Nicole Wallace (7:42)

Good to see you, Nicole.

John Brennan (7:45)

Tell me if I have left anything out of the fact pattern. If you go back to your role in government and the way the assessment was put together about Russia's role in the 2016 presidential election, well, as Yogi.

Nicole Wallace (8:03)

Berra has famously said, it's deja vu all over again. It is hard to believe that here we are eight and a half years afterward, we're still going over this ground that has been, I think, fairly well and exhaustively plowed. First of all, I should say I know nothing about this reported investigation or referral to the DOJ other than what I've read in these press reports, these leaks, which are not really supposed to happen if there is an investigation going. Secondly, nobody from the FBI or Department of justice or CIA has reached out to me at all. So I am just waiting to hear more about what this might be. And so again, I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today. I'm very proud of the work that the women and men of the CIA and other elements the intelligence community did eight and a half years ago when they put together this intelligence community assessment. We went to great lens to protect the integrity of the process, the integrity and the sensitivity of the intelligence involved, as well as to protect the identities of individuals that may have been implicated in some of this intelligence, including from the Trump administration. We went to whatever lengths we needed to go to in order to make sure that we're able to follow through with President Obama's request that a comprehensive and exhaustive review be done of Russian interference in 2016 election because he and others realized that the Russians were going to continue to do this in subsequent elections. And he wanted to make sure that we were going to have that collection of information and intelligence that we then could hand over to our successors. And as you pointed out, there have been numerous reviews of this intelligence community assessment and the process we went through, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, the Durham investigation, other types of things which validated it. And indeed, as you pointed out, the CIA note, this tradecraft review, and I will point out there was a serious violation in terms of what they did. They never interviewed me or Jim Clapper, two of the people involved in this, before putting this thing out. But it says in there that the rigor of the analysis, analysis in that intelligence community assessment exceeded that of most other intelligence community assessments. So, again, I think this is unfortunately a very sad and tragic example of the continued politicization of the intelligence community, of the national security process. And quite frankly, I'm really shocked that individuals who are willing to sacrifice their reputations, their credibility, their decency to continue to do Donald Trump's bidding on something that clearly is just politically based on.

John Brennan (10:34)

Can you just tell us, can you help us decipher what has happened at the CIA? You just referenced a tradecraft review. What is that and what does it mean that that has happened?

Nicole Wallace (10:48)

Well, they're frequently done. It's highly unusual that one would be done eight and a half years after the fact and also be initiated by a director who I think is as clear partisan leanings here, and that it is released this way, especially a review of an assessment that implicates a sitting president. So when you do a review, you're trying to make sure that you learn lessons from what happened and to see whether or not there could be any strengthening of the processes involved or the analytic rigor and so on. So, clearly, I think this was initiated the early part of May, so this was done in a fairly condensed timeframe as well. But you're supposed to be interviewing the people involved in this to try to get better understanding of the context for a lot of the actions that were taken. Was this extraordinary, as far as, you know, Russian interference in the election on behalf of one of the candidates? Yes, and that's why we went to extraordinary lens to protect the sensitive intelligence that really undergirded the assessment that was extensively footnoted in the assessment, but also, as I said, to protect individuals involved, including Donald Trump, to make sure that none of this intelligence that could have been seen as inflammatory and as something that was, you know, very damning would get out and so that's why we wanted to make sure it was done in, in a very appropriate and meticulous and diligent manner, and that it was not going to be released out there in the broad environment.

John Brennan (12:19)

What does it mean that Donald Trump, who was president for four years after the assessment, after you had any role in the assessment, how it was assembled, how it was used by policymakers, he had four years as president. He had at different points, John Ratcliffe himself and I think Rick Grenell were senior leaders in the intelligence community. What does it mean that this happened now?

Nicole Wallace (12:48)

Well, it means from my perspective, that the women and men of the CIA deserve stronger, better, apolitical, nonpartisan leadership at such a challenging time of our national security globally, with everything that's going on. And it's clear that Mr. Ratcliffe decided that he was going to initiate, I think, again, to try to satisfy the interest, the urge of Donald Trump, who continues to claim that the, that the assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election was a hoax. It was not. It clearly was not. Russia interfered. They tried to help Donald Trump, they tried to hurt Hillary Clinton, they tried to, you know, undermine the democratic foundations of our country in terms of our election integrity. This has been validated over and over again. Move on, get over it. But clearly, Donald Trump believes that. This is something that I think continues to need to be looked at and criticized. But again, I stand behind the assessment. I think the assessment has stood the test of time and again. I point to those reviews that were done in a political, nonpartisan fashion.

John Brennan (13:59)

My colleague Kendallane is reporting that DOJ has essentially confirmed a criminal investigation has been opened or a referral has been made. Do you believe that to be true? And if that's the case, what would the process be for you to be aware of that, made aware of that?

Nicole Wallace (14:23)

Quite frankly, I don't know what is true. There's so many things that get out into the media bloodstream. And it's interesting that it was, I think, Fox News and Post reporting things like this. So I don't know whether or not there's any validity to it, if it was a referral, if there is an investigation, presumably if there is an investigation that people will be questioned, I would be questioned about it. But again, I've had no contact from them. But again, I testified in front of many, many congressional committees in the House and the Senate over the years, and I continue to explain exactly what we did during this process while we tried to make sure we stayed true to our intelligence responsibilities and that we were not going to do anything at all to try interfere in that election. And again, it was a. It was a challenging time, but also one, I think that the people who actually worked this, both in terms of trying to collect intelligence prior to the election and then the ones who put together the intelligence assessment, they really, I think, showed the best of what the intelligence community and what CIA is made of. So, again, I am clueless about what it is exactly that they may be investigating. Before.

John Brennan (15:34)

The Durham probe was celebrated by Donald Trump, Bill Barr accompanied Mr. Durham on trips overseas. Rather unusual optics for a special investigator. Special Counsel, did you cooperate fully with the Durham probe? Were you interviewed by his investigators?

Nicole Wallace (15:55)

I was interviewed by John Durham himself, along with his investigators, for, I think, close to eight hours. And they were able to look at all of the documents, all of my emails and other types of things, and they reviewed it extensively. And I think Bill Barr said that it appeared as though CIA stayed in this lane. And so, again, it's very surprising that this is happening now. I don't think there's any new evidence that's been uncovered at all. I have tried to answer every question I have been asked, whether it be by Senate or House members or John Durham or others, fully, because I want to make sure that people understand exactly what the Russians were doing to try to interfere in our very, very solemn domestic election system.

John Brennan (16:44)

What do you think will happen next if Ratcliffe's note has been sent along to doj, as has been reported as some sort of predicate to investigate you criminally?

Nicole Wallace (17:00)

I don't know. It's so sad and tragic. I keep thinking, okay, this, the authoritarian playbook. We've seen this play out so many times, and unfortunately, I think we're seeing it play out. And a number of academics and writers have pointed out Carl Schmidt, who was a German jurist, political philosopher and writer in the 1930s, his thesis, which Nazi Germany basically took up, was, don't worry about doing something that is ethical or principled or good or right. Do whatever you can to win. Vanquish your adversaries, vanquish your enemies. And unfortunately, we have seen that happening overseas. We've seen it in Viktor Orban in Hungary. We've seen it with Vladimir Putin. We see it in China. Other places. We see it also in terms of some of the foreign policies are being implemented, including in the Middle east right now. So I really am very worried that what we're seeing now in this chapter of American history is a sad deterioration of, I think, the respect for the rule of law and for our system of government. And if a president of the United States is willing to weaponize intelligence and justice and, you know, law enforcement, investigators and the people who head up these departments and agencies are willing to bow to it, we really are in deep, deep trouble. Which was why I think so many people are worried about the direction this country is taking. So this whole thing about the CIA note and this possible referral of me and criminal investigation, I think is just symptomatic of a much broader disease that we are confronting right now in terms of how our democratic principles are being eroded and corroded as a result of this authoritarian march that we are witnessing every day.

