CBS's Top Anchor: MAGA Owners Helping Kill “60 Minutes”

Summary

---

The Beat with Ari Melber: CBS’s Top Anchor—MAGA Owners Helping Kill “60 Minutes”

Date: June 2, 2026
Host: Ari Melber
Featured Guests: James Carville, Rep. Glenn Ivey, Andrew Weissman, Jacob Soboroff, Alex Tabitt

Overview

On a pivotal election night across six states, Ari Melber dissects major political and legal developments, with a focus on Republican infighting, Trump’s controversial policies, and threats to American journalism under MAGA-aligned media ownership. Featuring in-depth interviews with James Carville, Rep. Glenn Ivey, and Andrew Weissman, the episode explores crises in the GOP, slams the administration's attempt to fund convicted January 6th defendants, and addresses the diminished state of independent news at “60 Minutes.”

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Election Night: GOP in Crisis & Trump’s Apathy

• Multiple consequential primaries: California, New Jersey, Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, South Dakota ([00:31]).
• Republican fears grow over Trump’s fallout: poor leadership, scandals, and “unprecedented, likely unlawful” programs risk a wipeout in upcoming midterms ([00:31–05:27]).
• Host Ari Melber sets context:

  “Fears across the Republican Party that Donald Trump is not only going to be held accountable for what he’s done, for policy failures, for an open ended war, for high prices, but also for really gaffes of choice damaging the Republican Party and its brand at a vulnerable time…”
  —Ari Melber [00:31]

Notable Conservative Voices Predict GOP Doomsday

“We assume we’re going to lose the House on Team gop and but now more and more political pundits are predicting that the Republicans are going to lose the Senate.”
—Megyn Kelly [04:30]

2. Carville Unfiltered: Trump’s Indifference and Policy Failures

• James Carville on GOP’s outlook:

  “At the present time we would win. But unlike being dead, you can change. And the only way that we can change this is by nominating unelectable people.”
  —James Carville [06:07]

• Rebukes Ted Cruz's claim that national security/economic issues won’t matter:

  “No, I don’t buy it. Of course I don’t buy it... When people are strapped and kind of living paycheck to paycheck, that he doesn’t see any evidence that’s just having any effect?”
  —James Carville [07:26]

• On Trump’s “I don’t care” remarks about Americans’ finances and GOP prospects:

  ”I’ve never, in all my years in politics, never heard the leader of a political party say, ‘I don’t care if we win.’”
  —James Carville [09:45]

Memorable Moment:

“This guy goes to Walter Reed more than I go to the bathroom.”
—Carville questioning Trump’s fitness [10:31]

• On late-night posting and the White House as “a crime syndicate”:

  “If you’re not concerned by now, I don’t think a 47 tweet night or whatever he does is going to concern you. If you’ve looked at him, the White House has become a crime syndicate.”
  —Carville [13:24]

---

3. Live Voter Pulse: California & Iowa

Jacob Soboroff reports live from LA:

• Enthusiastic turnout in the LA mayor and California governor races ([14:55–17:37]).
• Voter Motown on key issues:

  “We know the homeless situation is a crisis that just keeps on not getting better... I’m looking for a governor that’s going to speak out against Trump, that’s going to put his foot down.”
  [16:15, 16:54]

• Light moment: Pickleball as community, lessons for all ([17:09]).

Alex Tabitt in Des Moines:

• Local scene at a retirement home polling center—focus on Trump’s endorsement and its weight in Iowa GOP primaries ([42:31–43:29]).

---

4. The DOJ’s Controversial “Slush Fund” for January 6 Defendants

• Trump administration attempted to use over $1B in taxpayer money for legal defense of defendants (including Jan 6 rioters) without Congressional approval ([19:19–22:32]).

• After bipartisan congressional outrage, Acting Attorney General Blanche claims:

  “We are not moving forward with the fund. Period.”
  —Acting AG Blanche [20:16]

• Ari Melber voices skepticism about DOJ’s honesty, given history of “lying in court” ([20:31]).

• Both parties emphasize the foundational principle that Congress controls federal spending:

  “If we surrender the power of the purse, which is our most important power, there will be little check and no balance left.”
  —Ari Melber [24:13]

Congressman Glenn Ivey Interview

• Calls out lack of written guidance rescinding the fund:

  “He made a verbal commitment to not go forward with the slush fund, ironically…he refused to put it in writing, even though they had put the slush fund initially in writing…”
  —Rep. Glenn Ivey [26:09]

• Blasts Trump’s effort to secure “family immunity”:

  “He and his family members should not be immune from prosecution for tax fraud or any kind of tax crimes that they may have committed.”
  —Rep. Glenn Ivey [28:24]

---

5. National Security at Risk: Unqualified MAGA Appointments

• Trump appoints Bill Pulte, a partisan loyalist with no intelligence experience, as acting Director of National Intelligence.

• Melber:

  “If someone with his background…submitted a resume…you wouldn’t expect them to clear that early review for any job like intelligence analyst, let alone become the director.”
  [31:46]

• Pulte linked to efforts to target high-profile Trump critics with dubious legal claims ([32:53]).

