← Main Justice
Main Justice
Misleading and Evasive: Blanche’s Hearing and Trump’s Speech
00:54:04
Todd Blanche vies for the job of Attorney General and meets with Epstein survivors. And Trump addresses the nation about alleged election fraud.
Loading summary
Transcript146 lines
- [00:01]
Mary McCord
Ever since I was young, I've watched people working hard, chasing opportunity, making sacrifices, doing everything they can to build a better life. And now we're shining a light on what matters most, our economy, our national identity, our democracy, our future. The stakes have never been higher. It's all on the line.
- [00:19]
Ms. Now Announcer
On the line with Alicia Menendez, weekdays at 12pm Eastern on Ms. Now. Foreign.
- [00:35]
Andrew Weissmann
Welcome Back to Main Justice. It is Monday morning, July 20th. I'm Andrew Weissman and I'm here with my wonderful co host Mary McCord. Hi, Mary.
- [00:45]
Mary McCord
Good morning, Andrew.
- [00:47]
Andrew Weissmann
So this has been quite the week.
- [00:49]
Mary McCord
It has been.
- [00:50]
Andrew Weissmann
I think it's sort of useful for people to get our take on what happened this past week as well as a few things that are a bit more obscure. So with that, yeah, with that teaser
- [01:02]
Mary McCord
there, last week's episode, we spent pretty much the entire episode talking about what was then the upcoming confirmation hearing for Todd Blanch to be the United States attorney General. That hearing did take place last Wednesday. I spent the entire day I was in New York City at the Ms. NOW Studios sitting with various anchors throughout the day. I have a whole lot of thoughts about that hearing and I'm sure that you do, too. And we haven't really shared them with each other, much less our listeners. But I think that'll be an interesting first discussion this morning. Then, of course, something else. I hate to call it big because it was really not big. It had a lot of hype, but it's really a big nothing burger, which is the president's speech on Thursday night that was supposed to have all these revelations about elections and vulnerabilities of our elections here in the United States and non citizens voting. And really it is a bunch of empty words with very, very little to back it up. And so we will talk about that.
- [01:58]
Andrew Weissmann
It reminds me so much, Mary, of I don't if you remember when the president said when he was between term one and term two, he said, I've got irrefutable proof of election fraud and I'm going to be having a press conference, you know, doing his showmanship thing and building it up. And then it got canceled and he never had it. And his excuse was, well, he talked to his lawyers. His lawyers said, you know, maybe it's better not to do it while you have a case pending.
- [02:30]
Mary McCord
Yeah.
- [02:31]
Andrew Weissmann
Well, those cases are not pending and we're still waiting for the irrefutable proof that's true.
- [02:36]
Mary McCord
And we did not get it Thursday night. So spoiler alert.
- [02:39]
Andrew Weissmann
Exactly.
- [02:40]
Mary McCord
So we will have time with that yes. Then we will talk about. There's been some really incredible new reporting that validates something I very much thought to be the case but didn't have the numbers to back it up. Talk about data to back up your claims, which, which is that a lot of the so called prosecutions and even just investigations of people allegedly for assaulting ICE officers have utterly fallen apart. To the extent that the department has charged cases like that, the numbers are really quite striking. 500, I think cases that the New York Times looked at 400 that had actually been resolved. Only a handful of actual convictions. There have been some guilty pleasure, which is a conviction. It is a conviction, I should say a conviction after a jury trial or a judge trial finding guilt. And you're absolutely right, guilty pleas are convictions. So those numbers are always going to exist. But the number of cases over 200 that just totally fell apart is pretty staggering.
- [03:36]
Andrew Weissmann
Yeah, I'm going to give it. When we get to that, how I think you and I think about that because we compare it to the normal benchmark.
- [03:43]
Mary McCord
That's right.
- [03:43]
Andrew Weissmann
Of how DOJ does in cases, which is like well over 90%.
- [03:48]
Mary McCord
Yes.
- [03:48]
Andrew Weissmann
And, and so that's how you have to look at it. So, Mary, you were on set with Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing. Do you have any top line impressions, points that you want to make about how you thought he did, how you thought the senators did? Any big picture takeaways?
- [04:07]
Mary McCord
Yeah, I do. Two points with respect to Todd. Well, three, I mean, I think he gave away the ghost when he was asked by Senator Kenney, are you friends with Donald Trump? And he said, I'm his lawyer. I was his lawyer. I mean it just showed his lawyer. He is not the President's lawyer. He used to be the President's lawyer. But I think that Freudian slip set the tone for the hearing. Now, it wasn't right at the beginning, it came after. We've been into it at least an hour, I think, but still it's like, okay, well there you go. That's how you think of yourself.
- [04:36]
Andrew Weissmann
Can I relate to that? Because I think there was another thing which I was very much thinking about. If you remember at the end of our last episode, I'd asked you sort of, what would you ask Todd Blanch? And you were focused very much on this idea of where do you view the independence of the Department of Justice? And I think the other place where it wasn't so much a Freudian slip as he was very overt, that the Attorney General is a member of the Cabinet like Anyone else and does the bidding of the President. And leave aside that, I thought there could have been a lot more questioning on that, a lot more teasing out, basically saying, so let me just walk you through what Elliot Richardson did. And I want to contrast not what the President legally can do, but what you will do in that situation. In other words, what do you think the appropriate norms are post Watergate? Because he made it absolutely abundantly clear that he views the Attorney General as no different than, than any other Cabinet secretary. And the lens he uses is, does the President have the power to do it, in which case he has to do it. That I thought was the other dramatic change that really sort of flew under the radar screen in terms of how it was approached at the hearing because he was presenting a pre Watergate view of what the Attorney General of the United States should be. And he's obviously, to be fair, he has acted out that principle and he
- [06:10]
Mary McCord
has defended that like he did at the hearing. But even in previous statements.
- [06:13]
Andrew Weissmann
Yeah. And so for people who are thinking and hoping, oh, he's the guy who's going to say no to the President, I think he made it abundantly clear what his view is. If the President has the power to do it, he's going to do it.