John Brennan (18:44)

Is it your sense that if Durham had found anything on you, it feels like a dumb way to ask this question, but that he would have hesitated? I mean, did he seem to to be on a fact finding mission and open to calling out any wrongdoing that you'd done? If he'd found any.

Nicole Wallace (19:06)

I'm sure he would have. I mean, that was his whole mandate. The reason for doing that investigation was to see what he could find. And I answered every question he posed. I never refused to answer anything because I felt very confident that what we did was the right way to handle a very difficult and very unique situation. And so if John Durham, in all of his exhaustive work, was not able to uncover something that he could, you know, pin his hat on in terms of claiming that we did something that was illegal, I think it would have surfaced, but absolutely not. And that's why I think it's unfortunate that Mr. Ratcliffe has decided to use the CIA, which really raises questions in my mind about the integrity of CIA products here on during this administration.

John Brennan (19:55)

The nastiest report ever done about Donald Trump and Russia people mistakenly think is associated with the Mueller probe, but it's actually the Rubio led Senate Intelligence Committee report into the Trump campaign in Russia. It goes much further than Mueller ever did and goes much further than John Durham ever did. And I may be one of seven people who actually read the whole thing, but did Marco Rubio and his committee staff and I think he said, preceded by another Republican senator who leaves and Rubio takes over the job. But did they have full access to you and all of your work product and everything that went into the 2016 assessment as it pertained to Russia?

Nicole Wallace (20:42)

Absolutely. Again, it's my understanding that CIA basically opened its files and made sure that the SSCI as well as John Durham was able to see and assess everything that was done during this period of time. As you Point out Marco Rubio, who, you know, he's a different person now, quite frankly. I think when he was in the Intelligence Committee, I think he really tried to carry out national security responsibilities in a very appropriate manner and tried to not just, you know, bring politics into it. So, again, I think that SSCI report, the Mueller investigation, the Durham investigation, and review all of this, I think, again, validates what happened in terms of Russian interference. The conclusions of that assessment that Russia tried to interfere to enhance Donald Trump's prospects in that election, to damage Hillary Clinton and to undermine the integrity of our election process. Those have really stood up and have been validated and supported by subsequent reviews, very thorough reviews. So, again, this is something that I think is made up out of, unfortunately, whole cloth, and they're just trying to see what they're able to get to, to stick to the media wall and how some of these outlets are now taking this and especially John Ratcliffe's comments that he had on X and the other things, they're so inconsistent with the CIA note, he's making these allegations that just have no evidentiary basis whatsoever. And again, I think it's beneath the dignity of a CIA director to do things like that.

John Brennan (22:12)

It just strikes me, as you're talking, that you could, if this, this heads down the authoritarian path, you could call on Rubio and Durham to testify to what they know to be true. In terms of folks who have investigated you in the past, there's some, I don't know if it's irony or tragedy in that fact.

Nicole Wallace (22:32)

Yeah, you would like to think the system is fair, that the system will ensure that the truth is pursued and found. But unfortunately, I think there are too many individuals that, you know, have joined this administration that, again, have set aside principles and ethics and doing what is right and is good, and they're doing things for political expediency and to just make sure they stay on the good side of Donald Trump. And so, again, it's a very different world we live in right now in terms of the domestic US Environment. And I'm just hoping that the men and women of the FBI and the Department of Justice really do carry out the responsibilities with the ethics, the principles, the decency and the legality that I think they have done for so many years.

John Brennan (23:17)

Director John Brennan, thank you on a normal day for joining us. Thank you especially for joining us today.

Nicole Wallace (23:24)

Thanks, Nicole.

John Brennan (23:26)

Well, much more when we come back on the broader questions this raises, that this line has been crossed, the clear politicization of the Justice Department and the Intelligence agencies and how it could actually be a preview how the White House plans to further weaponize national security moving forward. Plus, it was deadline day today for the Trump administration's 90 deals in 90 days. But instead of deals, which I think we have one and a half or two, we're left with a lot of letters. More letters today to countries where Donald Trump is dictating the terms of economic tariffs to some of our closest trading partners. How how companies, how markets, how small business owners and consumers will respond is anyone's guess. In the next hour, the Trump administration's retaliation extending beyond the president's perceived enemies, but now to friends and associates of those perceived enemies as well, when those friends of the targeted quote, unquote, Trump enemy will join us on why he can no longer continue working at the FBI under this current leadership. We'll have all those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Nicole Wallace (24:42)

If you could hear love, what would it sound like? Son, can we talk about your drinking? Yeah, Dad, I think we should. Helping those closest to you think about their excessive drinking. Maybe that's what love sounds like. More@rethinkthedrink.com An OHA initiative 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, all loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

John Brennan (25:44)

I'm not switching my team to some fancy work platform that somehow knows exactly how we work. And its AI features are literally saving us hours every day. We're big fans. And just like that, teams all around the world are falling for Monday.com with intuitive design, seamless AI capabilities and custom workflows, it's the work platform your team will instantly click with. Head to Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use.

Nicole Wallace (26:17)

A bombshell new development in the Durham probe.

John Brennan (26:19)

John Durham dropped his second bombshell in just the last two weeks. So the Durham investigation is picking up steam. Have you heard about this? A court filing reveals Hillary Clinton's campaign. Yup. Paid to Spy on Donald Trump.

Nicole Wallace (26:35)

Court documents alleged the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign tried to gain control to, quote, infiltrate the Trump Tower servers.

John Brennan (26:42)

He issued subpoenas to one of the most politically connected law firms in the country. If John Durham gets into this, he is going to track it down.

Nicole Wallace (26:50)

Special Counsel John Durham appears to have the evidence. Indications are beginning to mount tonight that Durham may have figured this all out. Mark my words, we will get to the bottom of this. John Dorham will uncover the truth. We will get the equal justice that you, we, the American people, deserve.

John Brennan (27:10)

I'm sorry, I'm sorry to laugh. I know these are deadly serious times. I might need to see that again. That was Fox News in all its glory. Its highest paid and most prominent, most watched, importantly anchors in 2021 and 2022. Hyping. I don't even know if that captures it. Promising that Durham, Durham will get to the bottom of all of it. It was, of course, before Durham failed to really turn up much of anything. Uncover any wrongdoing or secure any criminal convictions other than one who pleaded guilty. Joining our coverage is voting rights attorney and founder of democracy docket, Mark Elias, as well as national security reporter for the New York Times, Julian Barnes. Julian Level set us on the reporting here what the Ratcliffe report that they're calling a note alleges and how that is contradicted or how that stands up against other probes into the same men and the same actions and the same chapters led by close, Trump, I don't know, Durham's MAGA hero, the Durham probe and the Marco Rubio led Senate Intelligence Committee probe.

