← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“Which is it?”
00:42:24
Nicolle Wallace gives an update on the Epstein scandal that won’t go away for Donald Trump and the aftermath of the diplomatic talks over Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Loading summary
Transcript72 lines
- [00:01]
Rachel Maddow
If you could hear love, what would it sound like? Son, can we talk about your drinking? Yeah, Dad, I think we should.
- [00:19]
Mike Schmidt
Helping those closest to you think about their excessive drinking.
- [00:23]
Rachel Maddow
Maybe that's what love sounds like. More@rethinkthedrink.com An OHA initiative. Are you ready to get spicy?
- [00:35]
Mike Schmidt
These Doritos Golden Sriracha aren't that spicy.
- [00:39]
Chris Hayes
Sriracha sounds pretty spicy to me.
- [00:42]
Mike Schmidt
Um, a little spicy, but also tangy and sweet.
- [00:46]
Chris Hayes
Maybe it's time to turn up the.
- [00:48]
Mike Schmidt
Heat or turn it down. It's time for something that's not too spicy. Try Doritos Golden Sriracha. Spicy but not too spicy.
- [01:03]
Andrew Weissman
We had the wrong Attorney General in the room. Pam Bondi should be before this committee and she should be testifying as to what she had on her desk that she claimed were the full Epstein files with lists and why she wouldn't and still has not released the full unredacted files.
- [01:20]
Chris Hayes
Hi again, everyone. It's now five o' clock in the East. That was one of the two House Democrats in the room yesterday for former AG Bill Barr's deposition. Bill Barr was testifying before the House Oversight Committee as part of its probe into the Jeffrey Epstein files. Congressman, there is calling out a missing voice that they say they need to hear from because there is a huge discrepancy between Trump's attorneys generals. Here's current AG Pam Bondi. Back in February, one of the things.
- [01:50]
Rachel Maddow
That you alluded to, and this is something Donald Trump has talked about, the DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients.
- [01:58]
Mike Schmidt
Will that really happen?
- [02:00]
Chris Hayes
It's sitting, sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that. It's not somewhere, I don't know where, in a file cabinet buried in the deep state bureaucracy. It is, quote, sitting on my desk right now, end quote. The committee then heard from Bill Barr yesterday, since he was Donald Trump's Attorney General at the time of Jeffrey Epstein's death in 2019. And here's what the oversight chairman said about what Barr told them behind closed doors.
- [02:34]
Rachel Maddow
Attorney General Barr testified in there was that he never had conversations with President.
- [02:41]
Chris Hayes
Trump pertaining to a client list. He didn't know anything about a client list.
- [02:47]
Rachel Maddow
He said that he had never seen.
- [02:49]
Chris Hayes
Anything that would implicate President Trump in any of this and that he believed if there had been anything pertaining to.
- [02:57]
Rachel Maddow
President Trump with respect to the Epstein.
- [02:59]
Chris Hayes
List, that he felt like the Biden.
- [03:01]
Rachel Maddow
Administration would have probably leaked it out.
- [03:08]
Chris Hayes
Can't be both. Which is it? Are there no files and no client list? Or were they, quote, sitting on Pam Bondi's desk A few months ago, House Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia had a different take on what he heard from Bill Barr in his appearance in front of the committee, saying in a statement, quote, attorney General Barr could not clear President Trump of wrongdoing. Chairman Comer should release the full unedited transcript of his interview for the public, end quote. Garcia also called for cooperation by the Trump administration to release all the files. Quote, releasing the Epstein files in batches discontinues this White House cover up. The American people will not accept anything short of the full unredacted Epstein files. Today was the deadline for DOJ to hand over the files in compliance with a subpoena from the committee, the same group of subpoenas that brought Bill Barr before the committee to testify. But the Justice Department said they will begin the process on Friday despite the fact that they are delayed. The Washington Post reports this, quote, the release of any records from the Epstein files would mark a significant breakthrough after weeks of turmoil among Republicans sparked by the Justice Department's abrupt conclusion in July that no further disclosures of Epstein material, quote, would be appropriate or warranted, end quote. Since then, President Donald Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Republicans in Congress have struggled to respond to backlash from their base, which has speculated for years that others in Epstein's circle of rich and powerful friends may have played some role in his crimes. That's where we start the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. Former top prosecutor at the Department of Justice, Andrew Weissman is here. Also joining us, Christy Greenberg. She's a former Criminal Division deputy chief at SDNY. She's the host of the YouTube show Courtside, and investigative reporter for the New York Times. Mike Schmidt is here as well. Lucky for us, all of them are MSNBC contributors. Mike Schmidt, let me start with you. Bill Barr did more to cover up for Donald Trump's political ambitions inside the Department of Justice than just about anyone. His reputation has been very much shined up, if you will, by his use of the word BS to describe Trump's delusions about actually winning the 2020 election. But how would you assess his credibility as a witness to this Republican led oversight committee? Do you think he, having covered him, do you think he walked in there and answered questions truthfully?