- [06:24]
Mary McCord
That's right. And Senator Booker, among a few others, did call him out for that right. Is your allegiance to law or to one man? And if ended his questioning with, you've chosen Trump over the truth? And that's the case. And you know, as we've discussed before, by the Constitution, the Department of justice is in the executive branch and the President is the leader of the executive branch. But because of Watergate, because of the need for the American people to have some faith that the Department of Justice is not just acting as a political arm of the President with the powers to investigate and prosecute people, take away their liberties, all, all of that. That is why post Watergate, every other Attorney General, no matter their party, has thought it was important to show that there's independence. So, yes, I think that's a huge thing. Another thing is he gave hypertechnical and evasive responses to a lot of questions to make the questions seem like they were uninteresting. And I felt like when we were into the hearing an hour or two, that a casual listener who is not carefully listening, listening, or does not know any different, will think that this is something of a ho hum hearing. And let me give you several examples of that. When asked, for example, was it right for the President to pardon the J6 defendants, Todd Blanche just evaded completely by saying the President has the full power of the pardon. The President can use that power however he wants. That's given to him by the Constitution. That's all true. That is not the question. You know, answering the question, right, he was asked, will you commit not to pay the J6 defendants? Remember, there was a lot of questions about this slush fund settlement fund. Some of the best questions, I think, came from Senator Cornyn. But there's been rumors out there that there might be other mechanisms and there are other mechanisms by which the Department of Justice could pay. And Donald Trump himself, Right. Has suggested that and has paid. That's right.
- [08:15]
Andrew Weissmann
The Federal Tort Claims Act, I believe, has been used, which is another pot of money. So we have talked about how Michael Flynn got over a million dollars. And so this is not some fancif.
- [08:26]
Mary McCord
Right.
- [08:26]
Andrew Weissmann
And he did not close the door to that.
- [08:29]
Mary McCord
Rather than, will you commit not to. He's like, well, the Federal Claims act, ftca, it's a statute exists. I can't get rid of the statute. And I'm like, that's not the question, Todd. It wasn't. Is there a statutory mechanism by which people who believe they've been wronged can seek recompense from the Department of Justice? The question was, will you commit to not paying them? Right. Because that means the Department of Justice can make a decision about whether it pays or not pays.
- [08:51]
Andrew Weissmann
Yes. But can we just say for a moment, obviously, thing one, in terms of responsibility for that answer, is Todd Blanche.
- [08:57]
Mary McCord
Yes.
- [08:58]
Andrew Weissmann
Thing two is the senators who are going to vote for him. But thing three is for the people who are trying to press him for actual answers. It would be nice to have Mary McCord there to say, could you answer the question? That's not the question. I mean, as trial lawyers, it's like, oh, my God.
- [09:18]
Mary McCord
And I know that they're torn because they have a limited amount of time and they've got a lot of things they want to cover. But yes, people needed to come back harder at him, I thought. Still, on this topic of the settlement, he was asked who wrote the settlement. Remember, just for briefly, for our listeners, the settlement, quote, I'm going to say, quote, unquote, settlement, because we already had a federal judge who said, at least the plaintiffs and the defendants in this case, the case of Trump suing the irs, you may not call this a settlement because this was a collusive lawsuit brought so that the President could be on one side of it as his former self and the President could be on the other side of it as his current self, the head of the executive branch, the head of the Justice Department and create this $1.776 billion slush fund to pay so called victims of weaponization and give himself complete and utter civil and criminal immunity from all investigations of prosecutions for everything that he could have done up till the date of the settlement, including IRS audits. Right. So he's asked Todd Blanche is asked who wrote the settlement? And he says, I don't know who typed it up. Who wrote the settlement? I don't know who typed it up. He says, who cares who typed it up? Someone had to say what was going that settlement addendum was. And he refused to say who did that. Was it you, Todd Blanch? Was it Donald Trump? Was it Donald Trump's personal lawyers? Who was it? Refused to say. And then one of the most evasive, hyper technical non responses was, will you meet with the Jeffrey Epstein victims?
- [10:42]
Andrew Weissmann
Oh my God.
- [10:43]
Mary McCord
He said, I am prohibited from meeting with them. And just for those who are wondering, because he did in fact meet with victims, I guess two days later. No, one day later.
- [10:53]
Andrew Weissmann
Yes. Where the confirmation gun to his head because Tillis said, I'm not going to vote for you unless you meet.
- [11:00]
Mary McCord
Yes, that's right. What he meant by prohibited. So all lawyers are barred by their rules of professional conduct by a rule that I, in most places, maybe every place, is Rule 4.2 and it bars attorneys from reaching out directly and talking to people that they know are represented by counsel, by lawyers about the subject matter of the thing that they are represented on. So for example, just so people understand, back when you and I were prosecutors, Andrew, once a defendant had an attorney, you and I couldn't call the defendant and said, hey, we got a plea deal for you. Would you like to take it? We would be violating our ethical obligations under Rule 4.2. We have to call his lawyer and say, here's a plea offer. Will you make it to your client? And that's because he's represented by counsel on the very subject matter that we want to communicate with. And a lot of the Epstein victims are represented by lawyers. I'm not sure all of them, but a lot of them are. So what Todd Blanch was trying too cute by half to say is I'm prohibited from talking to them. No, you just have to call their lawyer and say, I'd like to have a meeting with them. Would you like to be with me counsel, or would you like to let them have the meeting with Me by themselves. That is all that he's obligated to do. So it was misleading and evasive and it was just a terrible hyper technical answer.
- [12:12]
Andrew Weissmann
And by the way, for some people who said, well, he sounded better than Pam Bondi and Cash Patel. Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, their recent appearances are post confirmation. Right. So I used the phrase which is showing your ass. This is like when you show aside that you shouldn't be. They're able to do that because they've already been confirmed. This is Todd Blanche in the best you're going to see him because he wants something. So to the extent that you're thinking, oh, he acted better in the sense
- [12:44]
Mary McCord
he was more calm.