Expert Analysis—Andrew Weissman

• Weissman on risk:

  “Let’s just focus…on experience…You know that the most important thing is keeping the country safe…And then you decide you’re going to choose somebody who has no experience whatsoever…Just ask yourself who does that?”
  [33:34]

• On the danger of appointing a “hatchet man”:

  “The qualification appears to be that he is a hatchet man who is willing to do things for Donald Trump that are completely inappropriate.”
  [36:07]

---

6. MAGA Media Takeover: “60 Minutes” in Peril

• Coverage of the turmoil at CBS’s “60 Minutes” under new MAGA-aligned ownership.
• Leaked internal audio: Anchor Scott Pelley denounces Bari Weiss, newly installed by the Ellison family, for “murdering 60 minutes.”

  “She was brought in to kill it and she’s been doing exactly that. She has no qualifications for her job.”
  —Scott Pelley (read by Melber) [39:34]

• Weissman:

  “60 Minutes is emblematic of the attack on the fourth estate, on journalism and journalists and independent reporting. That is the life’s blood of a democracy.”
  [39:53]

---

Notable Quotes (w/Timestamps & Attribution)

• “We assume we’re going to lose the House on Team GOP…all the math is bad. We don’t have the cards to play. It’s already a quagmire.” —Megyn Kelly [04:30]
• “I’ve never…heard the leader of a political party say, ‘I don’t care if we win.’” —James Carville [09:45]
• “He made a verbal commitment to not go forward with the slush fund…he refused to put it in writing…” —Rep. Glenn Ivey [26:09]
• “Let’s just focus…on experience…You have to look for some qualification. And the qualification appears to be that he is a hatchet man who is willing to do things for Donald Trump that are completely inappropriate.” —Andrew Weissman [33:34, 36:07]
• “She was brought in to kill it and she’s been doing exactly that.” —Scott Pelley (as read by Ari Melber) [39:34]

---

Timestamps—Segment Highlights

• 00:31–05:27: Election night context, Republican crisis, Trump policies
• 06:07–13:24: In-depth with Carville, Trump’s “I don’t care” attitude, GOP implications
• 14:55–17:21: Jacob Soboroff reporting live from LA (voters, local issues)
• 19:19–24:35: DOJ slush fund for Jan 6 defendants, bipartisan outrage
• 25:51–29:46: Rep. Glenn Ivey on DOJ fund, Trump’s “family immunity” deal
• 31:46–39:53: Trump’s DNI pick, Andrew Weissman on national security risk
• 39:34–41:31: Scott Pelley and MAGA influence at CBS “60 Minutes”
• 42:31–43:29: Alex Tabitt in Iowa—Trump endorsements & local GOP primary

---

Tone and Language

The episode maintains a sharp, skeptical tone toward the Republican leadership and Trump, while using plain, direct language with moments of biting sarcasm and incredulity, especially from James Carville and in Ari Melber’s framing of the legal/ethical violations. The interviews are probing and not shy about condemning what they view as threats to democracy, rule of law, and press freedom.

---

For Listeners Who Missed the Episode

This episode is a must for anyone tracking the dangerous intersection of politics, law, and media in 2026 America. Major stories include:

• The unraveling of the Republican Party as Trump pushes controversial and likely unlawful policies, openly expresses indifference about party success, and risks national security with crony appointments.
• Bipartisan pushback—especially in Congress—against unprecedented executive overreach and Trump’s attempts to shield himself and family from prosecution.
• The accelerating polarization and possible demise of “60 Minutes” as an independent news outlet under MAGA-aligned ownership.
• On-the-ground insights from voters who are hungry for leaders to stand up to Trumpism and address real policy crises.

The episode delivers a compelling reality check through expert commentary, on-scene reporting, and candid, unsparing analysis of what’s at stake for American democracy.

---

Transcript

[A]

Artificial intelligence is moving very, very fast and it's raising new questions just about every day about what it is, what it isn't. When all is said and done, what is the end game? I'm Chris Hayes and as part of my podcast, why Is this Happening? I'm speaking with leading experts each week to help ground that conversation.

[B]

We're right now in a situation where it's very difficult to understand what is real and what's not real.

[A]

Why is this happening? The AI Endgame, a special miniseries from Ms. Now. Start listening today wherever you get your podcasts.

[B]