- [05:46]
Mike Schmidt
My guess is that Bill Barr probably did go in and answer questions truthfully because he knows that he's in a situation that he's under an enormous amount of scrutiny and that there are, you know, right answers, you know, to what he was told, that that could be figured out and that this is, you know, that, you know, that he has respect for the process. You have to remember that Bill Barr was a key witness that was used by the select House committee that investigated the January 6 attacks against President Trump. His accounts, you know, as you're pointing out, how he used the word BS and how he told Trump over and over again that there was nothing to back up his allegations were widely used and relied on by the committee and played over and over again. And the reason that Barr was such a great witness for the January 6th committee is that it was true that he did have a huge perception as someone that had really gone to bat for Donald Trump. He really did that around the end of the Mueller report by allowing for a certain narrative about the report's findings to take hold before we were actually able to see the underlying contents of the report. He was one of the people that really went to bat for the president on the Russiagate allegations. He appointed a special counsel to look into them. Ultimately, that special counsel largely backs up everything that the Obama administration determined and found There were some, some smaller issues that they did uncover. But the larger brushstrokes of the Russia investigation remained intact based on, on what Barr special counsel had done, a special counsel that continued on into the Biden administration. So certainly someone that, you know, Democrats wanted to rely on heavily during the January 6 investigation to paint a picture of Trump and what Trump was doing. And I myself am anxious to see what happens. We see this happen a lot with very big congressional testimony where these individuals go in behind closed doors to give depositions and one side comes out and says the person said one thing and the other side comes out and says the person said another. And indeed, the transcript is what will answer this and we'll provide that. But it is always something, you know, that Democrats and Republicans both do where they try and sculpt the narrative before we, the public, are able to see what the witness has actually said.
- [08:24]
Chris Hayes
Andrew Weisman I guess the difference is that the Republicans are the ones right now on the hot seat from their own voters for being part of a cover up and a conspiracy. So all the pressure right now bears on the Republicans who lead the committee to release the Bill Bar transcript. And I, I'm probably not quite as enthusiastic as Mike just said he is to read Bill Barr's transcript, but I am eager to understand if Comer's lying about it. Why, you know, if Bill Barr doesn't clear Trump. Why did Comer say he did? And if he did clear Trump, why not release the transcript?
- [08:59]
Andrew Weissman
Yeah, well, look, now they've just added to the number of things that people are going to want released. In other words, this is really death by a thousand cuts. I mean, if they now have a transcript they're not releasing and they are going to sort of just release things in sort of dribs and drabs, it's going to create the impression, and certainly with me, the impression that there has to be something there or else you would just turn it all over, obviously with appropriate redactions for names of victims and personal information. But that is the conundrum that they have and it's one of their own making in terms of this sort of he said, she said that we're seeing play out. Obviously, as Mike is correct, obviously the transcript will show it. But I also think there's probably a little bit of no there, there. In other words, Bill Barr sounds, it sounds like he just doesn't know anything about this. It wasn't looked at. So he can say, I don't know anything about, I have no information about Donald Trump. And then he can speculate about, gee, I think the Democrats would have leaked this if it was there. I mean, all of that is not solid evidence. It does raise the question of, of course, why didn't they look at it and do a thorough investigation. If it's true that Bill Barr doesn't know anything about this, there's sort of the obvious question, which is why not? I think that's, that's true. Just to be fair, that's true of many administrations that dropped the ball in terms of accountability on the Jeffrey Epstein case and making sure that the rights of the victims were timely and adequately vindicated. But I really think the Republicans here are hurting themselves by having this death by thousand cuts approach to the Jeffrey Epstein files.