Nicole Wallace (28:35)

I think it's really important to emphasize something you said at the top of the hour, which was this note. This review by the CIA does not question the key judgments of the 2016 intelligence assessment that Vladimir Putin tried to interfere in the US Election on behalf of Donald Trump and against Hillary Clinton. And it looks at the tradecraft, how that was done and there are complaints in it. There are complaints that the analysts looking back feel that the project was too rushed. But I think Director Brennan offered some important context there. The President of the United States at the time, Barack Obama, ordered it done before he left office. And so what is the CIA to do? Are they supposed to embark on a long term investigation if the President wants it done in a matter of weeks? But the review, the note takes issue with that timeline. It also takes issue with the inclusion of the Steele dossier in that report. Now, it was only included in the annex. What the review says, which might be new, is that it suggests that Brennan wanted it included. Now, Director Brennan has been interviewed many times on this program by the Senate, by other journalists, and has made clear that he assented to the FBI's desire to include mention of the Steele dossier, this collection of unverified allegations about the president in an annex to the report, but not in the main report. Now, now there's a suggestion, but there's not a lot of evidence in the Tradecraft Review that Director Brennan said something different in writing. Now, that seems to be what US officials are telling us is part of the referral. Right. Is there a contradiction between what the Tradecraft Review, the note found about Director Brennan's feelings about the Steele dossier and what he told the Senate and House investigators? But it seems to be a minor point. This is not those. The Steele dossier did not impact the key judgments. The Tradecraft Review does not undermine the findings of the intelligence assessment or of the Senate report or any of the other investigations that you mentioned.

John Brennan (31:24)

So Julian, what do you understand to be under investigation? That discrepancy you just described to us.

Nicole Wallace (31:31)

Yeah, that discrepancy. You know, some people within Radcliffe CIA are upset with the timetable, the rushed nature of the ica, but there's no universe in which this is a criminal matter. So what the referral is, we're told at the New York Times, is about discrepancies between what the CIA Note found about Director Brennan's position on the Steele dossier and what he told Congress. Now these comments were made years and years ago. In 2018, the statute of limitations has run out, even if there is a discretion discrepancy. But this is what the referral is about and we will see if anything comes of it or if this is just a kind of media blip for a few days.

John Brennan (32:32)

I want your thoughts, Marc Elias, on where we are, but I just. And if we have to keep you guys a little longer, we'll do that. Let me just button this up by reading what the Atlantic reports on these facts, if these are indeed the facts being scrutinized. Ken Weinstein has been John Brennan's lawyer and he wrote a letter summarizing the eight hours of interviews that John Brennan just described on this program. And he said this prior to the publication of the assessment. The Intelligence Assessment. Director Brennan met with the participating CIA analysts on one occasion for approximately an hour and a half to discuss the ica, the Intelligence Community Assessment draft. Weinstein wrote using the initialism for Intelligence Community assessment. Quote. During that meeting, Director Brennan discussed the analysts findings and some of the specific intel they relied on, but made no changes to their analysis or findings, believing that the analysts were best positioned to make those judgments. My point is that every investigation has only furthered and unearthed the supreme integrity and the fragile nature with which everybody went about both the assessment about the Russian attack on the presidential election and the fodder that was raised in the dossier. I mean, there's also reporting that Director Brennan was the one that pushed back against including any reference to the dossier. I mean, all the investigations have, have proven that the men and women involved in the 2016 National Security Jobs that are under scrutiny acted with the utmost caution, care and integrity. Mark Elias.

Nicole Wallace (34:18)

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. And look, if you want to know why so many Democrats for so long have gotten so angry about all of this, it's because in 2016, the Russian Federation hacked into the Democratic National Committee server. It is because Hillary Clinton was vilified by Russia. It is because Donald Trump took to a stage and asked for Russia to do his bidding. And then what happened after that is Donald Trump became president and he appointed John Durham. He appointed Bill Barr, who chose John Durham to facilitate a legitimization. That was Donald Trump's fever dream, that somehow Russia did not intervene in the 2016 election to help him. And John Durham then got special counsel protection on the way out as the Trump administration came to an end. On the way out the door, he got special counsel protection. And he brought three cases, Nicole. One of them was the low level plea that you mentioned by a low level person. The other two were acquittals. John Durham brought two nonsense cases that juries threw out of court. Then he wrote a fantastical report to try to make something, anything out of a bunch of nothing. Because the fact is it was Hillary Clinton and the Democrats who had been the victims, not Donald Trump. And so Donald Trump is now back in office and the same people who are peddling the same nonsense who are once again trying to make Donald Trump the victim of something that was actually Donald Trump encouraging the Russians from the stage to release hacked emails are now once again leaking and suggesting and otherwise saying, maybe now it's not this person, it's now John Brennan. When the fact remains the Russian Federation wanted Donald Trump to win in 2016. Donald Trump gleefully, gleefully took advantage of that fact and ever since has been peddling this misinformation, these. And having his minions open this investigation and that investigation, one after another, that ultimately either conclude that what he is saying is not true or that end, as John Durham's did, in failure and efforts to prove cases that never existed.

John Brennan (36:44)

I have to sneak in a break, but I want to press both of you on what this means, that Ratcliffe has delivered this note to the Department of Justice, which seems to be coming, confirming that it is a criminal referral. I'll sneak in a quick break. I'll come back to both of you on that. Don't go anywhere. Marg Elias, where are we after crossing into this? Feels like new territory?

Nicole Wallace (37:14)

Yeah, look, we're in a place in which we are watching Donald Trump weaponize the Department of Justice against his political enemies. This is not the first, by the way. He has indicted a congresswoman from New Jersey. He actually arrested a, a, the mayor, the mayor of Newark, although then those charges got dropped. They threw to the ground a US Senator Alex Padilla in California for trying to ask a question. They, they manhandled the New York City comptroller, Brad Lander for, for trying to walk a migrant out of a courtroom. So we have watched this step after step. And by the way, I could keep going on and on. I mean, you have Donald Trump going to the Department of Justice and calling me a communist and, and, and other things. The executive orders targeting me and other lawyers. The, the executive orders targeting law firms that we were affiliated with. You know, this, the criminal, the executive directives to, for investigations of Chris Krebs. Right. You have covered this. So exemplary, Nicole. Like you have helped catalog this. But we are quickly going to a place in which Donald Trump is doing this and it is being normalized. And so I wrote something for democracy docket five, six months ago that you and I talked about at the time, which is we were, we predicted, you and I and others that we were going to get to this moment. And the question is, what do we do do? And the question of what we do is multifaceted. The first question is what do we do? Do we retreat and, and hide in the corner? So I'm on TV today not hiding in the corner. I'm not retreating. I'm saying I'm going to stand up and I'm fight. And Donald Trump won't intimidate me by, by going back to this 2016 stuff. And that's one thing. But the other thing we've talked about is what do large institutions do? You know, what do civil society groups do? What does the media do? And I am imploring, like, honestly, I'm just imploring, imploring the media do not report this as a legitimate investigation. Do not report this as they're opening a investigation into John Brennan. We will see where it goes. Report this as the misuse, the abuse, the authoritarian takeover of the Department of Justice. That should be the headline. The headline should be in a misuse and abuse of the power of the executive Branch. Donald Trump has asked his Department of Justice to open a bogus investigation into John Brennan. And if you don't do that, then the media is going to wind up in the same position the law firm is wound in, same position that CBS is wound up in, the same position that many, many individual civil servants have wound up in, that nobody is going to speak out when they are next targeted. So it is important that we all stand up for each other. We all stand up for John R. Brennan. We all stand up for the misuse of government power, whether it's going after a civil servant or it's going after a former director of the, of, of the CIA or whether it's going after a media organization or it's going after a law firm. But my fear is that we are not doing that. Everyone is, is sort of playing tightly in their lane because they don't want to be next in line.