Welcome to THE Beat everyone. I'm Ari Melber and we are coming on the air here on a big night for many states. You know the music, if you follow the news, you probably know it is another election day in America. And we have you covered on the Beat this hour as well as through all of our special coverage tonight on Ms. Now I'll tell you the latest. These six states have voters going to the polls. Big consequential primaries in big places. California, New Jersey, of course, some of the most populous states. We have Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, South Dakota. We're covering them all. James Carville, who knows his way around the primaries and the general in the midterm, we're bracing for. Well, James Carville is here standing by. He joins me in a moment. I do want to share the context for these elections. There are fears across the Republican Party that Donald Trump is not only going to be held accountable for what he's done, for policy failures, for an open ended war, for high prices, but but also for really gaffes of choice damaging the Republican Party and its brand at a vulnerable time with scandals, Fanta projects, blunders, odd statements, late night, out of touch tweeting and a real rejection of people's concerns about this economy. The big story this week as well in Washington, but one that's resonated across police and military households, was Donald Trump's very controversial idea to siphon your taxpayer dollars and give it to defendants and convicts and even potentially people who'd now the administration is trying to retreat to back away from that over billion dollar fund which could pay all kinds of people. As we've reported, it's already paused in court. It may be a situation where they know they're losing and want to get out from under it. It's also not a story that is over yet. We've told you we will cover these types of controversies without fear or favor. We will tell you what the law is. I've told you from the jump that much of this program is unprecedented and likely unlawful, but that has to be tested in court. Right now it's merely paused. And so whether this is a game where they' to back down from it during voting and a period of pressure or whether they're really going to drop the whole thing is an open question. Indeed, in our democracy, sometimes it depends on what happens, what you do, what the public says, the reaction, the pressure. I can tell you that the acting DOJ chief Blanche, was before lawmakers today who have in both parties been very upset, concerned, even described as, quote, pissed or angry about this proposal, this program. Now, he was saying the administration will basically, in his view, not go forward with most parts of the fund. But we're not just taking his word for it. And there hasn't been a formal dissolution of the program. Trump also doubling down on these so called revenge politics, basically trying to do the very lawfare he said he wouldn't do and put more partisan warriors in positions that could endanger you and our national security. Because instead of having competent veterans or intelligence professionals, he now has what is considered one of his sort of most extreme, unqualified individuals with no intelligence credentials whatsoever, appointed to lead and be acting director of National Intel. In other words, someone who probably could not get a entry level job in intelligence at that organization at that part of the federal government has been put in to lead it. And if it's not for his credentials, what's it for? Well, we have reporting on that. It's for the partisan brawling, other top MAGA voices who failed to push Trump to get back focused on the things that would actually potentially help him hold on to Congress. They are now saying it's probably too late. It's going to be a Republican midterms wipeout. Now, as with all predictions, whether you like the sound of them or not, these are predictions. It's still important that everyone make up their own mind and go vote. And I like to remind you of that, especially on a night like tonight where people in some parts of the country are still voting. And these are primaries, not the midterms yet. But with that in mind, people who've been around politics a lot who have been sympathetic to Trump and the MAGA movement, like Megyn Kelly saying this,

[C]

we assume we're going to lose the House on Team gop and but now more and more political pundits are predicting that the Republicans are going to lose the Senate. So all the math is bad. We don't have the cards to play. It's already a quagmire.

[B]

That's just some of what passes for like the baseline. That's like the premise of how it's looking among people who aren't saying that because they are, you know, rooting for Republicans to lose. Megyn Kelly, Fox News vet, very supportive of Trump for years, although she's been back and forth on those issues at times like some other Republicans. But she's saying that as a kind of a concern or a warning. And that's just in that sort of conservative space. Democrats, meanwhile, have seized on not only the macro factors, the economy, the open ended war, which remember Trump promised would have been over by now. It ain't over. And they're using a lot of Trump's words against him in new attack ads.

[D]

Gas, I don't think about American's financial situation.

[B]

Groceries, I don't think about American financial situation. Utilities, I don't think about American financial situation. Trump's agenda is making everything more expensive. That's the cost of living. That is recent remarks from the president where he doesn't even pretend to say, hey, I feel your pain, I'm with you, I'm thinking about you. We're all going through this together. No, he says, I, I don't care. I want to bring in James Carville. We've got a slew of issues to talk about. But first, James, your view on the elections, these primaries that are unfolding right now. What are you watching? What are you thinking?

[D]

Well, what I'm watching and hoping for is that Democrats elect the most electable general election candidate. And you know, yes, that's a question that somebody's going to have to ask themselves. But in terms of like winning the House and the Senate, I'm reminded of what Yogi Berra said. He is dead at the present time. At the present time we would win. But unlike being dead, you can change. And the only way that we can change this is by nominating unelectable people. And that's always a.

[B]

I lost you maybe for a second, but I got you back and I'm going to play here. Was Ted Cruz just today. Do you think that that will hold in the midterms, meaning the idea of

[E]

national security, which I think is where

[B]

you would argue versus whatever you think the implication is for inflation, for the price of gas? I don't think it's going to impact the midterms material. I've seen no data that suggests that this is having a big impact on the midterms. He hasn't seen it. What's he saying, do you buy it?

[D]

No, I don't buy it. Of course I don't buy it. Neither does anybody else buy it. Moody's, which is a pretty high class outfit, estimated that his stupid war has cost the average American household already 750. We're going to say when people are strapped and kind of living paycheck to paycheck, that he doesn't see any evidence that's just having any effect. When every congressional is not a congressional generic. And seeing where the Democrats are not really up. Look, Santa Cruz is a very educated man. He knows better than this. I don't think he'd be ashamed of himself, but he knows he's not telling the truth. And people watching that, of course this impacts people's views. If you don't think it does, ask Kamala Harris. Doubt about it.