- [10:47]
Chris Hayes
I mean, Christie, Republicans are in control. This is a Republican led committee, it's the Oversight Committee. So Democrats maybe have a little more collaborative opportunities that might be generous, but they hold all the cards. And ostensibly this committee is designed as much to do political rehab to the Republican brand, which is now completely embroiled in a lack of faith at best and a burning political wildfire at worst. 81% of all Americans, according to Pew, think Donald Trump is hiding the files. 70% think Pam Bondi is hiding the files. People think that the speaker sent everybody home so that they wouldn't have to find any of the files or do anything thing to try to get their hands on them. Their first witness is Bill Barr, who as Mike just articulated was a hardcore Trump partisan. Not just a conservative ag, but a Trump partisan the whole time seemed to draw the line around repeating his lies around election fraud in 2020. Whatever he said, whether he cleared Trump as Comer said he did, whether he didn't, as Democrats are not releasing it only makes the fire burn hotter. Do you see anything that makes any sense to you?
- [12:05]
Christy Greenberg
So I want to follow up on something Andrew said where he said didn't seem like Bill Barr knew anything. We have information about this in my former boss, SDNY, U.S. attorney Jeff Berman. He wrote a book in which he has a chapter on the Epstein case. And what Berman said in his book about Bill Barr's role in the Epstein case is I never briefed Barr on the investigation, said the charges they were seeking didn't require Main justice approval and he couldn't think of any way in which involving Barr would help. So he kept him out of the loop. He said if he had any concerns or objections, then we just didn't have to deal with him. Elsewhere in the book, he also says that he was worried that maybe Main justice would not and Trump would not have preferred them SDNY to be pursuing this because Alex Acosta was the Secretary of Labor at the time and a rising star in the Republican Party. So this was a concern of SDNY's at the time. So they kept Barr at arm's length. He was never briefed on the investigation, which for a high profile investigation like this is rare. And there's no reason to believe Barr himself reviewed the Epstein file. That's not what an attorney general does. It's a massive file and Epstein died a month after he was was indicted. So if Barr didn't review the file and he didn't get briefed on it, then Barr saying he did not see anything that might implicate Trump means nothing. That Barr can't clear Trump of anything. He's not in a position to do it. Who is in a position to clear Trump if Trump has nothing to hide? Trump's DOJ can make available any mentions of Trump in the Epstein file that could clear him if he has nothing to hide. Others who could clear him if Trump has nothing to hide? Congressional Republicans and call witnesses who actually know the facts. The prosecutors. U.S. attorney Jeff Berman line prosecutors. They can call victims. They can call people who actually know what happened if they actually wanted to get to the facts. And if he hadn't done anything that would presumably clear him. But the fact that they are not doing that and the fact that they are not looking to get to the truth and they're just covering these stunts, that tells you it's really a cover up and that DOJ and the congressional Republicans are helping Trump cover up the truth.
- [14:28]
Chris Hayes
Well, Mike, that's so interesting. I mean, this is the list of folks that the committee subpoenaed. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez from the George W. Bush years, former AG Jeff Sessions from Trump one former FBI Director Robert Mueller, former Attorney General Loretta lynch, former Attorney General Eric Holder, former Attorney General Merrick Garland, former FBI Director Jim Comey, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton to Christie's very, very smart and astute analysis. Jeff Berman isn't on the list. And there is a chapter, I remember reading it, about Jeffrey Epstein and about all the prosecutors. They're all named in that chapter. And of course, as has been mentioned, Alex Acosta isn't on the list as well. What do you make of what will clearly be revealed to their own voters, again, as a sham effort here?
- [15:19]
Mike Schmidt
Well, I guess if you really wanted to know the answer to it, your witnesses would be, you know, people at the current Justice Department, but it would also be Maureen Comey, James Comey's daughter, who was fired and who led this investigation at the time. And I think what happens sometimes on Capitol Hill is that they don't totally appreciate how the Justice Department works, or they don't want to appreciate it, or they don't want to get to the true bottom of it. But to truly get to the bottom of what's in these files and to understand the n of what's there, you really need to talk to the line prosecutors and agents. Those are the people that understand these things. And I think that folks that have run the FBI or run the Justice Department will tell you that it's a very small amount of stuff and certainly detailed stuff that comes all the way up to their desk. Because, you know, at that point, you know, the stuff that's coming to it is these major decisions that have to be made and the finer points of an investigation and what an investigation may have collected. And we have to remember what we're talking about here. This is a investigation that went on for many, many years, you know, decades, decades in many ways. And during an investigation, investigators, agents and prosecutors will be told a range of different things that that investigation will soak up. That doesn't mean that everything that they are told is true. It doesn't mean that everything that is true is criminal. But there's a range of stuff that any investigation soaks up and we as the public only see a small percentage of it. We only see the parts that are used in indict, parts that come out through reporting or parts of stuff that are used at trials. And otherwise a lot of the stuff is left on the cutting room for or in the files of the Justice Department. And the reason that we're so focused on these files, the Epstein files, is that Trump and his supporters, particularly his supporters, built up this idea that there was something there in the files, in what's there. So what the department has to do at this stage is go through and make public and try to explain and deal with a range of things that they normally do not have to because they believe that in an investigation everything that they develop should, doesn't, shouldn't see the light of day because it's, they don't necessarily know if it's all true. They don't all necessarily know if it all shows criminality. It's the Justice Department is not a media organization that soaks up information and puts it out. It's supposed to make prosecution. And that is the situation that we're in. But it is those fruits, those files that have been promised to the base.