John Brennan (40:15)

Well, it's such a good point. And, and I won't always have the freakish memory of everything John Durham and Marco Rubio wrote when Durham investigated Brennan last time. And Marco Rubio boasted and wrote the most brutal takedown of Trump and Russia. I mean, people should go back and read it today because it's obviously going to be fodder again. But you don't even need to hold up media accounts or Democrats. You just hold up John Durham and Marco Rubio's work of investigating this chapter. And that is all you need to confidently call it bogus, as you just did. Marco Elias, thank you so much. Julian Barnes, thank you so much for helping us make sense of exactly what's happening. Thank you both for starting us off on a day like today. We're really grateful. Up next, for us, perhaps one of the things Trump is trying to distract from. Donald Trump continued to roll out more threats of tariffs today, but rolling them out his way, dictating the terms of a potential global trade war with potentially catastrophic consequences for the economy. That's next.

Nicole Wallace (41:29)

August 1st, you said, is the deadline. What incentives do countries have to negotiate? It seems that deadline keeps moving. April 2nd. Now, we, we didn't move. No, no, it's always been August 1st. That's why we're paying it. A statement was put out today, and I put it out just to make it clear it wasn't a change. It was August 1st. We don't change very much. You know, every time we put out a statement, they say he made a change. I didn't make a change. Clarification, Maybe we have made some deals. We can make a lot more deals. It's just too time consuming. It just makes it more complicated.

John Brennan (42:06)

I guess we're down to what the definition of change is. As Donald Trump yesterday and what we're calling taco Tuesday on the promised 90 deals in 90 days after his administration announced yet another pause on his so called reciprocal tariffs which were scheduled to take effect today. The delay comes after the administration managed to ink just 212 deals during the 90 day period. And Trump this week issued a series of letters intended to pressure our trading partners into making new deals before his new deadline, which is August 1st, which is a change. Today on Truth Social, he released letters to Sri Lanka, Iraq, Moldova, Algeria, the Philippines, Brazil, places where the US Actually has a trade surplus. Joining our coverage, anchoring correspondent for Bloomberg News, David Gurris here. Also joining us, my friend, MSNBC senior political analyst Alex Wagner. Alex, what are we to make of just the garbled, not just rollout, but clear lack of strategy here on this whole manufactured trade war? Yeah, lack of strategy I think is being generous because the ultimate goal is also totally foolish and insane. I mean, there were letters sent to Vietnam and Myanmar, which is where my mom is from, Vietnam, where I think the annual average income is $4,000 a year. A country that Trump thinks should be importing more U.S. sUVs, just, you know, how much an SUV costs. These are a group of people making $4,000 on average per year. Myanmar or Burma, where the average, I think annual per capita GDP is $1,200 a year. A country that's in the middle of a brutal four year civil war that has displaced millions of people. Suddenly their priority is to rebalance a trade deficit unless they want to be hit with a 40% tariff. I mean, none of this makes any sense. It's completely ignorant of the geopolitical realities of any of these countries. The strategy is nonexistent. The man's being called a taco or that's his new moniker. And that's, you know, it's gentle given the clown shows that's playing out here, Nicole. I mean, Trump's trying to bend the time space continuum and tell us that July 9th is the same as August 1st. The reality is this administration is finally waking up to the fact that These trade deals usually take years to negotiate. It's a joke that they were going to get hundreds of them done or 90 of them done in 90 days. And now they have to live with the reality of that. In addition to that, you know, the markets. I'll let David weigh on this because he's way more than I do, but people are starting to not take them seriously. It's all a bluff.

Nicole Wallace (44:49)

What a joke.

John Brennan (44:50)

And in the meantime, the net effect is potentially rising costs on US Consumers because these aren't tariffs levied on the countries. It's on the US Companies that do business with these countries. It is for the guy who is supposed to fix the American economy. The own goal nature of this, the shoot myself and my own foot nature of all of this is staggering. Well, it's also. I mean, David, it's an incredible political betrayal. I mean, the promise that we're told swayed the swing vote was the price of eggs, the price of things. And even an incompetently executed trade war does not bring the price of anything down. No.

Nicole Wallace (45:28)

And we've seen him talk about that less and less. President Trump talked about that less and less. And there is report from the Council of Economic Advisers yesterday that was incredibly thin, kind of pushing back on the notion that prices are going up or will go up. But to pick up on what Alex was saying here, the president clearly has gotten fatigued with this process. And you look at these letters, which are effectively copy and paste jobs on nice stationery sent to all of these countries, and you look at who they've targeted here. I think one of the letters that went out today to the Philippines is to an economy that's one of our top 50 trading partners. So these are small relationships, not sizable relationships. And glaringly, the European Union is not a recipient of one of these. And I should say the euro EU doesn't want to receive one of these letters. They're still operating under the assumption that they're going to be able to broker or find some sort of trade framework with the White House here to avoid what would be very painful tariffs if they do come into effect. Another facet of this is just how hard some of these countries have worked to make inroads here to try to find a way to deal with this administration. I was at the G7 summit in Canada. I won't complain about how long it took for me to get there, to this remote corner of Alberta. Alberta. You saw the Prime Minister of Australia travel an incredible length, incredible duration, to get there with the hope and a Prayer that you could sit down with President Trump to broker some kind of deal. And of course, the President left that summit early, so there isn't even a match in terms of energy exerted to try to find some sort of agreement here. And again, it just shows this amount of fatigue, frustration with how long this takes. Picking up on Alex was saying just a moment ago, these are processes that customarily take. Take, not months, not days, take years.

John Brennan (47:02)

And years of time. Alex, what's interesting to me is that Trump's political magnetism, if you will, with his base is about being rich. I don't even know that it's still about being a good business person or being good for the economy. But what you just described about the market reaction is about Trump not being serious, basically about him being a joke. I mean, taco isn't really derisive when it is uttered in terms of. By market watchers. It's their bet that he'll chicken out and not do the catastrophic thing. So it's an incredible, almost mirror of his political brand. Yeah, I think, you know, he was asked about the taco thing and said, don't you ask. I'm paraphrasing, but he used the word nasty, which, as we all know, Nicole is like the worst thing you can be, a nasty woman or asking a nasty question. And I think it gets to Trump's kryptonite, which is his ego, his sense of manhood, his sense of ability to close the deal. And the way he thinks of himself is directly being challenged by people he cares about, which is to say, Wall Street. And in that way, I think you're gonna get. You get the worst version of Trump. Right. The bruised, defensive. I don't wanna say the fighter in the corner just swinging. And look, we haven't seen. We've seen the beginning of the fallout, but you have, in the last course of the last three weeks, a number of moves from this president that will do a lot to splinter the coalition he has brought together. Right. You are going to have a lot of people that are going to be feeling the effects of his immigration policies and the raids on agricultural workers and hotel workers. Now you have the tariffs and what that's going to do to us. Consumer good pricing. I mean, he's doing his best to make his own political life very difficult and in the process, smearing his own reputation. Yeah. And the bill, I mean, there will be rural health care providers that close up shop well before the real impacts of that bill are being felt. I'm sorry, this conversation was abbreviated. That's my fault for running late. Alex Wagner and David Gura, thank you so much for spending time with us today. Thank you. Up next for us, the now former FBI agent who was targeted for his friendship with the Trump critic. He'll join us next. Don't go anywhere.

Nicole Wallace (49:20)

Building a business may feel like a big jump, but on deck small business loans can help keep you afloat. With lines of with 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. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

John Brennan (49:51)

I'm now switching my team to some fancy work platform that somehow knows exactly how we work. And its AI features are literally saving us hours every day. We're big fans. And just like that, teams all around the world are falling for Monday.com with intuitive design, seamless AI capabilities, and custom workflows, it's the work platform your team will instantly click with. Head to Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use.

Nicole Wallace (50:21)

Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for a three month plan.