[B]

You know, they, yeah, and we see this when they say, oh, well, the classic political fables, you know, the emperor has no clothes. And in the beginning of the fable, everyone's going along with it. That's what the story's about. You almost get the feeling that Trump says none of this matters, which a lot of people say is like being naked intellectually, politically to what's actually going on. And so then Cruz is sort of trying to sound like and look like the emperor. Oh, this is what they're all gonna do now. They're gonna say this as if Trump has the right message. Of course, as you know, and I think our viewers know, cuz they follow politics closely. Not everyone thinks about it. Remembers that Trump's not on the ballot. He may not care because he doesn't care whether other House Republicans who've tried to back him up every which way, whether they lose their seats. So that's part of that message, whether that works. I wanna play for your response, what we have together here, which is how often Trump is adopting that line that Cruz is echoing. Take a look. As the President said, I don't care if they're over. Honestly, I really don't care. I couldn't care less if they're over, they're over if they're not. You know, I think they took too much time, frankly. I think they started to get a little boring. I don't think about Americans financial situation.

[D]

I don't think about anybody.

[B]

President Trump meeting with cabinet members at the White House, claiming he doesn't care about the midterms when it comes to Iran.

[D]

I don't care about the midterms,

[B]

James.

[D]

Well, you know, if I were a Republican House member, Senate Member I'd about to be pretty like, he doesn't care. What does that mean? That's a new message. I've never, in all my years in politics, I've never heard the leader of a political party say, I don't care if we win. The election night matters nothing to me. And maybe he is so self absorbed that that's true.

[B]

Right. That he's blurting the truth. And they might be talking about it the day after the November elections. Again, I don't like to get ahead of it, but if he says I don't care and does all these things that really show that he doesn't care. And what these people, I mean, you know, you've consulted for these candidates. Some of them spend decades trying to get these jobs that they might lose for really avoidable reasons. No.

[D]

Yeah. And you know, political party has he. He doesn't care. He doesn't what accomplishments he has. They're very meager. Trying to give me a couple of weeks and I can come up with something. But it's very unique that a president would say I don't care. And you know, the other thing is, something is wrong here. This guy goes to Walter Reed more than I go to the bathroom. I mean, there's something here that's just not adding up. And I'm not sure that we know what it is, but I suspect at some point we will know. And can you imagine when we have troops and we have a dangerous situation that he's bored by it? But tell you who's not bored are people on the jail R4 that were like deployed for 9 months. I guarantee you they're not bored. I guaranteed them pilots that are flying these missions, the ships that are guarding these things, they're not bored at all. This is amazing that you'd say I'm bored about the United States's position when we have troops somewhere. I just, I can't. It's almost impossible to digest. It's just not going on anymore.

[B]

Well, you, you're our reality check. When you said it, you said it very clearly. You've never seen a leader of political party say, I don't care whether we win or lose. I mean, that tells you something about where he's at and that he's not even willing or able to pretend otherwise the way one might if they had an iota of care. And the final question I have to you tonight because again, I don't think we should normalize this stuff. And longtime beat viewers, if they go back a few years, they'll Remember James Carville came on here and said he was concerned that then President Biden was operating in a manner where he might be too old for the next campaign. And you got heck from your own party for that. And you said it on this program more than once. And so if anyone has been around the block on this and cannot be assailed for having a political angle, ironically it might be you, a political pro, James Carville. When I ask you about something that is not normal America. The President of the United States went up late at night and wrote 47 posts, reposts or comments in a span of 30 minutes which breaks his prior record of 52 in six hours. And these are jokes. Some of them are hateful, some of them are misleading, some of them are from AI. None of them show any sort of forethought about the mighty power and platform and reach that he has. Some of them were of course as usual fan made tributes which seems to draw his attention whether they're made in this country or by some foreign influence campaign. He doesn't use the available resources to have the government check, he just posts willy nilly. Is this something that should concern Americans beyond the so called optics about what's actually going on in his mind state right now?

[D]

Well, if you're not concerned by now, I don't think a 47 tweet night or whatever he does is going to concern you. If you've looked at him, the White House has become a crime syndicate. I mean look at reading the paper. Look at the number rated in the defense industry on wars. I mean if you are not turned off by all of this then there's something you're just never going to be. But the good news is 65% of the country is turned off Biden. And I don't know if we can get any more than that. And the guy lies all the time. I never think he's telling the truth. He may not care. He may be just that self absorbed that bought a cap. Not going to lose any sleep over it. I don't know Ari, but it is really, really unique. And again, if I were a Republican consulate senator I would be asking myself what am I doing? I worked all my life to get here. I've supported this guy, I've taken every stupid vote that he asked me to take and now I'm walking the plank and he doesn't care. He's going to shove me off the end of it. Okay, that's fine. I mean, but you should have known that before you got involved with it.

[B]

Yeah. Wild. All fair points on primary night. I got reporters standing by in the field, so I'm going to bring them in. James Carville, thank you. We love seeing you. Appreciate all your perspective. Jacob Soborough is at a polling center in la, which is one of the most pivotal places we've seen with the California governor's race, among others. Jacob, take it away.

[F]

The biggest election jurisdiction in the nation, Los Angeles County. Ari Melber. And since I was on air last with our friend and colleague Nicole Wallace, the line has grown from just a couple of people. Let me just show you the end here. Sam. Let's just walk around the corner real quick to stretching around the corner here at Grand Avenue and fifth street in downtown Los Angeles. People are fired up and they're excited about this primary election day here in Los Angeles. And in California, we're picking a governor, obviously in the state to succeed Gavin Newsom, but we're also picking a mayor here in Los Angeles, Karen Bass. The incumbent is facing a challenge both from. And I'm sorry I left the reality star Spencer Pratt and Nithya Rahman, city council person here in Los Angeles. I was just talking to you as I passed by a minute ago. You said you're a pickleball coach at the YMCA here in downtown. Right.

