deficit. But they're not going to hide it from Wall street and from the bond market. And that's where our interest rate is going to go up for the debt that is going to have to be issued to cover that ballooning deficit.

[Claire McCaskill]

That's why you already saw Moody's putting us on the decline. Just politically, how do you think this plays out for them? I mean, they all saw Thom Tillis speech. They all know that he is making a sound political argument. We had last night DNC Chair Ken Martin on with us and we said to him, are you going to cut that and make it nad? And he said, well, if we haven't, we're going to, I mean, you're going to to hear that on a loop. And once people feel the impact of this legislation, have they taken a toxic pill and do they, do they even understand why they have.

[NetCredit Representative]

It's Donald Trump's show and they are either enthralled or complete fear of him. And he has succeeded in ramming through this measure by intimidating and threatening them. Except for maybe Thom Tillis and maybe Susan Collins and not enough to make a difference, but they are going to be held accountable. It's Trump's show, but they own this bill and we're going to make them accountable to the American people. But you know, at the end of the day, ads are fine, but what really sways people is what they see and they hear the real faces and voices. And my experience is that people are pretty smart. They get it by 2 to 1. They disapprove of this bill now, and they haven't even seen the real life consequences. Those kids who are going to go to bed with their stomachs growling, the moms who won't be able to go for wellness checks, for cancer, for other kinds of diagnoses, the effects are going to be sweeping and, and none of them are going to be good.

[Claire McCaskill]

Senator Richard Blumenthal, thank you so much for being with us today. Thanks for having me Join our conversation, MSNBC senior contributing editor Michelle Norris. Michelle, your reaction to what we have watched unfold today on Capitol Hill.

[NetCredit Representative]

Well, I think Senator Blumenthal had it.

[Claire McCaskill]

Right when he said that this is.

[NetCredit Representative]

The party, the Republican Party that now owns this bill.

[Alicia Menendez]

Lisa Murkowski said that, you know, talked.

[Claire McCaskill]

About the number of people who are.

[NetCredit Representative]

Affected outside of her state, Alaska, representing only 2% of the population.

[Alicia Menendez]

It's important, important to look at some of these numbers.

[NetCredit Representative]

I mean, 493,000 people in Pennsylvania, 651,000.

[Claire McCaskill]

In North Carolina, 1.9 million people in Florida.

[Alicia Menendez]

And this is happening at a really.

[NetCredit Representative]

Vulnerable moment in our economy. You've heard me say this before.

[Alicia Menendez]

I keep repeating it because I think it bears repeating. We have 10,000 people a day that.

[NetCredit Representative]

Are turning 65 in this nation.

[Alicia Menendez]

That number will go to 11 and.

[NetCredit Representative]

Then 12,000 a day.

[Claire McCaskill]

And this is the number of people.

[Alicia Menendez]

Who are losing healthcare. And you might be watching this and.

[Claire McCaskill]

Thinking, well, it doesn't affect me.

[Alicia Menendez]

This will have broad implications because as people are losing healthcare, as hospitals in.

[NetCredit Representative]

Rural communities are closing, this will have.

[Alicia Menendez]

Ripple effects because then the healthcare system starts to feel pressure points in several places and they wind up passing the.

[Claire McCaskill]

Cost of that on to other consumers. So people who feel like they are.

[NetCredit Representative]

Sitting pretty or at least sitting safe will also be be directly impacted by this. And it's quite sad that all this.

[Claire McCaskill]

Is done in the service of giving.

[NetCredit Representative]

Tax cuts to wealthy Americans who are not interested in using their wealth to.

[Claire McCaskill]

Help the general population.

[NetCredit Representative]

We're not talking about corporate cuts for companies that we've seen in the past in history for companies that would build hospitals to serve their employees, that would help build schools, that would help build roads. No, that's not what this is about.

[Alicia Menendez]

This is just about building wealth for.

[NetCredit Representative]

A small percentage of people at the expense of the health, safety and security.

[Alicia Menendez]

Of the general population.

[Claire McCaskill]

It's so interesting to me, Michelle, because the polling would seem to indicate that of Americans who know about this legislation. And there's a big gap there between those who know and those who don't know. The folks who know about it are not fans of it, certainly not the majority. And so if you are Republicans, you gotta go out there and sell it. If you are Democrats, you gotta go out there and make clear to your constituents what this means for them. But people are gonna know, Michelle, when they get kicked off of their Medicaid or when their snap benefits expire, they're going to know. And this is, I guess, the Democrats.