- [18:00]
Chris Hayes
Well, and promised by none other than the current director of the FBI, Cash Patel, who said this, quote, house Republicans, put on your big boy pants and tell us who the pedophiles are, end quote. He could do that if he wanted to. No one's going anywhere. We have much more with our panel as the Epstein scandal continues to engulf Washington, D.C. in the Trump White House. Also ahead for us, Mike's brand new reporting in the New York Times today about how Donald Trump has weaponized the rule of law and the rules and norms of his so called weaponization czar has trampled, all in an attempt to seek revenge and retribution on anyone who has tried to hold Donald Trump accountable. And so much for Donald Trump's claim in front of Ukrainian President Zelensky and other European leaders that Vladimir Putin wants peace. There was another massive wave of Russian brutality. Airstrikes cross Ukraine overnight, once again underscoring Putin's true intentions there. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [19:02]
Rachel Maddow
Saturday, October 11th. From New York City, it's MSNBC Live 25. Join your favorite MSNBC host, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Mika Bruszynski, Nicole Wallace, Ari Melber, Alicia Menendez, Simone Sanders Townsend, Michael Steele, Chris Haynes, jen Psaki, Lawrence O', Donnell Stephanie Ruhle and more. Visit msnbc.comlive25 to buy your tickets today. Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Each morning, read sharp insights from the voices you trust. Catch standout moments from your favor.
- [19:42]
Chris Hayes
Trump administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to radically transform America.
- [19:47]
Rachel Maddow
Stay up to speed with our latest podcasts and documentaries and get fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. It's everything you love about MSNBC delivered to your inbox. Sign up now@msnbc.com hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes.
- [20:03]
Mike Schmidt
This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening?
- [20:05]
Tom Nichols
China expert Bill Bishop.
- [20:06]
Andrew Weissman
They position themselves as look, we are the country that cares about the most important existential issue in most countries have, which is climate change. You know, we are the ones who are now in a position to help you deliver the goods and fix that. And it is very useful on several levels for them. It's also very useful in their ongoing.
- [20:23]
Tom Nichols
Long term competition with the U.S. that's.
- [20:25]
Mike Schmidt
This Week on why Is this Happening? Search for why is this Happening wherever you're listening right now.
- [20:29]
Andrew Weissman
And follow.
- [20:32]
Christy Greenberg
You mentioned Alex Acosta.
- [20:34]
Chris Hayes
Will oversight Democrats make a motion to.
- [20:36]
Christy Greenberg
Subpoena him as well, or anybody else that you mentioned?
- [20:40]
Chris Hayes
I think that we will come together after the conclusion of specifically this particular deposition and potentially some others. But I don't see how we won't come to the conclusion that he is.
- [20:52]
Christy Greenberg
Necessary to really getting to the bottom of this and that he needs to actually show up.
- [20:59]
Chris Hayes
We're back. Andrew Weissman, what do you think they're trying to do? Do you think that the Republicans are trying to show their own voters that they're asking some questions of some people? Or do you think they're trying to copy the January 6th investigation? What do you think it is that we're watching with so many important people like Jeff Berman, Alex Acosta left off the list for subpoenas?