John Brennan (50:44)

Equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only.

Nicole Wallace (50:47)

Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy.

John Brennan (50:49)

Taxes and fees extra.

Nicole Wallace (50:50)

See mintmobile.com Look, I think you've got wants to create a modern blacklist and have that blacklist ruin people's lives. You know the other piece that I would share which people don't talk about and it's kind of humiliating to talk about, but I think it's important to talk about is social isolation. And you hear about this when you read about autocracies and it's kind of.

John Brennan (51:16)

A textbook thing, okay. Dissidents and autocracies, they end up socially.

Nicole Wallace (51:20)

Isolated and that's the goal. And, but it's very foreign and remote. Remote until it happens to you. And I've had very close friends, very, very close friends call and tell me.

John Brennan (51:31)

I'm going to need to keep my.

Nicole Wallace (51:32)

Distance until this is all over.

John Brennan (51:37)

Hi again everybody. It's five o' clock in the East. It's not just the perceived enemies of the Trump administration who are facing retribution. It's also friends of those so called enemies as well. We first learned how to Friends of Trump critics were targeted in the purges underway at the FBI last month when the New York Times reported that a top deputy at Norfolk's field office, Michael Feinberg, was threatened with investigation and demotion because of his friendship with former FBI counterintelligence agent Pete Strzok. Feinberg resigned with the understanding that the retaliation he faced meant his career as he knew it, as he'd worked to create it at the FBI was over. Now Feinberg is speaking out publicly about the extraordinary nature of his ouster and is warning that the purge of career employees at the FBI is even worse than what has been publicly reported. He writes in a chilling new piece detailing the circumstances of his resignation, how he knew Once Dan Bongino learned of his friendship with Pete Strzok, everything changed. Quote, prior to that day, I had never faced any sort of disciplinary review or investigation. And to be clear, I was not accused of violating any rules or regulations this time either, nor had any of my cases fallen short of institutional standards. My only supposed sin was a long standing friendship with an individual who appeared on Kash Patel's enemies list and against whom Dan Bongino had railed publicly. Yet rules turned out not to matter much. And so that weekend Bongino informed my special agent in charge, who in turn informed me that he was halting and actually reversing my professional advancement. Feinberg adds on the nature of his friendship with Pete Strzok this quote if the fact that I sang along to Every Day is like Sunday while he stood next to me at a Morrissey concert actually represents an imminent danger to the Bureau's integrity, then for the first time in nearly half century on this earth, I'm truly at a loss for words. And if there are any questions as to whether or not the people who are being ousted at the FBI are the selfless public servants who should fill the nation's top law enforcement agency, here's this from Feinberg's resignation letter. Quote, I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and so. And this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him. It is now apparent that I can no longer both fulfill that vow and continue working for our current leadership. That is where we start the hour. The former assistant Special Agent in Charge at the FBI, Michael Kleinberg. Thank you so much for being here.

Nicole Wallace (54:39)

Thank you for inviting me on the show.

John Brennan (54:42)

Your piece stopped me in my tracks. I read the whole thing, which took a bit, but it was the first window into what's really happening at the FBI. And I wonder if you can just share with our viewers what happened to you at Cash Patel's FBI.

Nicole Wallace (54:59)

Yeah. Thank you for the kind words about the piece. It was actually rather difficult to write because the entire situation, as hopefully the tenor of the excerpt you just read signifies, was pretty heartbreaking. I've been an apolitical civil servant my entire career. I've had some notable public successes countering the intelligence services of the Chinese government. I've had even more private successes which remain classified. And there's never been a complaint or criticism about the quality of. Of my work or my professional comportment. So it was a little surprising to me that Saturday in May when I found out that Bongino, the Deputy Director of the FBI, had discovered I was friends with a former executive who is a noted and admittedly controversial figure. But our friendship is entirely social in nature, and. And that relationship was enough to put a target on my back that Bongino made very clear was going to end my career.

John Brennan (56:09)

How do you think or do you know how he came to know that you're friends with Pete Strzok?

Nicole Wallace (56:16)

I haven't the slightest idea. My friendship with Pete was not a secret. At the same time, I never bragged about it. I know he is a very controversial figure, but there's a few of us, probably more than a few, who remain in touch with him. Before he became a public figure, he was a very respected senior counterintelligence official, and there were a lot of us who got to know him and became friends.

John Brennan (56:45)

What is it like working for Kash Patel and Dan Bongino?

Nicole Wallace (56:53)

So I want to be very clear. I never, including the three months at the beginning of this administration where I was the acting Special Agent in charge, I never individually interacted with either Bongino or Patel. I'm at the point in my career where I have a lot of friends who have risen high up enough that they do on a daily or regular basis. But the only thing I can personally testify to is the atmosphere among the ranks under their leadership. And the only word to really describe that atmosphere is toxic. There is a culture of fear that anybody's career, whether you are a senior executive or a probationary employee, can end at any moment for a spurious political reason. And what we're seeing is that those sort of ideological purges that are going on are really causing an outflow of subject matter experts on a wide variety of national security and criminal threats. And as a result, these efforts of Bongino and Patel's are making Americans less safe.

John Brennan (58:10)

You write about the movement of FBI agents and personnel to immigration. Talk about that.

Nicole Wallace (58:19)

That let me be clear. The FBI, as I repeatedly reminded the people I supervised in Norfolk, is an organization under the executive branch and the chief executive, the President does have the right to choose whatever investigative priorities he or she wants as long as there is a law in the books that was dutifully enacted and signed into the US Code by the president. Like, we don't get to say no if that's what they want enforced. My issues with the way that the FBI is approaching immigration enforcement is simply that nobody's actually had a hard conversation about what the opportunity costs of shifting personnel and resources to that violation mean means for other areas of investigation. The FBI hasn't had a budget or personnel increase in quite some time. Cash Patel actually recently acquiesced to yet another budget cut for us. So if agents are being pulled to work immigration, that means they're not working counterterrorism, they're not working counterintelligence, they're not working white collar crime, they're. They're not working public corruption. These threats aren't going away. They're just not getting attention.

John Brennan (59:46)

Well, I mean, opportunity costs, trade off, right? Same thing. I mean, what trade offs have we made as a country? And I understand that it's not illegal for Donald Trump to turn the FBI in a different direction, but it's certainly the public's right to know where we're exposed. So where in your expert view, I mean, it sounds. Sounds like you just ticked off areas where you believe we are exposed.

Nicole Wallace (60:08)

Yeah, look, I don't think the Department of Justice has made a secret that it's not really interested in prosecuting white collar crime anymore. The head of the criminal division, the Assistant Attorney General at DOJ specifically said that white collar enforcement is not good for American businesses. So we're going to pull back from it. The Public Integrity section at the Department of Justice, popularly known as pin, its ranks have been absolutely decimated. Ditto for the Civil Rights division. And those just are the things that most Americans can track because they're in the public eye. I can tell you the number of personnel who previously worked counterintelligence and counterterrorism. A lot of of them have been pulled temporarily or permanently to essentially serve as perimeter security for ICE roundups. You know, we saw after the conflict in Iran really heated up and began to involve America, there was a mad rush to move a lot of people, like a lot of those people, back to work in national security threats. The simple fact is they never should have been moved in the first place because. Because you can't spin up a counterintelligence or counterterrorism investigation overnight. These are very much long term things.

John Brennan (61:31)

When you describe the climate as toxic and in your words, secondhand anecdotes or what you're talking about is you never personally interacted with them, what does that mean? What does that look like for folks.