[G]

What's your name from downtown ymca? My name is Motown.

[F]

And so you decided to come on over and vote today. We have a mayor's race and the governor's race. Correct me if I'm wrong. You said Javier Becerra, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services for Governor Anithya Raman for mayor of Los Angeles.

[B]

Yeah.

[F]

What's on your agenda today? What brings you out to vote?

[G]

Honestly, I was going to mail in vote, but I kind of messed up my mailing vote card, so I decided I'm just going to come out in person.

[F]

What are the issues that. I mean, that's the. That's the. The procedure. What about actually in practice, the policies? What are the things that you're thinking about that got you out to vote today?

[G]

We know the homeless situation is a crisis that just keeps on not getting better.

[B]

It is.

[G]

And I was going to vote for the previous mayor, but my partner brought some my attention and I like what Nithya has to offer. And I started to pay attention to her a little bit more. And I'm like, yeah, we should.

[F]

In this governor's race, Gavin Newsom has really been a foil for President Trump. I was saying to my colleague Nicole Wallace in the last hour here on Ms. Now, those ICE raids that played out a year ago were right here on the streets of downtown Los Angeles. And Gavin Newsom was here, the mayor was standing up against him. What are you looking for in a governor of California, the fourth largest economy in the world, when Donald Trump is in the White House?

[G]

I'm looking for a governor that's going to speak out against Trump, that's going to put his foot down, that's going to go against all these inhumane ICE raids that are, that are happening. It shouldn't be happening. And someone has to put a stop to it immediately.

[F]

And then just on the YMCA pickleball thing, can anyone show up and play pickleball at the Y downtown?

[G]

Anyone can show up. You can get a guest pass. I'm the coach.

[B]

We got a great community.

[G]

Come in, have fun, learn pickleball, be

[B]

a part of our community.

[F]

I don't know if Ari Melbourne's a big pickleball guy, but it's really nice to meet you, Ari. That's just the voice of one voter here. But as I walk back and I just show you all the way inside, it's going to be an exciting election night here in Los Angeles and throughout California. And we'll all be a part of that special coverage with Rachel starting at 10 o' clock on the East Coast.

[B]

My friend Jacob, a couple things. Number one, you're going to be busy. Everyone should watch all night. We got a lot to follow. Number two, respect. But pickleball always struck me as easier. Tennis?

[F]

Oh, yeah. I'm not good at either, to be honest with you. So that's why I was wondering about lessons.

[B]

Well, we could all use lessons in a lot of things. Jacob, we'll be checking back in with you and keep working the lines. And our thanks to you tonight. I'm going to tell folks you got a lot more coming up. The official behind Trump's controversial AI Jesus image now wants to run us Intel. Not a joke. Serious issue. We have the pushback. Andrew Weissman explaining what all that means as well as legal views tonight. And the Trump acting Attorney general claims that maybe they're backing down on parts of this controversial fund with money that could go to defendants, convicts. But there's a lot more to the story. We have a representative. We are staying on. What I've told you is one of the biggest legal controversies ever. Next 90 seconds,

[H]

Msnow presents the chart topping original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week, award winning sportscaster Bob Costas.

[B]

We've long been living in media Echo Chambers in which anything you want to be true is true, even absent compelling evidence.

[H]

The best people with Nicole Wallace listen now. For early access ad free listening and bonus content, subscribe to Ms. Now premium on Apple Podcasts.

[B]

Turning now to the other big story that has really rocked the White House and DOJ now for some time, a conflict and controversy of their own making, and one that I've told you is probably unlawful, but it requires the courts, Congress and others these days to make sure that unlawful things don't happen. The Trump administration had put forward an unprecedented, likely unlawful system where they wanted to take over a billion dollars of your taxpayer money not appropriated by Congress and give it out to defendants, convicts, even potentially people who violently attacked the January 6 police officers who were defending Congress that day, which we know because they wouldn't rule that out. Now, a judge did pause it temporarily. I've reported on that along with my colleagues here. And that was already a quick setback. Now, today, the doj, Acting Attorney General Blanche was before a key committee and this is how he puts their plans.

[E]

We are not moving forward with the fund. Period.

[B]

Not moving forward ever. Correct.

[E]

Notwithstanding what we do in those litigations and defending our rights and making sure our rights are protected, we're not moving forward with the fundamentals.