- [12:45]
Andrew Weissmann
Right, right. And he wasn't as in your face. But so was Pam Bondi at her confirmation. Yes, ex. Exactly. So I couldn't agree with you more. I would add in some things he said that were really surprising, that I thought maybe are in a different category because I thought they were just let me put it politely, not accurate. He described with the Epstein documents, he said that the only thing that we have not turned over are documents that are irrelevant, that have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. Well, that's not what he previously said. And what Pam Bondi said and including we covered the Katie Fung hearing. And in that litigation alone, they have not turned over documents in foreign languages. They agreed and admitted that they had not turned over not just duplicate documents, but substantially duplicate in their view. Substantially duplicate. We don't know what that means. And Todd Blanche has previously said they have not turned over. And this could be a gigantic category, documents that are in their view, privileged. Let's leave aside that the Epstein Transparency act doesn't have a provision for that. And so that wasn't jumped on by anyone. But that was remarkably different. And there were other things that he had said about the Epstein documents that again, I thought were just inaccurate statements. And so to me, that was surprising to say the least. So should we talk for a moment though? You mentioned John Cornyn, who is the senator from Texas. He is the person who has not won the Republican primary. Donald Trump quite famously backed his opponent,
- [14:25]
Mary McCord
Ken Paxton, the attorney General of Texas.
- [14:29]
Andrew Weissmann
And there's so much one could say about that.
- [14:30]
Mary McCord
Yes.
- [14:31]
Andrew Weissmann
And John Cornyn, you really got a sense of a mind being alive where he focused on Todd Blanche saying at congressional hearings, well, don't worry, this slush fund won't go forward. By the way, he didn't address the release. In other words, he said the slush fund isn't Going forward. But the release of Donald Trump, his family members and his companies, that is going forward. And remember, that's right. That is the document that only Todd Blanche signed is. He said, well, somebody had to sign it.
- [15:03]
Mary McCord
That's the document I'm talking about. When he said, I don't know who typed it up when he was asked who wrote it.
- [15:09]
Andrew Weissmann
And let's also recall that that settlement and the fact that Todd Blanche just sort of showed up and said, well, don't worry, it's dead. That the federal judge overseeing this said, that alone is indicia that this is a fraud on the court. Because he's like, who are you to say that? Usually when you have a settlement, a true settlement, there's a plaintiff, there's a defendant, one party. And actually, Todd Blanche isn't even a plaintiff.
- [15:32]
Mary McCord
The one who settled. Right. Is not the one who can say, you know what, we're not going to do that thing we said we agreed to do.
- [15:38]
Andrew Weissmann
Right, exactly. And I should say the other thing is Todd Blanch at one point said, well, at doj, we always vigorously defend our cases. That was one of his throwaway lines. I so wanted to be like, tell me about that here. Except when Donald Trump is the plaintiff. And so John Cornyn says, well, wait a second. You as a non party just announcing in any sort of proceeding, oh, don't worry, we're not going to go forward with that. That doesn't change a written document. And he points out that the written document says it can only be changed by a signed written statement by the parties saying, we're changing it. By the way, that kind of provision is pretty normal.
- [16:15]
Mary McCord
It is.
- [16:16]
Andrew Weissmann
The reason you have that as a provision is you don't want parties to just be like, oh, orally, Mary told me that it would be changed. It's like, if it wants to be changed, you need to put it in writing and signed by the parties. Well, that didn't happen here. And so John Cornyn said, well, who are you to do this? There's a legal document. You want to be the head legal officer of the United States. And so couldn't one of the parties just move to enforce this?
- [16:40]
Mary McCord
Yeah, exactly. Because he set it up so well. I mean, he really had a series of questions. He said, it's a contract. Right. And Todd Blanche says, yes, it's a contract. An enforceable contract. Well, yes. So couldn't the plaintiffs then sue to say, you've broken the contract and Todd Blanche was forced and he actually looked unprepared for this question.
- [16:58]
Andrew Weissmann
He was unprepared. He was totally unprepared. I totally agree.
- [17:01]
Mary McCord
Yeah.
- [17:01]
Andrew Weissmann
No one thought through this.
- [17:02]
Mary McCord
Yeah. He couldn't give an evasive answer because he was not prepared to give an evasive answer. He said, well, I mean, I guess a party could claim breach. The party being Donald Trump, Trump's family, the Trump Organization could claim a breach of this settlement agreement. Yes, they could. And that would be something that would have to be litigated. And so that is one among many reasons why there needs to be something more getting rid of this settlement agreement, including the signature of the plaintiffs on it. And what the one thing that Todd Blanche did come back to, I guess as his, you know, wheels are turning in his head, that I got to get out of this some way, is Congress should fix this.
- [17:36]
Andrew Weissmann
I'm like, I'm sorry, Congress should fix this.
- [17:38]
Mary McCord
It's Congress pass a statute that says you can't. You can't create this settlement fund. I'm like, okay, so you muck things up and now you're going to say, congress, please fix up what I just mucked up.
- [17:50]
Andrew Weissmann
I did something improper, and you should have stopped me.
- [17:53]
Mary McCord
Yeah.
- [17:53]
Andrew Weissmann
But I wanted to ask you a question, because there is reporting that the Epstein victims then finally got their meeting.
- [18:00]
Mary McCord
Well, I was on with one of them immediately after the meeting.
- [18:04]
Andrew Weissmann
And one of the things that was reported out was that Todd Blanche said, well, you need to go talk to the FBI. And one of the reasons is because I, as the acting Attorney general, can't open an investigation. So, Mary, what's your reaction as somebody who worked at the department for over 20 years, about that statement? And again, let's assume it's true.
- [18:27]
Mary McCord
You mean true that he said that?
- [18:28]
Andrew Weissmann
Yes, exactly.