Nicole Wallace (61:46)

Who do you mean for the folks who do interact with them on a one on one basis? So what I would essentially say is that the Persona both Bongino and Patel portrayed of themselves in various media outlets, whether within a certain political ecosystem or on their own specials and their own podcasts, the sort of credulity to believe conspiracy theories, the ravings against, against a supposed deep state, the frothing at the mouth tirades against individuals with whom they disagree, that's not an act. That's who these people actually are. I'm aware of very senior executives who go out of their way to avoid one on one meetings with either individual because they want there to be an audience and a record of what's happening. That's no way to run a government agency with very serious responsibilities. You need to have the freedom and the fearlessness to speak frankly about what you're finding and what you're doing without worrying that somebody is going to subject you to a 20 minute beratement session.

John Brennan (63:01)

One of the stories that seems to have blown up in their face to your, to your point about their Personas on social media. Is there enthusiasm about conspiracy theories around the Epstein investigation? Do you have any insight into what that investigation actually entailed? If Elon Musk's tweet about Donald Trump being in the files is true and any thoughts about the backlash Bondi Patel and Bongino face now.

Nicole Wallace (63:32)

So I will not pretend to have any clue whatsoever about anything that goes on in Elon Musk's mind. I'll say this. Jeffrey Epstein was an inhuman monster and I think we can all be glad that none of us are breathing the same air as him anymore. With respect to what's currently going on, I am not somebody who likes to traffic in conspiracy theories, whether they come from the right or the left. I'll simply note that you if and given what we now know and what the Attorney General and the highest ranks of the FBI have said, perhaps it was a bad idea to pull agents in the New York field office off of their normal duties to work 24 hour shifts scouring their files, looking for additional information on Jeffrey Epstein.

John Brennan (64:25)

I mean, it's not the same, but a similar effort to find something around a lot of heat in the MAGA movement seems to be a dynamic at play in what DOJ seems to have confirmed today, which is that the Ratcliffe note about tradecraft in the CIA has now been turned over to the FBI and the Department of Justice as a criminal referral. What do you think the men and women that you know in the FBI, the rank and file, will do with that?

Nicole Wallace (64:57)

I want to be very clear in my criticisms of the FBI. When I talk about the organization in a negative fashion, my comments are directed entirely at the senior most ranks of leadership. The workforce is a group in which I have unbounded faith. The agents, analysts and professional staff are people who are who took an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution against all enemies. And I know for a fact that all of them to their very soul, take that oath incredibly seriously and that the overwhelming majority of them, I hope all of them, would not engage in a spurious and politically motivated investigation. I really think it would behoove the senior leadership of the FBI and the Department of Justice to reassure the American people that the steps, the policies and guardrails which are in place that one has to follow before opening a politically sensitive investigation were in fact followed in this case. And I think they need to answer whether any purely political officials played a part in the decision to pursue these avenues of investigation.

John Brennan (66:21)

What is your degree of alarm about both the politicization of the FBI and all the blind spots created by taking people off of critical things like counterterror?

Nicole Wallace (66:36)

I think there's a couple problems with the trends. The first is, you will notice in my background there's a lot of books they're not for show. I didn't just buy them for this background. I studied history growing up. I had actually planned to get a PhD before I went to law school. And there are a lot of examples from history where the security forces or the national police forces, sources of a country became overtly ideological or overtly politicized. And I'm not going to delve too much into the analogies, except to note that these are not countries or regimes that we want to emulate. I'd also add.

John Brennan (67:23)

So what do we do? I'm sorry, go ahead.

Nicole Wallace (67:26)

No, no. I would just also add that you mentioned counterterrorism operations at the end. I still lay awake at night worried that a bomb is going to go off or a secret is going to get stolen because we took our eyes off the ball. And if there ever is a mass casualty event involving either a domestic or international terrorist organization, you know, Patel and Bongino are really going to have to answer to the American people and more importantly to the victims families about why they felt so comfortable eviscerating those programs for the sake of providing extra bodies for immigration arrests.

John Brennan (68:08)

Your point? I mean, that's a dramatic place to land this conversation. Your point is that those two, as the leaders of the Bureau, have made decisions that in your description, are certainly legal, but when you put people onto a mission like immigration, like ICE raids, you're taking them off things like counterterror. And that has happened at their direction. That is happening right now.

Nicole Wallace (68:33)

Yeah. So look, I don't know if they're being ordered to by people above them or doing it, or they're doing it of their own volition. But public service is a privilege and a responsibility. And one of the responsibilities is that no matter what level you are hired at, are appointed to, the buck stops with you. So I would really hope that Patel and Bongino are listening to the subject matter experts at the FBI who can tell them whether this is an efficient use of resources or if there are more pressing and salient threats that we need to focus on instead. I just don't have much faith from everything I've heard that those conversations are happening.

John Brennan (69:16)

I interviewed Pete when his book came out, and one of the things he talked about in terms of being targeted by Trump and his allies was training that he had for operating, I think in hostile, maybe war zones or just hostile places. And he talked about needing to get his family off the X. That'll probably mean more to you than me because you write about starting your family. I wonder if you have those same concerns. And if you feel like speaking out and trying to raise the alarms and trying to build some consensus about what's happening at the bureau, which you clearly love, is, is something that scares you.

Nicole Wallace (70:01)

Of course it does. The fact of my resignation and that I was friends with Pete was made known to an extremist Twitter account before I had made it public to anybody, including close friends. That information could have only come from one organization. I will let you extrapolate what you will from that set of circumstances. And in the interim, since my piece has come out, there have been people on Twitter, x Twitter, whatever it's called now, who have called for my execution and said incredibly unkind things about me. That's not something I welcome, obviously. But as I mentioned in my resignation letter, I'm about to have my first child, a son. And my grandfather, his great grandfather, put himself at risk, along with his siblings to serve his country. And I want to make sure that the country my son grows up in is one that has the freedoms and liberties and transparency that we've all been able to take advantage of and achieve great things through. And if I, if I know what's going on and I'm unwilling to speak up about it, I'm failing it. Wow.

John Brennan (71:28)

I mean, there are so many people who make a different choice. And so I thank you for making the choice you have made to speak up. And I thank you for taking time to talk to us. I hope this conversation is one we can continue. Thank you so much for starting us off this hour.

Nicole Wallace (71:45)

Thank you. Have a good night.

John Brennan (71:47)

Thank you. When we come back, there is stunning brand new reporting that has just broken in the New York Times about how the Trump administration reacted and what it did to former director of the FBI Jim Comey after a social media post he made critical of Donald Trump. We're bringing that reporting next. Plus, Donald Trump caught on tape bragging about something that's not very maga, really, at least not when it comes to his promise of keeping America out of foreign wars and bombing campaigns. What he says he told Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, it's not the first time. But the former Weekend Fox host who Trump installed as America's secretary of defense, has done it again. He's gone rogue with a military decision that put US Allies at grave risk. We'll bring you that reporting as well. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. The New York Times is out with some brand new reporting on exactly what happened after former FBI Director Jim Comey posted an image on Social Media that Trump allies claimed was akin to a call to assassinate Donald Trump. Three officials tell the New York Times that the day after Comey posted, then deleted that image, the Secret Service had Comey, quote, followed by law enforcement authorities in unmarked cars and street clothes and track the location of his cell phone. Mr. Comey and his wife Patrice were tailed by the authorities as they drove from the North Carolina coast, where they had been vacationing through Virginia, to their home in the Washington area. At the same time, the Secret Service was receiving information showing the location of Mr. Comey's phone while federal authorities were stationed at his home, waiting for him to return. The Secret Service declined to comment to the New York Times. Former Secret Service officials tell the Times that it is the kind of surveillance typically used for someone who would be considered an active threat to someone in their protection. Joining our conversation is investigative reporter for the New York Times, Mike Schmidt, who is byline on this reporting. Mike, take us through what you're reporting and what your sources say is so extraordinary about it.