[B]

Not moving forward with the fund. Correct. That's it. If those words mean what they say, that they will not seize the taxpayer dollars and use this fund to hand them out, that is a huge and formal retreat. And in other eras, of course, the news. And I'm part of it, right? A news anchor would say, well, he just said it to Congress, it's a crime to lie to Congress. We're going to take that as a pretty big news development. Well, these days they lie all the time. Indeed, the New York Times has a story this week about how the DOJ has been caught lying in court where there are sanctions. So whether Blanche really means it and this happens has to be pursued over time. As for the funds, some convicted January 6th rioters and convicts and even seditionists are telling PBS that the president will find a way that there's going to be money. The whole fallout over this likely illegal plan has rocked Trump. Republicans were upset about it to the degree that they did something they don't usually do. They actually refused to help him on a vote as a first order way of saying this is bad. And we might go further. Politico reported that some top leaders say that even if the fund is sort of paused right now, given the track record, it's Just not enough to calm the concerns. Senate Dems are trying to force a vote to block the fund formally under the force of law. That would further strengthen the challengers in court because remember, judges in court have already paused this thing temporarily because they need to review whether it's even legal. If on top of that, Congress actually takes action to say we didn't appropriate this, it's not legal, well, that would further strengthen the efforts to stop it in court. And we've shown you, unlike some things in the MAGA era here, pretty prominent members of both parties condemned this likely illegal fund plan. This is a corrupt deal. I think it's stupid on stilts. That is the definition, as Thomas Jefferson, I think once said, of tyranny. It's our job in the Congress, in

[F]

the Senate and the House to hold the executive branch accountable.

[E]

I don't think it's an appropriate use of money.

[B]

What are your thoughts about this from the President at this point?

[F]

Yeah, not a big fan.

[B]

I call it a payout pot for punks. It's all about weaponizing the tax dollars of the American people to support Donald Trump's private militia. So that had been the immediate growing bipartisan pushback. Now if the DOJ does say the fund is over, that's the money part. It's not clear what would happen to another unsavory, conflicted, possibly also unlawful thing they're doing, which is that Trump sort of sued himself and then says the IRS and DOJ will with himself to never investigate him or his kids. Should the Trump administration try to go another direction to sort of bob and weave on this for a few weeks and then bring it back. You have to remember something that I want to show you tonight that we put together. There is no room under our constitutional order to have a president seize billions of dollars from you. The taxpayer for any just made up goal in this case won a lot of people opposed. But even if it were a more popular goal and override the sacrosanct long standing power of the purse that sits only with Congress. The Constitution grants Congress, not the President, the power to decide how the government spends taxpayer money. It is ultimately Congress, not the executive, that has the power of the purse. The power of the purse rests with Congress. We can take that power of the purse through appropriations. If we surrender the power of the purse, which is our most important power, there will be little check and no balance left. The founders gave us that for a reason, to check an out of control executive branch.

[D]

If the executive had unbridled power to

[F]

determine how to spend the money.

[D]

We would have an imperial presidency.

[B]

We would indeed. Those are members of both parties on multiple issues. This is a bedrock principle. And this is America. If you have the money for something, you can get a lot done. And if you don't have any money for it, whether you're a random person or the government, well, that's going to slow you down here. They wanted to give out money to some of the worst people you can imagine legally. That's why so many of them had faced legal consequences in the past. And I'm going to bring in one of the individuals, a congressperson who was questioning Blanche just today on this newsworthy topic and discuss this bedrock limit when we returned. The Trump administration has been in really active public retreat over its controversial, possibly unlawful plan to try to seize taxpayer dollars and hand them out to defendants, ex convicts, potentially even people who attacked police. That has been temporarily paused in while it's under review. Members of Congress in both parties have spoken out today. We heard from the acting attorney general that they are backing down, but the details are not clear nor certainly final. We have a very newsworthy guest right now, Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivey, who was on that key committee questioning Blanche today. Welcome.

[I]

Thanks for having me.

[B]

Great to have you. Let's start with the news as best we can get it out of your committee, and then we can also talk about the law and the ethics here. But what do you understand Todd Blanche to have committed to today, if anything?

[I]

Well, I mean, he made a verbal commitment to not go forward with the slush fund, ironically, or oddly enough, he refused to put it in writing, even though they had put the slush fund initially in writing to lay it out to start with. So not clear on why there is such a strong opposition to that on. On his part and the administration's part. But it's a step in the right direction. The other part of this, though, is the other side of the equation, which is the immunity, which never should have been.

[B]

Let me. Can I slow you down? Sure. Can I slow you down on. Let's finish your. You make a point about whether they're discontinuing the program. Then there's that immunity, which whole second piece, which goes to nepotism and his family. But as you say, they started this, as most things in government must, with an actual written plan that then staff can consult and follow. And your point is that if, if he were being 100% honest and this were over, you would expect them to then issue guidance or a statement, a letter of something to end or retract what is currently the written guidance inside the doj. So while you say it's a step in the right direction, what else do you think Congress should do here on that point?

[I]

Well, I mean, to your point, people have already announced that they want to seek compensation out of that fund, and it's in writing that this fund will be created. You know, one of the things that could happen is somebody files to get the money, and then you've got a scenario where you've got a written document on the one hand that says this fund is going to be created, and on the other hand, you have a verbal statement with a guy who is the acting attorney general, but not actually even the attorney general yet. And let's face it, the only word that matters in the Trump administration is Donald Trump's. So I don't think, you know, I don't think we can be real comfortable with, with that alone is the commitment from the administration to retract or rescind the document that they put out there. They put it out in writing. They should rescind it in writing.

[B]

And then turning to the other part that independent judge and others have questioned, which is how Trump could sue himself and potentially make a mockery of this whole system and then make a deal with himself. And you mentioned that this claimed family immunity, the other part of the deal. What did you want to tell us about that tonight, sir?