- [18:28]
Mary McCord
I was gonna say, because the statement is false. That's what I have to say about the statement. Exactly. Yeah. I mean, of course he could. Now he's the acting Attorney general. It would be very unusual for the acting attorney general to go into a grand jury and open an investigation, but he's a prosecutor, and 100% a federal prosecutor can go into a grand jury and open investigation. It's what they do all the time. So, yes, he absolutely could do that. And, you know, come on, these women have talked to the FBI. This is ridiculous. This was such a box checking exercise. And I was here with one of the victims immediately after she came from that meeting, and my heart just went out because the victims were between a rock and a hard place. They have, of course, been asking to meet with Todd Blanche for some time. Now, so they couldn't very well say no. When he said, I'd like to meet with you yet, it was so obvious that the only reason he was meeting with them is because Thom Tillis said, I will not vote for you unless and until you meet with the victims. And you've got at least two weeks, and I want to know you've met with the victims. So the victims know going into this that all Todd Blanche is trying to do is check a box. And at least according to this victim and what she said on air that was very poignant and very meaningful, is she told her personal story, and it sounded like he was basically coldfish, like just not moved by it at all. There was nothing about the meeting, at least according to her, that showed any warmth or concern over what these victims had gone through or any. Any commitment by the Department of Justice to do anything to ensure that justice would be served. Instead, it was talk to the FBI.
- [19:59]
Andrew Weissmann
Human compassion is what you were looking for. And I don't know if you've had this experience, but I have had this experience where you have to meet. It is your obligation to meet with. It's your duty and in many ways your privilege to meet with victims. And sometimes you are conveying bad news. It's part of the job, and you have to do it sensitively. And the thing that I don't understand, and I've. I've said this in other places, is the idea that you wouldn't do it yourself. I remember being a back chair, a second seat for Director Mueller doing that in connection with documents that were really a huge mistake in the training material at the FBI about members of the Muslim community and Director Mueller. I still went into this room, met with Muslim leaders, took his jacket off, which already. It's a big deal, right?
- [20:54]
Mary McCord
That's a big deal. Robert Mueller, Yes.
- [20:56]
Andrew Weissmann
And he said he was going to stay there, and he did stay there until every single question that they had was answered and was answered by him. And there was no way in God's green earth that Robert Mueller was ever going to delegate that to anyone. It was his responsibility, and it was his obligation. And he wanted them to know that he cared about it personally. And he was speaking for the FBI. To me, that lack of leadership and responsibility, with all the many, many, many other reasons that we have talked about, that he is unfit for this job, that might be number one.
- [21:40]
Mary McCord
Well, certainly in that role, you need to have some sort of compassion, because part of what the Department of Justice does is bring cases on behalf of victims so that justice will be served. So it's a big gap in his own characteristics. Shall we break? Come back. I do have a last thing I'd love to say about the hearing.
- [21:58]
Andrew Weissmann
Okay.
- [21:59]
Mary McCord
We may have another last thing and then we'll talk about the president's speech.
- [22:02]
Andrew Weissmann
Okay. Although you know me, I say I'm done. Really?
- [22:06]
Mary McCord
Yeah. I think you'll have a comment on what I have to say.
- [22:08]
Andrew Weissmann
Okay.
- [22:17]
Stephanie Ruhle
You better eat your Wheaties today because there's a lot of news to cover. Money, time for the business. All eyes on the new Fed chair. The economic fallout from the war is a temporary power. The president is now a major crypto industry operator. Is this White House for sale?
- [22:32]
Ms. Now Announcer
Politics?
- [22:33]
Stephanie Ruhle
Is there an energy to respond to this aggressive gerrymandering? It has never been more important to be informed and engaged.
- [22:40]
Ms. Now Announcer
Money, power, politics With Stephanie rule, weekdays at 9am Eastern on Ms. Now.
- [22:51]
Andrew Weissmann
Hey, Mary, we're back. You have a last comment about the Blanche hearings. What do you got?
- [22:55]
Mary McCord
It really flows directly from where we ended off with his treatment of the Epstein victims over and over and over again, beginning in his opening statement and all the way through to his closing. He would repeat that his job is to secure safety. Right. Public safety. And maybe this is really a follow on to my comment about evasive answers and evasive testimony because let's talk about the things that he has actually done that are the notable things as the deputy attorney general and now acting attorney general. It does not secure safety. To go after the president's political enemies like James Comey or Letitia James or Adam Schiff or Jerome Powell or Lisa Cook does not secure safety. To dismiss the seditious conspiracy convictions of the Proud boys and the Oath Keepers, the ones who the president commuted their sentences but did not pardon them. So they would have kept those convictions. How does it secure public safety to dismiss those?
- [23:55]
Andrew Weissmann
Can you unpack that just a little bit to say the difference between a pardon and a commutation so people understand what you're saying? Because it's really important. And I think it's just something that gets lost like that Todd Blanche did something that was not required.
- [24:08]
Mary McCord
That's right.
- [24:09]
Andrew Weissmann
By what the president did. Could you just unpack that a little bit?
- [24:12]
Mary McCord
Sure. So at the time the president issued his clemency that included mostly pardons where that means your conviction is gone. It is an act of mercy. You no longer stand convicted of this offense for 14 people. And they were all people convicted of seditious conspiracy. Members, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys. He didn't pardon them, he issued a commutation, meaning your sentence ends today, but you still have that conviction on your
- [24:37]
Andrew Weissmann
record, meaning if you're in jail, you're released from jail.
- [24:41]
Mary McCord
That's right.
- [24:41]
Andrew Weissmann
But you still have a conviction. It's really has to do with the sentencing is gotten rid of, but you still are convicted.