Nicole Wallace (74:00)

Well, basically, after this Post went up, Don Jr. Tweeted that this was essentially Comey laying out an assassination attempt on his father. And it got the whole far right, very agitated. And there was a lot of calls on social media for Comey to be investigated. The Secret Service began looking into it that night Comey, or that day Comey took down the Post, said that he renounced violence and that he didn't appreciate that it had a violent connotation to it. He was interviewed that night by the Secret Service. He told the Secret Service in that interview that he had no intentions of harming the President. The president was actually out of the United States traveling in the Middle east at the time. Nevertheless, the following day, as Comey and his wife Patrice began driving back from North Carolina through Virginia to their home in the Washington area, they were followed. They were followed both by undercover authorities. And Mr. Comey's phone was followed itself. It was giving location information to the authorities about where he was. And when we talked to former Secret Service officials, what they said was, is that this is very similar to how they would treat an active threat against the President of the United States. And that Comey's post in and of itself was not an active threat to the president from Comey.

John Brennan (75:34)

What does it mean that they were tracking his phone? And how would someone else who was a known or frequent political target of Donald Trump, how would I mean? Is that common? Is that a normal thing?

Nicole Wallace (75:50)

I think that that type of investigative maneuver is usually used for someone who they believe is on the run, Someone who they believe is a violent threat, someone who is trying to flee the country, someone who is trying to evade arrest. The Secret Service had spoken to Comey the previous night. They knew what the Post was. They knew that he had no intention of harming the president. They knew that Comey was someone who has no violent history, he's never been arrested before. So they knew all of that. But nevertheless, they took this extraordinary decision to use invasive tactics against him, treating him like he was a true threat. You know, in the course of reporting on this, I found out something sort of interesting that sort of relates back to the larger retribution campaign that is going on. As a reporter, there is nothing easier than finding experts to quote in your stories. It's one of the easier parts of the job. In reporting on this story, I found it very difficult to find experts to quote. I found the perfect academic who was an expert in the. The legal issues at hand, who told me that he didn't want to have to deal with the blowback of being quoted on this. I found a lawyer at a very prominent firm who was the perfect person to talk about investigative tactics used by prosecutors. The firm said no to that. In my 20 years as working as a reporter, I've never encountered such difficulty in trying to find an expert to quote in a story. I found that in Barbara McQuaid, who. Who had no qualms whatsoever with laying out what she thought about this. To me, it's remarkable, because where does the professor come from and where does the lawyer come from? One comes from academia, one comes from a law firm. The two places that, aside from individuals who have been targeted as enemies of Trump as Brennan or Comey, have been academia, college institutions, and law firms have been felt the brunt of it. And in this case, I couldn't find someone. Now, at the end of the day, you can find people to talk, but it was much more difficult for this story than any story I have ever reported before.

John Brennan (78:17)

What does this story represent, if it's accurate to call it an escalation in deploying law enforcement on Trump's political enemies.

Nicole Wallace (78:27)

So it's a proactive use of the government's police powers against an individual. And to me, that type of behavior, that type of use of power has always been distinct. We spent a lot of time in Trump's first term trying to understand obstruction of justice, you know, trying to make it difficult for people to investigate you. That is a different bucket than this type of behavior. The allegations in this type of behavior, which is where the government is using its police powers against an individual. The government has enormous amounts of power. And one of the reasons that you don't want elected officials talking about law enforcement matters is because it taints the perception that law enforcement is making decisions based on the law and the fact. And in this case, because Donald Trump has been so vocal about James Comey, because so many of Trump's cabinet officials and allies spoke out about this, it's difficult on the face of it to simply accept when law enforcement takes a decision to say, oh, that was based on the law and the fact and the appropriate use that they time. Because there has been so much said by Trump about how he wanted someone like James Comey in particular to be targeted.

John Brennan (79:45)

Yeah, Mike, thank you for the reporting and for joining us to talk about it. We're grateful. When we come back, the not so on brand comments. Donald Trump is now bragging he told Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping about bombing their city. We'll explain on the other side of a break. Today in what world leader talks like this? News NBC has obtained shocking audio of Donald Trump bragging to his wealthiest donors, saying that he apparently told Russian President Vladimir Putin he'd bomb Moscow if Putin invaded Ukraine and Chinese President Xi Jinping that he would bomb Beijing if he were to invade Taiwan. The audio is from a campaign event in May of last year. It was obtained by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac Arnstor for their book 2024. Take a listen.

Nicole Wallace (80:41)

I said, if you go in to Ukraine, we're going to bomb this out of Moscow. I'm telling you I have no choice. The public wants the public, the public. So he does not.

John Brennan (80:53)

I don't believe you.

Nicole Wallace (80:55)

I said. He said, no way. And I said way. And then he got us like, I don't believe you. But the truth is he believed me 10%. And I told you this. He believed me 10%. Then I'm with President Xi of China. But I said the same thing to them. I said, you know, if you go into Taiwan, I'm going to bomb the out of Beijing. He thought I was crazy. He said, you hit it upon me. That's said, I have no choice. I got a problem. We're going to bomb me. And he didn't believe me either. Except 10%. And 10% is all you need. In fact, 5% would have been okay. And we never had a problem. We would have never had a problem.

John Brennan (81:34)

Joining our conversation, MSNBC columnist, author of the newsletter to the contrary, Charlie Sykes is here and the host of the Independent Americans podcast founder and CEO, Independent Veterans of America. Paul Rykoff is here. Who wants to go first? Paul Rykoff, your reaction?

Nicole Wallace (81:53)

This is who he is. You know, there's a lot of things said about Donald Trump, but I think the most important thing to remember is he's the most undisciplined commander in chief we've ever had. He can't control himself, he doesn't show restraint. And it's especially glaring and dangerous on issues of national, national security. He's President Mayhem, and this is how he talks about all things. But when you're talking about attacks on foreign countries after you just did strikes on Iran, it becomes extremely serious and dangerous. This is the most dangerous part of having Donald Trump as commander in chief, and it's perfectly on brand and consistent. And it's paralleled with Secretary Chaos in Hegseth, who is also extremely undisciplined and can continues to be sloppy and mismanaged situations. So this is the highest stakes possible, and we can't just dismiss it or laugh it off because our enemies are paying attention, our allies are concerned, and the entire world is watching.

John Brennan (82:48)

Yeah. And I mean, Charlie, it strikes me that it's terrible news for the country either way. Either he's joking and he would never bomb Moscow and Beijing, and it becomes like his trade war where the market, markets barely blip anymore because they know he's, they think he's a joke when he talks about these things, or he's serious and he's going to put the men and women of the military in harm's way to do what he said he was going to do. Bomb Beijing or Moscow.

Nicole Wallace (83:15)

Yeah. You know, your last segment reminds us how actually dangerous he is. The willingness to use the power to spread fear, intimidation and retribution. This story shows a another aspect of Donald Trump. I guess I'm going to take a slightly different approach to this. This was a tape of conversation with donors during the campaign. And number one, I'm a little skeptical that these conversations actually ever took place, that he actually ever had that conversation with either Vladimir Putin or President Xi. But if he did have those conversations with him, my guess is that their reaction was, what a bullshit artist this guy is. Donald Trump is telling the story because he wants the madman 30 wants to show. He wants to show his donors that they're afraid of me. They actually worry that there's a 5, 10% chance that I will do this. I'm thinking that probably that was not the takeaway. So rather than if in fact these conversations took Place, which I doubt their reaction was probably to roll their eyes and, you know, look at one another and go, you know, can you take this guy seriously? So rather than a deterrent, I think that it made him seem a little silly, a little bit like, you know, the sky's a blowhard. And by the way, when you watch Vladimir Putin, the way that he treats Donald Trump, his willingness to humiliate Donald Trump, you know that his willingness to have these phone calls with him and whatever he does, hangs up and then says, let's, you know, bomb the hell out of Ukraine. Let's find a way to show how little respect I have for what Donald Trump is asking me to do.