- [21:24]
Andrew Weissman
I think this is a distraction. I think it is the same thing that we saw when you had the government make this performative motion for grand jury transcripts. The judge in New York, Judge Engelmeier, who dealt with this said he thought this was entirely disingenuous and that the one reason he could see for releasing it was to show that the application was disingenuous because there would be nothing in the grand jury transcript. By contrast, all of this is not that complicated. If you want to know what's in the files, release the files. I mean, period. I mean, you can call witnesses to the cas, come home, but if you're not calling either the Right, Witnesses. And you're calling a bunch of witnesses to distract. That is not how you show people what is in the files. There is one really easy way to do this. Release the files. I mean, this is just not rocket science. And so I think this idea that you're going to call Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and Robert Mueller, I mean, that is just not how you get to the bottom of the issue that they have created for themselves through this sort of conspiracy theory, which is that there is something, some cover up going on. Well, if you want to get to the bottom of it, just release them. And again, I think this is death by a thousand cuts. And I think they're sort of flailing around trying to see if the story will go away and they can sort of play for time. But it just isn't a serious endeavor because the keys to the kingdom are so obvious. If you want to know what's in them, release the files.
- [23:04]
Chris Hayes
And Christy, I want to be careful not to describe all of this as conduct that took place before the election. I mean, Pam Bondi said on Fox News in February that the files are, quote, on my desk right now. And JD Vance said on a Sunday show a week and a half ago that he's seen the files. And there are lots of Democrats who went to Epstein Island. So these are real time allegations being made by people who hold themselves out as having seen the files or knowing where they are.
- [23:35]
Christy Greenberg
Absolutely. I mean, I'm expecting that they will produce some documents and that those documents will be two things. One, anything that they think could be damaging to Trump's political enemies. And two, information that's already public about Epstein and Maxwell. That's what they tried to do when they were seeking the grand jury transcripts that contained information that was already public. It's what they did when Pam Bondi had that Four Seasons total Landscaping like White House press conference where she gave out the binders of documents that were already public. So they dump out a bunch of documents, they dump them out over time, and then they will claim, you know, hey, look, we've cooperated, but it will just be an illusion of cooperation, not real cooperation. And they know Comer is never going to actually infer, enforce this subpoena and take them to court and say, you haven't given us everything. There's no way they're going to produce the documents relating to Trump in the Epstein file in response to a congressional subpoena. If they had made the decision to do that, it would be a major DOJ event. It would not be because Congress asked nicely. So I don't see them giving us that. They were clearly concerned enough that they had agents going through and marking every single mention of Donald Trump, that they went to brief him about what was in there and that they after that did a 180 and said, we can't release this. Even after they had said they would. And then they never explained the 180. You instead got a two page unsigned memo that raised more questions than it answered. All of that suggests there's a there there that, you know, whether or not he did anything criminal, that somehow Trump at least views this as damaging to him in some way. So I don't think you're ever going to see that damaging material. I think they will distract. I think they will produce other things and then hope that people stop asking. And hopefully by that point they will use these congressional depositions to dirty up a number of the people who handled the investigation and use them as a scapegoat and say, look, this is the deep state. You don't want that file. It's corrupted by Democrats who wrote it, by Democrats who put phony things in there. So you don't need the file. Listen to what somebody like Ghislaine Maxwell, a proven liar, is telling you. Look at what the things in the file are that are cherry picked and that actually are the things that are red meat that you'd want to hear. I do think there is some kind of a strategy here and I think we're going to see it rolled out in the fall and it will be coordinated between DOJ and Congressional Republicans.
- [26:13]
Chris Hayes
Well, I mean, that speaks to what they'll try to do. But I guess to quote Joe Rogan, quote, what do they think we are, babies? End quote. I mean, at least one person on the inside is being layered organizationally today. Mike Schmidt. He's the only person we know of who stood up to Pam Bondi for her handling of the release of the Epstein files after making white binders with Epstein files on them at the beginning of the Trump term. And that's Dan Bongino. This is what the Times reports about what's happening to him. Quote, the Trump administration said on Monday that it had tapped the Missouri AG Andrew Bailey to be a Deputy director of the FBI and what many rank and file agents described as a surprising arrangement. Bailey joins the current Deputy director, Dan Bongino, who is a popular right wing podcast host, repeatedly railed against the Bureau in overseeing the day to day operations of the agency since taking the post, a sprawling task that includes overseeing dozens of field offices around the country as well as personnel assigned around the world. Bongino has vocally complained about the toll the job has taken on him. Memorably going on Fox News as we played on this program, near tears talking about how many hours he spent in his office. Your thoughts about why there is a job share arrangement now for Mr. Bongino?