- [24:49]
Mary McCord
Right. So now we've got people with convictions for seditious conspiracy who no longer have those convictions. Because if those cases are dismissed, as Todd Blanche has asked to do, and this is where we've talked about Tim Kelly. Judge Kelly has dismissed them. Judge Maida has asked for more information. But Todd Blanche is the one behind that. That's not the president. It does not secure public safety to have these ICE raids in communities where your ICE agents are acting. And we're going to talk about this in our third segment. With such lack of training and so irresponsibly that they are killing people, including United States citizen protesters are not just killing people through encounters where they're trying to actually apprehend someone who they say they're trying to apprehend, which are undocumented people who are real serious criminals.
- [25:35]
Andrew Weissmann
Right.
- [25:35]
Mary McCord
Which is just not the case at all. Right. This does not secure public safety. It does not secure public safety to be doing search warrants on supposed election fraud from six years ago in Fulton county or Arizona or any other place to talk about whether there was fraud in the election that has been substantiated as not having had fraud involved in it by case after case after case, investigation after investigation after investigation. How does that secure public safety? So to my mind, he's trying to obfuscate the truth about what he's really doing as the acting attorney general and what he will continue to do on behalf of the president of the United States if he is confirmed and trying to act like what he does is care about public safety. That's just not true.
- [26:19]
Andrew Weissmann
Couldn't agree more. You know, you and I could go on and on.
- [26:22]
Mary McCord
Elections. I mentioned elections. Time to.
- [26:24]
Andrew Weissmann
Yes, let's talk about elections. So Donald Trump gave a speech on Thursday night. Let me just first give a personal reaction. Having worked for Robert Mueller when he was special counsel, I'm old enough to remember the number of times that the president then in his first term, President Trump was saying that the whole idea of election interference by Russia is a hoax and not giving a damn about foreign election interference. In fact, he was asked, would you take information from a foreign government? And he was like, why wouldn't I? Essentially, if it's going to help me. Great. And Robert Mueller's point was there's sort of two parts. One is, is there foreign election interference? And the second is where they conspiring with anyone who is an American. And the task was actually to see whether it was within the Trump campaign, because that was the remit from the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. So those were sort of two separate inquiries. The first one was completely rejected by Donald Trump when it should have been something that in this speech, he said, oh, this is a real thing and it should be a bipartisan issue.
- [27:37]
Mary McCord
That's right.
- [27:38]
Stephanie Ruhle
Hello.
- [27:39]
Andrew Weissmann
I mean, I'm sorry. This was a vindication of Robert Mueller. And by the way, then the Senate did its own independent investigation, and they found exactly the same thing because it's completely documented about what they were doing. So the idea that he now cares about foreign election interference is a joke. And it's going to tee up what I think where you and I are going with this, which is that the speech itself was a nothing burner in the sense that there was no there there. But I think for you and me, it raised a huge red flag about where he's going to take this.
- [28:21]
Mary McCord
That's exactly right. And for those who need a little tighter connection between everything that you just reflected on, going back to the Mueller investigation and tying that to Thursday night. Thursday night. Well, at least the first part of his speech was all about China and China's efforts to interfere in our election. And not only can we poke at what he said about China, but I kept sitting there thinking, what about the Russians who we have documented made all kinds of efforts to interfere, to influence our elections in 2016, also in 2020, also in 2024. And in 2024, we talked on this program about some of the incredible indictments that had come out that showed the depths which Russia had taken to influence our elections. Now, we're going to talk about the difference between influence and interference, because influence means you're using social media. In the case of the Mueller investigation, they actually had boots on the ground, people here in the United States who were ginning up support for Trump and against Hillary Clinton and spreading falsehoods.
- [29:23]
Andrew Weissmann
Right.
- [29:23]
Mary McCord
We had people taking over the Personas of Americans on their Facebook pages and creating fake news organizations that were anti Clinton. All this stuff. Right. All well documented in the investigation you participated in.
- [29:35]
Andrew Weissmann
Mary, you've done your homework.
- [29:36]
Mary McCord
Oh, gosh. Yeah. I lived it, too.
- [29:39]
Andrew Weissmann
Yeah.
- [29:40]
Mary McCord
And so what I think the president was trying to do is suggest that China took it a step further, that it wasn't just using social media to influence their elections, which China did. Now, it's not as clear that they had a favorite winner. They were a little bit more like, let's just sew a bunch of chaos in the US Elections because that benefits us because we come out ahead regardless. If we make this a chaotic election where there's a lot of distrust, then this all benefits China. But the President wanted people to think that China actually, I think, had mucked about in the results, and that has no founding at all in the results.
- [30:15]
Andrew Weissmann
And also was able to infiltrate voting data.
- [30:21]
Mary McCord
Right.
- [30:21]
Andrew Weissmann
And was able to scoop up non public voting data. And what I would say is there was no data to support that. And what he said would be entirely consistent with them doing what both Democratic and Republican parties do, which is buy data.
- [30:41]
Mary McCord
That's right. And you can buy a remarkable amount of personal data about Americans.
- [30:45]
Andrew Weissmann
Exactly. There was no data to support it. And so you have to ask yourself, and I was asking myself, okay, so why is he doing this? There's an obvious like, oh, if we lose the midterms, I want to say that there was fraud. I want to blame the blue states that are not giving over their data and say, oh, look, the red states that have given over data to the federal government, they're fine, but it's the blue states which are the problem. And in fact, he said, we think there's 250,000 non citizens who are registered. And he says registered. And then if you look at the page he cited registered and or voting. But then you look at the page he cited and there's no data to support it, though he says it happened. And the White House page on this says it happened in four blue states.
- [31:35]
Mary McCord
Right.
- [31:36]
Andrew Weissmann
And that becomes important for how this could be weaponized later. Because you could imagine the following scenario, which is, we told you that there was fraud. We had worked with red states when they had turned over data. Here's all the information that shows that there were deceased people voting. By the way, there's a whole problem with that because it's unclear. What they mean is, oh, there are people on the voter rolls who are now dead, but they haven't.
- [32:06]
Mary McCord
They haven't voted either.
- [32:07]
Andrew Weissmann
They haven't voted and they haven't bothered removing them. But they're not voting because they're dead. As opposed to people stealing that information
- [32:15]
Mary McCord
and voting for them.