[I]

Well, I think, you know, it's beyond unusual for a scenario like this. You've got the boss telling the IRS and the Department of Justice to give him an immunity agreement that shields him. I've seen estimates in the range of 100 millions of dollars of liability and members of his family, even though the government doesn't get anything in exchange for that, which is normally the only time you give an immunity agreement like that. So, so you've got a deal where you don't actually have parties who have the freedom to make objective and neutral decisions, because Trump is one of those guys who will fire staff or administrative officials who do something he doesn't agree with. So presumably they're going to do what he says. And as one judge hinted at, there really isn't any case for controversy here. He's suing himself, basically. So I think, I think the whole thing is illegal. And B, I think they should strike the whole thing down, including the immunity agreement. He and his family members should not be immune from prosecution for tax fraud or any kind of tax crimes that they may have committed.

[B]

Yeah, well, Congressman, like I mentioned, you were in there today. So I think just getting your readout on what it meant, what you heard, what your committee drew out from the DOJ is important. Helps us and our viewers, we believe, understand what's going on and you've laid out where you think the pressure is going next. So I appreciate that, Congressman, for your time.

[I]

Thanks. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

[B]

Absolutely. Yes, sir. Still ahead, we'll go back live on the ground out this time to Iowa because we're trying to keep track of all the different primaries today. And we'll be covering that for you on Emmaus now all night tonight. So get comfortable. We got a big night together. Also, Trump has a unqualified pick to be in charge of U.S. intelligence. This is a national security crisis. Next, Following a big national security story, Donald Trump is announcing that a kind of partisan warrior who has been accused of misusing government power to target Democrats and misuse information, MAGA ally Bill Pulte will be the new director of National Intelligence. His current post is in housing. He has no apparent national security experience. If someone with his background submitted a resume or had their LinkedIn reviewed to work in US intelligence, you wouldn't expect them to clear that early review for any job like intelligence analysts, let alone become the director. He also is allegedly planning to stay in his current job, so he would do both. Now, Mr. Pulte has been known most not for intelligence or housing policy, but rather for using, critics say, misusing the current rule to get up dirt and cook up cases against people that Trump wants indicted, many of whom, remember, were not indicted in any previous context because apparently there wasn't enough evidence to do so in a lawful manner. Take New York Attorney General Letitia James or Lisa Cook, who served on the Fed. Pulte used a kind of a hook where he had housing information to try to refer them for criminal prosecution. So he took materials that he had and made what are allegations in the news? We tell you whether something's been proven or there's a lot of sources or not. These were just kind of broad based allegations that he said people that Trump didn't like probably committed mortgage fraud. How convenient that it was only people that were on Trump's enemies list. He also reportedly was involved in aspects of the failed probe into Fed Chair Powell. So that's the background. This is still a big intelligence post that deals with national security and other countries and depending on what's going on can become more or less important. If intelligence matters more, you can remember in the run up to the Iraq War Other periods where you want a really top person working full time and it's still a hard job. There could be an uphill battle here as well on Senate confirmation. Well, we don't need a weaponized DNI

[J]

profession is there if he's somebody won

[B]

that position permanently, as you all know,

[J]

a lengthy road ahead.

[I]

My understanding is the Senate doesn't have a role in. In confirmation of an acting director.

[D]

But would you like them?

[I]

I see no. No evidence of any qualifications for that job.

[B]

No qualifications for the job. I want to bring in Andrew Weissman, former FBI general counsel. He was also top prosecutor in the Mueller probe and as a prosecutor has of course worked on plenty of law enforcement national security issues where competence independence is paramount. We could start in so many ways. I'm just curious if you could begin with that point. Is it good or bad for US national security to have someone this inexperienced who seems to be there based on his last job as a way to do a partisan war potentially illegally, rather than the actual job?

[E]

So let's leave the partisan issue to the side for the moment and it's relevant. But let's just focus for a moment on experience. And this is what I'd like to viewers to think about. You are president of the United States. You have seen for four years the presidential daily brief. Day in and day out, there are serious threat streams involving people who want to harm Americans involves what's happening here in the United States within the homeland and overseas. Obviously people can remember 9, 11, but there have been many terrorist attacks by the international terrorists and domestic terrorists. You see that every day. You know that the most important thing is keeping the country safe and keeping people in this country safe. And then you decide you're going to choose somebody who has no experience whatsoever in the intelligence community and in law enforcement. As far as I know that. Just ask yourself who does that? Why would you pick somebody like that and not somebody who is the most qualified, the most seasoned and have their experience brought to bear to keep the country safe?

[B]

Yeah, Mark Warner is involved in this. I want to play his reaction as well. Take a look.

[K]

What appears to be his qualifications is that he was in his housing authority job, was willing to take confidential information about mortgages and use that as a way to try to bring prosecutions against Lisa Cook on the Fed or Adam Schiff in Congress, even though the very same practices of owning two homes, half the Trump cabinet has done the same.

[B]

That's a concern there from a top intel Democrat semaphore reporting that Roger Stone, who's at his share of legal troubles. And we should mention as part of the probe you all dealt with him, investigated him, that he and other allies see Pulte's attack dog mentality as a way to wage war and ramp up declassification of sensitive information. Does that reporting concern you as well in terms of what the goal is here?