- [27:32]
Mike Schmidt
I think the thing about that position at the FBI that you have to understand is that the deputy FBI director is always the highest ranking FBI agent. And essentially it's the culmination of an agent's entire career where they have gone from all the way to the bottom, all the way to the top, to essential run the day to day operations of the Bureau. Andy McCabe did that, Mark Giuliano did that. These are, these are folks that putting aside, you know, the whatever, however they may have gotten caught up in the political winds of the moment, were regarded as elite top FBI agents, like much smarter than your average FBI agent and agents who were capable of running an organization that has thousands and thousands, if not tens of tens of thousands of people. And that job is incredibly complex. You're making a lot of major decisions about investigations going on all across the country, all across the world on decisions that are on your desk because the field cannot make the decisions. They're so consequential, they're so complicated that they have to come to you. The FBI director relies on that person to run the day to day operations and to keep the bureau humming. It's, it's one of the most sophisticated jobs in government and a job that is truly totally consuming for these agents. So when the bureau, when the, I'm sorry, not the bureau, when the Trump administration decided not to put a career FBI agent in that role and instead put essentially a political appointee, it was a major deviation from the Bureau's history because the bureau had always relied on an agent to be in that position. An agent who knew enough to understand how all the different tentacles of the agency worked. And in putting Dan Bongino there, that's just a person that didn't have that experience. And in the most recent individual Bailey that they're putting there also looks like someone who doesn't have that experience.
- [29:38]
Chris Hayes
So maybe two non agents equals top of one. Who knows what they're thinking. It is incredible how even their do over seems to deviate from all of that history. Everybody sticks around. When we come back, Michael, take us through his brand new reporting in the New York Times about the rule breaking tactics being used by Ed Martin. He's Donald Trump's so called weaponization czar who couldn't be confirmed by the Republican led Senate. He's now trying to prosecute anyone who dared to prosecute or investigate Donald Trump. That next.
- [30:15]
Rachel Maddow
MSNBC presents the chart topping original podcast the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Each week Nicole speaks with some of the people who inspire her the most. This week she sits down with podcaster John Lovett.
- [30:29]
Mike Schmidt
The more you can make that big group of pro democracy Americans feel like they're part of one big movement, the more powerful that gets and the the.
- [30:36]
Rachel Maddow
More success we'll have the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Why is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows. Ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddows original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. When Bill Pulte sends a criminal referral over to us and he says Letitia James and Adam Schiff and by the way, both their lawyers have come out and talked publicly about that criminal referral. So you can talk to them about the specifics of Because I'm going to tell you what we're going to do is we're going to follow the facts. We're going to go to the very bottom of the facts and if somebody did something wrong, we're not only going to hold them accountable, we're also going to look at everything else that they've been doing.
- [31:46]
Chris Hayes
So that was Ed Martin. He has a bunch of titles. He's the Justice Department's Weaponization Working Group Director. He continues to make a spectacle spectacle of himself and his investigations into Donald Trump's perceived political enemies after he showed up to New York Attorney General Letitia James House in Brooklyn last week posing for pictures outside of it and sent a letter calling on her to resign. His conduct is part of a trend of Trump officials completely obliterating norms to try and paint Trump's enemies as criminals absent any evidence that they are. As the New York Times reports today, quote, each of Mr. Martin's actions violates Justice Department rules, rules and norms. Prosecutors are barred from making investigative decisions based on politics. They are asked not to comment on specific cases and they're supposed to avoid turning their investigations into public spectacles Attorney General James lawyer fired back at Ed Martin today in a scathing letter writing this quote, were there any doubts as to your political retributive mission? You erased them in your first statements about your appointment when you stated that your assignment is to say stick the landing. A responsible and credible federal prosecutor is not a pommel horse gymnast. Adding this quote, it appears that the weaponization Working group you now lead is aptly named as it is weaponizing DOJ to carry out the President's and Attorney General's threats. We're back with Andrew Christie and Mike. Mike is bylined on that reporting. Mike, what's amazing about your reporting is that Martin seems like this rare creature who's too much for the Republican led Senate. They refuse to confirm him. I think Judge, another Fox person is leading the office he was supposed to lead and he's too much for Pam Bondi, who your reporting suggests is not happy with his approach. Explain.