- [32:16]
Andrew Weissmann
Exactly. Which is not at all what's on the data sheet.
- [32:19]
Mary McCord
Right.
- [32:20]
Andrew Weissmann
So what I'm concerned about is that the votes start coming in and Todd Blanche is told. And it could be dhs, it could be the military are told to seize ballots because they get to say, we warned you, you didn't turn over the data to us. And for that reason, everything that we predicted about election interference and improper voting is a real issue. And you only have yourself to blame because you could have taken proactive action and you didn't. And so now we are. To me, that's the end game. There are all the other pieces, which is, you know, I didn't actually lose. All of that, of course will happen, but the real concern is whether this is the blue states who are fighting and winning. The we are not required to turn over this data, that the Trump administration is going to say, hey, this is a win win, because you may win that lawsuit, but we are going to turn that against you.
- [33:24]
Mary McCord
I feel like we're reliving 2020 again. Right? Take yourself back to 2020. As early as April, Trump starts seeding doubts about the election. Right? All kinds of information about it's going to be rigged, there's going to be fraud. He talked then about non citizens voting. He talked to then about this and that and the other. Trying to normalize in people's heads. In my opinion, the idea that you should be concerned about the integrity of our elections and it may be that there's fraud in the election. And then of course, this just went on steroids throughout 2020, doubled down on it after the election where he lost. And that led ultimately to the fraudulent elector scheme, the scheme by which the Republican electors in seven swing states that Donald Trump had lost, went ahead and certified that he had won and sent their electoral ballots to the Vice President and pressured him to count those ballots on January 6th. That's what led to the rioters saying, hang Mike Pence. Because Donald Trump said, if Mike Pence had had the courage to do what needed to be done and count those votes or else send everything back to the states, then we would have won. He's saying we, meaning him and Mike Pence. Like, in my head, I'm like, here we go again. He's seeding that, oh, there's going to be this foreign interference that actually changes the results. Our machines are vulnerable. He's seeding with data that is unsupported that there are hundreds of thousands of non citizens voting, therefore our elections are not going to be valid, they're going to be rigged. It's all about blue states because they don't provide the information, like you said, et cetera, et cetera. Not only, again, normalizing this in people's heads that this is something they need to be worried about. But potentially setting up other scenarios, kind of like the fraudulent elector schemes scenarios where potentially he tells Todd Blanche, I need the FBI to seize ballots. Like you said. You mentioned the military. I want people to know the military has no authority under law to be doing domestic law enforcement. In order to do that, he would need to invoke authorities like the Insurrection Act. He tried to invoke other authorities last year when he sent federalized National Guard and sent them to LA and Portland and Chicago. And ultimately the Supreme Court said this statutory authority you're trying to rely on requires that you to have used the regular military first. And you didn't do that. And you would have also had to comply with all kinds of other criteria that the court didn't even get to. But there are things he would have to do that could be challenged. I also think that the potential misuse of the military is something I'm very, very concerned about. I just want listeners to know it's not like he could just call up the secretary of defense and said send the military to all the blue states to gather up ballots. Now I say it's not like he couldn't. He could do that. It would be unlawful.
- [36:05]
Andrew Weissmann
Exactly. The one thing I would add to that wonderful and scary comment is that the other similarity that we have now and before is to a somnambulant Congress because there were so many people in Congress who were perfectly willing to go along with the 2020 scheme and the idea that Mike Pence doesn't have to count these votes. Again, not everyone by a long shot, but certainly now you don't see a lot of pushback on what Donald Trump said. There's just, oh, I'm just going to keep my head down and normalize a rant without thinking about why is it being done and the really scary nature of it. Lots of media is lots of Democratic senators and Congress people are doing that. But it we have the same problem. Okay, Mary, should we take a break?
- [36:59]
Mary McCord
We should.
- [36:59]
Andrew Weissmann
And come back and share important information. Yes, yes, exactly. Okay.
- [37:14]
Stephanie Ruhle
There's a lot of news to cover.
- [37:16]
Ms. Now Announcer
Money.
- [37:17]
Stephanie Ruhle
The economic fallout from the war, Is it temporary power? Is this White House for sale?
- [37:22]
Ms. Now Announcer
Politics?
- [37:22]
Stephanie Ruhle
What is your message to the country right now?
- [37:24]
Ms. Now Announcer
Money. Power. Politics With Stephanie rule, weekdays at 9am Eastern on Ms. Now.
- [37:34]
Mary McCord
Welcome back. As we indicated at the top of this episode, we want to spend part of this last segment talking about some new information, some new reporting by the New York Times about data on investigations of alleged assaults on ICE officers. Because a lot of what we're seeing when we see these ICE surges in various communities and lots of arrests, I think the goal is 2000 arrests per day by ICE is we're seeing encounters with protesters and encounters with people who ICE is looking for and encounters with people when they make a mistake about who they think they are looking for. And a lot of what we're hearing out of DHS and ICE is, oh, people are assaulting our officers. How true does that seem to be, Andrew, based on this reporting?