[Alicia Menendez]

Opportunity and some would say responsibility to.

[NetCredit Representative]

Make sure they know, know who's at.

[Alicia Menendez]

Fault here, who caused this pain, who.

[NetCredit Representative]

Actually owns this horrible pill that all of America now has to swallow. That's one of the reasons that the.

[Alicia Menendez]

Republicans move so quickly is because they.

[NetCredit Representative]

Know that this is unpopular.

[Claire McCaskill]

And it is also another indication of our fractured or our broken democracy right.

[NetCredit Representative]

Now that the fact that they move.

[Claire McCaskill]

So quickly and passing a bill that they know is unpopular.

[Alicia Menendez]

They know that, and they also don't.

[Claire McCaskill]

Know what's actually in the bill, which.

[Alicia Menendez]

Is another sign of a broken democracy.

[NetCredit Representative]

That there several members of the House and the Senate who've admitted that they don't know what's in this bill.

[Claire McCaskill]

You just heard Senator Blumenthal describe the.

[Alicia Menendez]

Sort of raggedy, ticky, tacky way that.

[NetCredit Representative]

This was passed with notes in the margin. That's generally not what happens on Capitol.

[Claire McCaskill]

The people who work in Legislature affairs office who write this legislation, they pride.

[Alicia Menendez]

Themselves on moving quickly, on creating documents.

[Claire McCaskill]

That are clean and pristine. That's often the language that they use.

[NetCredit Representative]

This is not, you know, the last.

[Claire McCaskill]

Time we saw this was probably maybe when we were moving quickly to pass.

[NetCredit Representative]

The Patriot act, and then it was.

[Alicia Menendez]

Because national security was at stake. That's not what's happening here. This is something that they're doing very quickly, operating in many cases out of.

[NetCredit Representative]

Fear and trying to serve someone who is has no other.

[Alicia Menendez]

Donald Trump has no other piece of legislation.

[NetCredit Representative]

So that's one of the reasons that.

[Alicia Menendez]

He has to get a victory here. This is the single piece of legislation.

[NetCredit Representative]

That they have that they can point to.

[Claire McCaskill]

And they're determined to get a victory at all costs, regardless of what's inside. To use your language, this legislation is raggedy in more ways than one. Michelle Norris, thank you so much for spending some time with us. Ahead for us, Donald Trump's trip to the Florida Everglades to visit a brand new immigration detention center where the cruelty and the alligators and the pythons, they are the point that story when Deadline White House continues after this. Donald Trump is touting the country's newest immigration facility as alligator alcohol. Despite the fact that ICE detention is not supposed to be punitive. The Florida facility seems to be an embrace of the kind of cruelty the Trump administration has directed at immigration immigrant communities since his inauguration. As Reuters put it, quote, the facility sits some 37 miles from Miami in a vast subtropical wetland teeming with alligators, crocodiles and pythons. Fearsome imagery the White House has leveraged to show its determination to purge Michael migrants. It says we're wrongly allowed to stay in the country under former President Joe Biden's administration. One Florida lawmaker telling NBC News, quote, they are looking, they are locking people in a swamp with extreme heat with no clear plan for humane conditions. At a press conference earlier today to celebrate the facility's opening, Trump herald it as what he hoped would be the first step in a national project.

[Progressive Representative]

Well, I think we'd like to see.

[NetCredit Representative]

Them in many states, really many states. This one I know Ron's doing a second one and at least a second one and probably a couple of more. And, you know, at some point they might morph into a system where you're going to keep it for a long time.

[Claire McCaskill]

Joining our conversation, former Florida state senator and current Florida Attorney general candidate Jose Javier Rodriguez. And joining me here in Washington, writer and editor for Protect Democracy, Amanda Carpenter. Jjr. What is your greatest concern about this facility?

[Progressive Representative]

Well, first of all, if I was.