- [33:42]
Mike Schmidt
Look, I just, you know, I'm supposed to cover the issue of retribution and what retribution looks like and how the federal government's powers are being weaponized against Trump's perceived enemies. And when I saw this New York Post story in which this individual, who is a prosecutor for the Justice Department, you know, someone who's making a decision about whether to bring charges, had gone to the home of this individual who was being investigated and didn't have a search warrant and didn't have a subpoena as far as I knew, and was essentially posing for photos and creating a photo op. I just thought that was an extraordinary use of the government's police states against someone. I mean, that's a menacing thing to do. And it's, it's, you know, we've run out of adjectives in the Trump era. I like to use extraordinary, you know, but it's just such an extraordinary thing for a prosecutor to undertake. And then to go on and talk about publicly was just so against the norms and what we usually see that I said to myself, you know, we really need to try and tell this story to the reader, but also give it the larger context because it's part of a larger trend that we have seen over the past two months in which the administration is dipping into the vast intelligence gathering powers and law enforcement powers of the federal government to, to tar those individuals who have not been charged with crimes with different allegations and accusations. Whether it's the Russia stuff that was done by, you know, Tulsi Gabbard and Radcliffe and Cash Patel, or this example, it's part of a larger use of the federal government's powers in which they're being harnessed against Trump's enemies. And that's just, you know, it's our job to, to chronicle this story. I thought that we really had to try and explain that to people.
- [35:42]
Chris Hayes
Andrew Weissman, is there any scenario where you would have stood outside Paul Manafort's house when you were prosecuting his alleged. I mean, this is so insane that it is difficult to put it alongside all the other insane things that Trump has done. But again, this guy, this individual is an outlier in that Republicans pick this guy as the one that was a bridge too far for them. That's why he is in this weaponization job and not running. I think it was the D.C. u.S. Attorney's office. But you were, I mean, you and Christie are both prosecutors. Can you imagine any scenario where you would have stood outside of the house of someone you sought to investigate or prosecute?
- [36:27]
Andrew Weissman
Not only would I not have done it, Christie, of course, would never have done it. But if, if a prosecutor did this under any normal Republican or Democratic run administration, they would be severely chastised and or fired. I want to just make sure people understand that. First, Ed Martin may seem like an anomaly, but he is at the Department of Justice. There's no distancing him from what is going on in the Trump administration. And to put it in context, at the same time that you have the White House saying we're going to take over all of the sort of Government of Washington, D.C. and law enforcement because they're really concerned about crime. That's the. You have a president who has pardoned all of the January six defendants, including those who attacked law enforcement. He himself is a convicted criminal who went to trial and was convicted. And you also then have this complete dearth, as you just mentioned in the prior episode, of sort of experienced and competent people in the FBI doing their real job. So you have this performative element going on when real law enforcement is suffering. And that means that the public is suffering through this kind of display and performative aspect that is engaged in by the Department of Justice.
- [38:03]
Chris Hayes
It's just a remarkable thing to imagine Tish James looking out and seeing Ed Martin in her front lawn wearing a trench coat. It's been a very hot summer. Maybe he was cold. Mike Schmidt, Andrew Weissman, Kristy Greenberg, thank you for spending time with us on all this disturbance. Disturbing news today when we come back. As Donald Trump continues to lavish praise on Vladimir, as he calls him, Putin continues to bomb the you know what, out of Ukraine, the next steps in the efforts to end the war. After a very short break.
- [38:38]
Andrew Weissman
We'Re going.
- [38:39]
Chris Hayes
To have a meeting.
- [38:39]
Rachel Maddow
I think if everything works out well today, we'll have a try that and.
- [38:43]
Chris Hayes
I think there will be a reasonable.
- [38:45]
Rachel Maddow
Chance, chance of ending the war when we do that. I know the president, I know myself, and I believe Vladimir Putin wants to see it ended.
- [38:54]
Chris Hayes
We all want to see it end. But those were just two more examples of, quote, just trust me, assurances there from Donald Trump, the first of which already seems to have crashed and burned. The prospect of a next step in person meeting between the United States, Russian and Ukrainian presidents is today being played down in Russian state media. And according to the New York Times, Russian President Vladimir Putin's foreign policy aide who suggested he would send senior negotiators instead. So there's that not happening. The other Donald Trump's insistence that Putin wants peace was met with another sign from Putin that he does not. Just hours after yesterday's meeting at the White House, Russia again hit Ukraine with hundreds of drones and missiles. Our friend Tom Nichols writes in the Atlantic about where this leaves us, with Trump buying more time for Putin and leaving more uncertainty for European leaders who yesterday, quote, perhaps did the best they could, stiffening Trump's spine a bit after whatever browbeating he took in Alaska. But in the end, all of Trump's showmanship has resulted in no substantive progress. Putin's war continues. That said, Alaska is still part of the United States, America is still in NATO, and Kyiv remains free. And in the second Trump presidency, perhaps that counts as a good enough day. Joining us now is staff writer at the Atlantic and a contributor to the Atlantic Daily newsletter, Tom Nichols. I'll take that half glass full if that's what you're serving. Tell me how you see things. After Anchorage and yesterday's Washington meetings.