- [38:21]
Andrew Weissmann
So I think the context of this, Mary, is really important. And the New York Times has done some really excellent work. And the reason I'm giving a shout out to them is, you know, there has been a lot of criticism of the press and a lot of it is correct and right. But there are some really intrepid reporters and some really great work being done. And one is what you've talked about, Mary, which is the data collection on what has happened to these cases that have been brought. Understand that that is looking at cases brought. That is very different than what's happening on the ground before a case is brought, which could magnify this much more. You know, there's as bad as the data is that cases brought, there's what's happening on the street. But the second piece of reporting that is why you are seeing these kinds of protests. In my view, the main reason is a list of shootings involving federal immigration officers. You have between July of 2026 and going back to March of 2025, a series of fatal shootings and other shootings. So there's a total of 23 people are aware of the killing of a man in Biddeford, Maine, another man in Houston. So Mr. Guerrero and Mr. Arroyo, people are certainly aware of Alex Preddy in Minneapolis and Renee Good in Minneapolis, of Mr. Villegas Gonzalez in Franklin Park, Illinois, and Mr. Martinez in South Padre island in Texas. Those are fatal shootings. In addition, the Times has reported, and we will put this in our show notes, numerous shootings that there, but for the grace of God, did not lead to fatal interactions. And that has led to people being outraged, furious, wanting to speak up, wanting to do something about it. Now, just to be clear, Mary and I are not here to defend illegal action. For God's sake. We spent our lives dealing with that. And we're not here to say that there should be violence on the right, left, center, anywhere but peaceful protesting, recording officers holding up signs, chanting, none of that is prohibited. In fact, it is protected activity under our Constitution. And so that has led to people being deeply, deeply upset about what is happening to the community. And obviously, Minnesota got a lot of attention, and now we're seeing it in addition in Maine and in Houston. But it in so many ways has affected so many parts of our country in ways big and small. It's unfortunate that it shouldn't have to take the killing of somebody and also a lack of a sense of justice for what has happened. Because one of the ways that you can show that you think this is wrong and there should be accountability is by having independent, fast, fair investigations of what happens and holding people account. And that is so lacking at the federal level. And that relates back to Todd Blanche. But there has been so little federal cooperation and so little even speaking out, which you would think would be what the attorney general and the deputy attorney General would want to do, to talk about the way in which you seek justice for the victims, but also if the agents did something correct, which we've talked about, you want to have that kind of investigation to make sure that there is a real looking through of this. And the other New York Times piece of reporting is that the FBI and the Department of Justice are not going to be looking at these kinds of interactions between immigration authorities and civilians. In other words, whether there was an improper or not improper shooting, which traditionally is what the Department of Justice has looked at and has participated in in a whole variety of settings, including in the Civil Rights Division, to make things count. So you sort of have three pieces of New York Times reporting that paint a really compelling picture.
- [43:14]
Mary McCord
Let's try to see how these things that seem disparate fit together. Right. So the shootings are what have outraged, as they should, Americans. And it shows so many things. It shows that officers are not being adequately trained on the use of force and when it's lawful and when it's not. They are clearly being encouraged by DHS leadership to be extremely aggressive. And we've seen that in ways that really brush up against constitutional rights, too, like this notion, remember when we talked about this months and months ago, that you could enter a house without a warrant forcibly to get someone you think might be here unlawfully. That is not the law. You don't get to just enter into private property without a warrant. Police can't do that if they think somebody in there committed a crime. Right. Unless they're in an exception, like hot pursuit. So we've seen all kinds of abuses. So all of this aggressiveness has led and these surges has Led to a huge uptick in encounters sometimes and tragically. And you did a good job laying them out, Andrew. Fatally. But these encounters have oftentimes resulted in ICE claiming we were the ones being assaulted. Certainly there may be instances, like you said, where there are assaults on ICE officers. And we're not trying to forgive that. Certainly they're saying that in each case of a shooting, well, I was under threat and other ICE agents were under threat and we had to do this for our self defense.
- [44:36]
Andrew Weissmann
Look at Renee Gerda and Alex Preddy.
- [44:38]
Mary McCord
That's right. That's what they've claimed in those cases. But also now we know from the New York Times of hundreds and hundreds of other instances of just encounters. These are the things that they're claiming. And the reporting by the New York Times even shows body camera footage as they're encountering somebody and a protester or others out on the street, civilians. They're already yelling. The ICE officers are already yelling. The code name of the statute for assault on a Law enforcement officer. 18 USC 111. Right? 18 USA 111. They know that this is what they're going to charge. And this reporting is that in 558 charged cases of assault on an ICE agent, 191 have been dismissed, often by the government itself when they realized we don't have the goods here. 22 people have been acquitted, four have been convicted after an actual trial. 246, that's not insignificant. Number were pleaded guilty and there are 95 pending cases. So if you take out the pleaded guilty ones though, and you just look at then what went forward, more than 200 cases, you have almost all of them being dismissed and 22 resulting in acquittals. According to the New York Times, we have two judges who found that agents purposefully destroyed evidence, including ordering a defendant to delete cell phone photos. We have the reporters and this is why the shout out to New York Times is so important. They actually went through the case files of all these cases. Right. To see the evidence. Look at the body worm camera videos. And they say in dozens of those cases, those videos show that it was the agents who were the first to get physical, including shoving and tackling or pepper spraying defendants, et cetera, et cetera. So really shows this over aggressiveness and overcharging, which is a DOJ decision to charge a crime. DHS may be the one and ICE who are being overly aggressive, but DOJ makes that charging decision. Then you contrast this with the reporting from yesterday that FBI internal guidance, again, which is denied, says we're just not going to investigate these one elevens anymore. And then it's like, well, wait, why? Is it because you're doing a terrible job with them and you're losing all the cases because there's no merit? Or is it because. And this is what was the gist of the reporting, is that in the course of doing an investigation into whether a civilian assaulted law enforcement, you're coming up with some information that could actually show that law enforcement, and I should say ice, because that's what we're talking about here, was in the wrong and that could bode poorly for those ICE agents. That's a terrible reason not to investigate something. Right.
- [47:11]
Andrew Weissmann
Not just terrible reason. I mean, the message is don't worry.
- [47:15]
Mary McCord
That's right.
- [47:15]
Andrew Weissmann
We have your back. A couple things. One, even if you add it back in the cases where someone pleaded guilty, because as we talked about at the outset, those are convictions. So if you include the people who pleaded guilty and the people found guilty, you still have, let's assume that the number is roughly 50% are dismissed or found to be or acquitted. They are bad cases. And then you have 50% that are good cases. Let's just assume that's the data. That is not 95 or 90%, which is the normal DOJ conviction rate, which is super high under your typical Department of Justice, under Republicans and Democrats, it just sort of stays. And that's because people want to prosecute cases that are meritorious.