John Brennan (84:59)

Yeah, I mean, Paul Reichoff, just pick up on that. Because it strikes me that putini mean, if you look at this from the other side, Putin is treating Trump very differently. He seemed to go, go through the charade of puffing Trump up and being his soulmate while Trump was under investigation by Mueller, by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and then all the conduct scrutinized again by John Durham, something we've been talking about all day. And Putin found it beneficial to align himself with not just Trump, but Trump's closest media allies, who at the time were folks like Tucker Carlson. Putin has no need for that now. He's just bombing the, you know, what out of Ukraine every time he, you know, he doesn't, you know, waits till he hangs up and then does the opposite of what Trump asks him to do. Why do you think Russia and Putin's political strategy and sort of approach with Trump is so different this time?

Nicole Wallace (85:58)

I don't know if it's, it's so different. I think it's been consistent their ministry manipulating him. I mean, the former KGB agent and war criminal is manipulating our commander in chief and the entire world can see it. And if maybe there's a silver lining here, it seems that either Trump has gotten frustrated by it or he's seeing the political wins and he's actually changing his tone in relation to Russia. He's been a bit more aggressive in confronting Putin. And maybe more importantly, Russian sanctions are now coming from Republican led leaders like, like Lindsey Graham. And there's a bipartisan support for a new sanctions bill. You're hearing from Republicans like Don Bacon and Mike Lawlor. So the Republican Party is starting to be more vocal and more adamant in pushing Putin. And ultimately, I think that's good for Ukraine and good for America and good for our national security. And whether Trump is being manipulated to get to that place or he's just finally getting there. The net net is now. He's talking about giving Ukraine patriots, which is long overdue. Patriot missile is long overdue. He's talking about increasing sanctions, which is long overdue. And in the end, Zelensky needs this support and he'll take it however he can get it.

John Brennan (87:02)

Yeah, I mean, I guess I feel the same way, but I'm not going to hold my breath. He seems to always blink when it comes to doing the thing in the American national security when it comes to Russia. When we come back, Paul, you alluded to this story, but it's another example of chaos and incompetence inside the Trump cabinet as a rogue decision by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has once again seemed to land him in some hot water. We'll explain next. Pete Hegseth is once again under scrutiny after new reporting details how Donald Trump and White House staff were not informed of a pause on weapons shipments to Ukraine. Last week, the Associated Press described Trump as being caught, quote, flat footed by the announcement reporting that Trump's decision to send more defense weapons to Ukraine came after he privately expressed frustration with Pentagon officials for announcing a pause in some deliveries last week, a move that he felt wasn't properly coordinated with the White House, according to three people familiar with the matter. The White House did not respond to questions about whether Trump was surprised by the Pentagon pause. Additionally, CNN is reporting that the US Special envoy to Ukraine, retired General Keith Kellogg, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who's also Donald Trump's national security adviser, were also not told about the pause beforehand and learned about it from press reports, according to a senior administration official and two of their sources. We're back with Charlie and Paul. Charlie, Ann Applebaum said something interesting yesterday that all the policy is pro Russia, that all the policy reflexes and all the policy outputs are pro Russia. Do you think it's that muscle memory or do you think it's really a rogue? Pete Hegseth, what do you think explains this?

Nicole Wallace (88:52)

Well, probably both. I just finished doing a podcast with Ann Applebaum and she goes through all of the ways in which we are essentially changing sides in this war. So this is, you know, runs deep in maga. And of course, anybody who in this administration who's trying to figure out what is the, you know, directional error, you know, arrow would see the fact that abandoning Ukraine is very much a priority. Look, there's a lot of reporting behind this story, but I would also, I guess maybe I'll be the in house skeptic once again. Because my, something like this is, of course, deeply embarrassing to the administration or ought to be deeply embarrassing to the administration. And I know that Pete Heggs is capable of doing something reckless and rogue. But I guess I would also just put an asterisk of like, why is the Trump White House so anxious to distance Donald Trump from this? Do we think that Pam Bondi decided not to release the Epstein files on her own without running that by Donald Trump? Do we really think that Pete Hegseth makes a major decision like this without Trump at least knowing something about it? Now, again, the reporting is pretty solid on this, but in this administration, you'll notice that Donald Trump has no problem using members of his cabinet as a heat shield and then throwing them under the bus when he wants to change direction.

John Brennan (90:10)

Yeah, I mean, Paul, I would add it's pretty, the reporting is solid, but it's also specific. It's not clear that Donald Trump didn't know. It's the White House. It's the, it's Marco Rubio reacting badly here.

Nicole Wallace (90:25)

Yeah. Sloppy, incompetent, and undisciplined. That is what has defined the Pentagon under Pete Hegseth's leadership. I mean, we've got President Mayhem and Secretary Chaos, and they're cut from the same cloth here. And when they're not coordinated, America's national security is at risk here. And I think there's something else happening, too. I mean, Hegseth continues to fumble. He continues to, continues to be out of touch. And he's, of course, trying to chase Donald Trump and his changes on policy, which happened by the minute. But I think he's losing Trump's trust as well. Trump is clearly frustrated with him. And at the end of the day, Trump's a grumpy old man and he's losing his patience with Hegseth and with a lot of the people around him. So he could wake up tonight and just decide on X he's going to change secretaries of defense. And I think what's really important to understand is the disruption that Kevin chaos and the lack of stability at the Pentagon hasn't stopped. This has been there since he got there, and it's getting worse as the stakes continue to rise.

John Brennan (91:20)

Yeah, it's so interesting. I mean, we, we got to look behind the curtain at the FBI and the picture, I mean, the consistent chaos really is the story of the second Trump presidency. Charlie Sykes and Paul Reichoff, thank you so much for spending some time with us today. Ahead, Ahead for us, another peek at my interview with Sarah Jessica Parker for this week's episode of the Best People podcast. We'll show you that next.

Nicole Wallace (91:49)

You mean it's going to get worse? You mean, what does that look like?

John Brennan (91:52)

It will never be better than this. We. We're going to get to a place where we're in some kind of dystopia where. Where we don't have libraries, where our children don't have access to information and books, and a public school system that can take care of them and support a history contest. And my mother and her friends can get their Social Security check, not because I couldn't help them, but because it's.

Nicole Wallace (92:21)

A point of pride, you know, because.

John Brennan (92:24)

She worked for it. Sarah Jessica Parker. She is an icon, an advocate, a news junkie, and a passionate believer in us, in democracy and civility in our national discourse. I am lucky enough to call her a friend, and she is my guest on this week's episode of the Best People. Please give it a listen. You can scan the QR code on the screen to listen to the entire conversation. You could also watch the whole thing if you'd rather do that. It's on YouTube right now. A quick break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes. We are so grateful.

Nicole Wallace (93:04)

If you could hear love, what would it sound like? Son, can we talk about your drinking? Yeah, Dad, I think we should. Should helping those closest to you think about their excessive drinking. Maybe that's what love sounds like. More@rethinkthedrink.com an OHA initiative.