- [40:37]
Tom Nichols
Nothing'S changed. And in fact, Trump's already backpedaling from some of the more conciliatory language he used. He went off this morning on another network and basically blamed Ukraine for starting the war. This is who he is. This is what he believes. He has internalized Vladimir Putin's narrative about this war, that Ukraine sparked it basically by existing. And I don't think he's going to move off of that. But if, like you, I'll take it. If the Europeans stopped him from trying to hammer, hammer down some kind of deal for giving away territory and partitioning Ukraine, then great. But I don't think that's going to last. And I think, you know, Trump really has decided that he is on Vladimir Putin's side here.
- [41:31]
Chris Hayes
Trump. It feels useless to compare Trump to any normal American president. So let's just compare Trump to Trump. And it actually feels useless to compare Trump to Trump 1.0, because absent men like Mattis and Milley and Kelly, it's a useless comparison as well. He's now surrounded by JD Van so Pete Hegseth and Stephen Miller. Trump spent all last week on camera talking about a ceasefire. Trump spends a lot less time with Putin than he was supposed to. Comes out and is no longer for a ceasefire after that meeting. Is it as simple as Putin said? I'm not going to stop. I mean, how do you explain that?
- [42:19]
Tom Nichols
You know, I'd be very curious to have been a fly on the wall, but I suspect given the way the President was talking on his way up there, you know, there's only a 1 in 4, about a 25% chance that things go bad. We're going to get a deal. Trump, really, Putin wants to end this. And then he comes out looking pretty hang dog. And his staff NBC reporter goes Peter Alexander, who said that his spokesperson looked ashen. And I suspect that what happened is Putin went in and said, no, no, no, you're not going to read the riot act to me. Here's what I'm here to tell you. This war goes on. This is what I want. These are the conditions that I insist on, and I'm not going to stop. And, you know, and by the way, I'm not staying for lunch. We're not going to have some celebratory toast to a grand peace deal. And I think once word of what happened because Washington leaks got out, you've suddenly had seven European leaders and the President of Ukraine saying, we'd better get over there before something really crazy happens. And it's always said that Trump agrees with whoever the last person in the room is. I think seven European leaders kind of tackling him together and saying, okay, we're with you, you're doing great, but don't do this. Whatever this may have been with Vladimir Putin has now led to the status quo. And as you just reported, Putin has punctuated that by saying, and here's my contribution to the, to the discussion. I'm going to keep bombing Ukraine. And so I think we're, I think we're worse off than if there hadn't been a summit at all, to be honest.
- [44:03]
Chris Hayes
Trilat, yay or nay?
- [44:06]
Tom Nichols
Well, if it comes after supposedly a bilateral with Putin and Zelensky, then nay. I mean, that's Zelensky has no reason to sit in a room with the guy trying to kill him. And Putin doesn't care. He'll just tie everybody up in negotiations. So I doubt that it's going to happen and anything's possible. But I think there are too many hoops that would have to be jumped to get to that point at this point, point.
- [44:34]
Chris Hayes
Tom Nichols, thank you for spending time with us on all this. When we come back, more from my interview with Pod Save America's John Lovett, who is spitting truth bombs on this week's episode of the Best People podcast. I'll show it to you next.
- [44:52]
Mike Schmidt
Everyone's like, what's in the files? What's in the files? There are victims, women who are telling you what happened. They are real and they exist. The the truth is not always in a dark and corner, right? The truth isn't always hidden. And like Trump takes advantage of that, right? He just goes on television and confesses to doing what, if it had been uncovered by an investigative journalist 10, 15 years ago, would be seen as a scandal that could bring down a presidency. But they do it out in the open. And so here, too, it's like the answer to the Epstein story may not be a secret. It's the story these women have been trying to tell for over a decade.
- [45:28]
Chris Hayes
That was Pod Save America host John Lovett. He is my guest on this week's episode of the Best People. He is fantastic. Scan the QR code on your screen to watch our interview on YouTube. And as always, you can listen by downloading this week's episode. Wherever you get your podcasts. One more break. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes today. We are grateful.