- [48:02]
Mary McCord
That's right. That have evidence that support them.
- [48:05]
Andrew Weissmann
It's not like there's a dearth of crime out there. So that's point one. Point two is, as lots of people know listening to this, is this idea of body cam evidence.
- [48:15]
Mary McCord
Yes.
- [48:16]
Andrew Weissmann
As has been widely reported in Houston, I believe there is reporting that there is no body cam evidence, that they either had body cam equipment but didn't use it, or they didn't have body cam equipment. That is just unbelievable after being given billions. That's with a B of dollars.
- [48:37]
Mary McCord
Yes.
- [48:38]
Andrew Weissmann
In my day, there was a lot of emphasis on trying to tape record and tape recording. And there was a whole movement in terms of tape recording confessions at the state level and the at the federal level. And one of the things that has happened around the country in various localities is if you do not tape, there was an effort to say, well, if you don't do it, there should be a presumption against the government. Not that it's dispositive, but at the very least there should be a presumption against you. Here the idea that let's leave aside the sort of destroyed evidence, I mean that should be a crime and it actually can be a crime if it's under certain circumstances. But the idea that there is no body cam footage is to me just one more red flag as to what is happening and is a reason that you I think are going to see more protests and a real sense that this is not a system, an equal system of justice that is happening here and that you're setting what people can feel like a system where you have goons out on the street with the badge, with the imprimatur of the government when it should be the exact opposite. That you're going after gangs and hoodlums and the government is the so called white hats bringing the righteous cases. This is so inverse in terms of the opposite of what you would expect 100%.
- [50:07]
Mary McCord
And this is stuff we're going to be following. We know that this is something that really matters to a lot of the American people. It's something that should matter going into the midterm elections. And we will certainly keep on top of what is happening as things change or don't change when it comes to these kind of charging decisions.
- [50:23]
Andrew Weissmann
Mary, there is a case that was recently filed that you wanted to flag for people just top level so they know what we want to talk about as this case proceeds.
- [50:33]
Mary McCord
Yes, this was filed by Mahmoud Khalil. He's the Palestinian Muslim US lawful permanent resident who was a former Columbia University student. Our listeners have heard us talk about him before because he was targeted by the administration for deportation. He was held for a substantial amount of time, lots of different legal cases to try to get him habeas to get him released and he's still facing deportation proceedings. He is alleging and I think a very very thoughtful and creative but if they can prove what's in the complaint, very substantially documented case of a conspiracy by people within the administration and private actors because people within the administration can't just conspire among themselves really according to the law, but public and private actors to jointly single out Mr. Khalil and other non citizen Palestinians and their supporters who for arrest, detention and deportation as punishment for their support of Palestinian rights. And I'm basically reading that from the first paragraph of the complaint and in just brief it is alleging that Heritage Foundation, Batar, the Canary Mission, their leaders and agents, that these are the private organizations and actors who compiled lists of people to target Palestinians, Muslims, those speaking out on behalf of Palestinians rights. They created a blueprint for plan for how they would be targeted, called Project Esther, according to this complaint. These are the allegations and this was the plan that they now say that Senior advisor to the President Stephen Miller, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Homeland Security and others essentially all then worked hand in hand with these private defendants to target the people who were provided to them by the private defendants. It's a substantial conspiracy, civil conspiracy case under the Ku Klux Klan act, an act that was passed in the Reconstruction era by Congress to actually be able to provide a cause of action for conspiracies to deprive the civil rights of black people. And that is now being used here. And I think it'll be very interesting to follow. The government has not responded yet. Heritage foundation and the other private actors have not responded yet. We will come back to it. And the last thing I'll say before we end is this sort of fits into what we have been seeing. This is taking action to push back against what we've been seeing out of this administration. We've also talked about before targeting leftists, antifa groups, right? And we talked about NSPM 7, the National Security Presidential memorandum that says go after. Use every tool at your disposal to go after those who hold anti American, anti Christian, anti traditional views. And we've seen also last week Secretary of State Marco Rubio convene a global group of leaders, really sub leaders, because most of the global group was like, I don't really think this is an issue. So we're not sending our top person but leaders here in the United States to talk about this incredible threat, according to him, of violence from the left.
- [53:36]
Andrew Weissmann
And the issue there is that we will be continuing to focus on is that obviously you can target, if you're in the government, violence by anybody, whether it's left, right, center. But when you're saying, oh, we're only going to be doing it or the real problem is on the left and not the right, then you're using First Amendment activity and you're doing it based on viewpoint discrimination. Exactly. It's such a perfect tie in to the CALEA lawsuit. But anyway, so we wanted to flag both of those because they're really important. We'll keep our eye on it and bring them back as we see developments there. Mary, thank you so much. Thank everyone who is listening for staying engaged. And remember, you can subscribe to MSNow Premium on Apple Podcasts and you'll get this show and other MSNow Originals ad free. And you'll also get subscriber only bonus content. We are also available on YouTube. Head to Ms. Now. Main justice to Listen this podcast is
- [54:41]
Mary McCord
produced by Vicki Vergolina Nicholas. Manuela Yodar is our Associate producer and Cassidy Corey is our intern. The audio engineers for this episode are Bob Mallory and Hazik Ben Ahmad Fared, Katie Lau is the Senior Manager of Audio Production and Aisha Turner is the executive producer for MSNow Audio.
- [55:00]
Andrew Weissmann
Search for Main justice wherever you get your podcasts and follow the the series.
- [55:19]
Ms. Now Announcer
Yeah, Maxing is so maxing right now bro. Get ready for spicy chicken maxing because Carl's Jr. Is saving you big with a 5.99 maxed out double stack Double stack Double stack Spicy chicken sandwich. Seriously just five 99 double stack spicy chicken. This is unreal value in the Bromosphere Bromosphere the new spicy Chicken Max Wallet Friendly Max Tasty only at Carl's jr. Available for a limited time at participating restaurants, taxon included. Not valid for use within a combo or a combination with any other offer. Discount.