[NetCredit Representative]

Attorney general, I'd be focused on the opioid crisis, the affordability crisis. But of course, this is political theater and the audience is in Washington. Right. As you mentioned, cruelty as immigration policy. And I think what you see is the governor and Attorney General Uthmeyer trying to show how cruel and lawless they are. And it worked, right? The president came and gave them a pat on the head for this. But the concerns are myriad. Just to give you a flavor for some of the mess that this creates here in Florida, not just as an attorney general candidate, but as a lawyer, former state senator. There's a number of legal questions as to how they're even able to do this. They have claimed emergency powers in order to seize land from local government, go around the legislature, you know, hand out no bid contracts to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars of money. It's supposed to be going to hurricane preparedness. And, you know, there's a number of life safety considerations as well. You know, law enforcement does not want deaths in their custody. And one of the concerns that I have is that this is a setup. You know, this has been a very deadly year when it comes to deaths in ICE custody. And florid alone accounts for half of them. So this is a disaster. And a disaster, you know, for our state, you know, humanitarian, but also for our taxpayers. And it's all a big stunt, Amanda.

[Claire McCaskill]

Claiming emergency powers, reappropriating funds. We have seen this movie before.

[NetCredit Representative]

Yeah, absolutely. But I think one question all Americans should be asking is who is going to those camps? Because every time Donald Trump and Kristi Noem get in front of the camera so they promise up and down, it's gonna be the worst of the worst. The rapists, the murderers, the drug traffickers. And yes, we do have problems in this country where those people do need to be arrested and dealt with. But then when you watch the news, the people picked up are grandmas, hairdressers, everyday people who are simply here to look for work. And the saddest part of this is that our country allowed them to come in and seek work, to be abused in a lot of conditions. And now they're going to be sent to something like a tent city in the middle of the Florida Everglades on the taxpayer dime. And so they can come out and promise like, yes, this is going to be the worst of the worst. But when you look at the people who are actually detained, when you look at the way that these ICE officers are going into communities masked up, full out tactical gear like they're going to war at Home Depot. And then they go in retaliation against some woman who's in her house because they can't find her boyfriend who hit her car. Right. Like, this is what's actually happening in America. They're blowing her doors open. We have a completely unaccountable agency doing these raids all over America. And they're going to throw all kinds of people in those kind of tent cities, because the more politicized that an agency like ICE becomes, the less professional it is. At the same time, this Congress is passing a bill to plus up their budget, something like $100 billion, there are going to be raids. Like, they talk about doing a national project. These tent cities are coming near you. And think about the people they're going to put in there. Stephen Miller talks about wanting to arrest 3,000 people a day. Ask yourself, are there 3,000 rapists and drug traffickers to even fill up these prisons that they're building? No.

[Claire McCaskill]

And that's fine.

[NetCredit Representative]

They will find people to fill them with.

[Claire McCaskill]

That is why we've seen some of what we have seen out of Los Angeles where they are willy nilly picking people up off the street. Jjr, to the point that Amanda made about the politicization, here, you had the Florida Republican Party blasting out a fundraising email. They were advertising T shirts, hats, beer koozies with the nickname of the facility on it. I mean, I know we say all the time that the cruelty is the point, but fundraising off the cruelty really seems to put an exclamation mark on the sentiment.

[NetCredit Representative]

Yeah, it's disgusting. You know, and I think for Floridians, the Everglades are a treasure. You know, the Everglades, you know, they try to make it seem like it's Jurassic park park, which is preposterous. But again, that goes to the point, the audience is national. They're trying to show how lawless and cruel they are. And again, if the point was to get the president to come and give him a pat on the head, it kind of worked. But to the point, the legal framework that they have in place does not seem to account for processing claims fairly and fully. Right. Due process, in addition to the fact that they seem to be be highlighting that. Right. The way they talk about it is, you know, that they're going to fly people out right from the facility and it's going to, you know, so that's a, that's a big consideration and goes to what you're talking about, this sort of attitude of doing, you know, raids at daycares and just running up the numbers any way they can. But in addition to that are the life safety considerations. So, you know, alligators and pythons are not really the worst worry. The real worry are the conditions at the facility and this attitude of just running up the numbers, you know, you know, taxpayers be damned, life safety be damned. It's very dangerous and very reckless.

[Claire McCaskill]

Jose Javier Rodriguez, Amanda Carpenter, thank you both so much. We're going to sneak in another break and then we'll be right back. A quick reminder for those of you who are yearning to hear Nicole's voice, a new episode of the Best People podcast is out now. Now Nicole's guests are bestselling author Glennon Doyle and global soccer star Abby Wambach. The entire conversation is available on YouTube. You can scan the QR code on your screen right there. Go to msnbc. Com the Best People. Thank you for spending part of this Tuesday with us. We are so grateful.