[E]

That does. Roger Stone, obviously, as is his right, went to trial, he had due process, but a jury convicted him. That the president as also he has the power to do, pardoned him. But this is somebody who was convicted of multiple felonies, including lying to Congress and obstructing Congress. So you would think that that is not somebody who, if the reporting is accurate, you would want to rely on for person who is going to be the head of the intelligence community. And so because of the lack of qualifications, it really does lead you to go to the next step, which is, well, what does this person bring to the table? And it is what you've been saying and which is that it's hard to. You have to look for some qualification. And the qualification appears to be that he is a hatchet man who is willing to do things for Donald Trump that are completely inappropriate. And frankly, grand juries and judges have been rejecting the things that seem to emanate from this individual. It's notable that I don't think he is being nominated officially. In other words, this idea that he's going to be acting, which is a way around having a Senate hearing because you are hearing people correctly pushing back. And I have to say from my experience when I was at the FBI dealing with the intel Kivmanys, they are serious bodies in the House and in the Senate. They see the threat streams, they see how dangerous this world is and they would understand just how irresponsible it is to be putting somebody like that in this position.

[B]

Right. And the abuse of this acting thing, running the government through temps, that's what it is. It's reducing everything attempts for the wrong reason, not because, oh, there's an emergency. You need a line of succession. People understand that. But this trick is clearly running out of steam in Congress and that's even before if the midterms lead to more pressure. While I have you, your new book talks about the importance of truth in our society. The current administration has misused the government to press the public media at times in ways that may violate the First Amendment. There's quite an unusual, intense story that I want to read. I quote Scott Pelley, who is as old school as it gets when it comes to CBS News and the MAGA ownership's pressure on 60 Minutes, which is the most watched news program in the country. This is from an internal meeting where Peli, I'm put this on the screen. Refers to that MAGA aligned ownership, the Ellisons, who put in Bari Weiss and says that she is, quote, murdering 60 minutes. She does not love this place. He's telling this to her installed new boss. And this is after they did some firings at 60 minutes. He asserts she was brought in to kill it and she's been doing exactly that. She has no qualifications for her job. Addressing the New York Times vet who was a new hire there by her, he says, you have slender qualifications for this job. The changes that she's made at the Evening News have been catastrophic. So why should we expect any of this is going to be any better, really? If anyone has ever heard Pelly on air, you know, this is for him. A 10. And this is from an internal meeting. The New York Times obtained the audio that I'm reading from their reporting. Mr. Bilton, the new hire, replies, I care so deeply about this institution. Mr. Peli says, oh, please. And on it went your thoughts on that rather stunning leak out of 60 Minutes and calling into question its future.

[E]

So, I mean, 60 Minutes is emblematic of the attack on the fourth estate, on journalism and journalists and independent reporting. That is the life's blood of a democracy. And it is so absolutely critical. Put together what you just said, with what many people who even don't follow politics on a day in and day out basis, that they are aware of what happened with Jimmy Kimmel, they're aware of what happened with Stephen Colbert. It's all of a piece which is, this is. If you don't like the message, you kill the messenger. The same thing. This is Scott Pelly's comment about you're killing 60 minutes, which is trying to do objective reporting. It doesn't mean you always agree with the reporting. That's what it means to be in the public eye. That's what it means to be a public official. If you can't take the heat, don't take that job. But that's what it means to do that. I remember working for the FBI Director, Director Mueller, and we knew day in and day out that somebody was going to be unhappy with what we were doing in one way or the other. But that's part of the job and being responsible about it and knowing that those are the people you work for. This is an entirely authoritarian response to what is supposed to be the fourth estate and journalism and what you do day in and day out. Ari,

[B]

I appreciate you saying that. It's, again, it's so striking and it shows the level of people that are concerned. This is, this is not rhetoric. This is not a close call. And Mr. Peli is serious and careful with his words, and he feels that this is killing the actual journalism they do. Important for the reasons you mentioned. Thank you, Andrew. A lot going on. We will be right back.

[H]

Thursday, June 25th, an Ms. Now live event from Philadelphia celebrating America's 250th anniversary. Join Rachel Maddow and Allie Vellum with a special guest appearance from Sherrilyn Ifill for a dynamic evening exploring our nation's most pressing issues.

[C]

At this pivotal time, you are helping yourselves. You are helping your country.

[H]

Ms. Now Live presents We the People, America 250. Visit Ms. Now America 250 to buy your tickets today.

[B]

Now we turn to Ms. Now's Alex Tabitt in Des Moines, Iowa, on this primary night. Take it away.

[J]

Well, we are here at a retirement home that's doubling as a polling center. This home is, this retirement home is home to over 300 senior citizens. There's bingo down there. There's water aerobics over there. And right here, there are the polling booths. And in this room will be where the GOP primary is decided. And the big question surrounding the GOP primary here in Iowa is just how powerful is President Trump's endorsement? There were five major candidates in this race. There was no unclear front runner. There's no clear front runner up until last Friday when President Trump jumped into this race and endorsed Representative Randy Feenstra, whose campaign was floundering at that point. If Representative Randy Feenstra comes out to a commanding lead tonight as results start to come in, that'll be an indication of just how powerful President Trump's endorsement may still be in the state of Iowa.

[B]

Ari, Alex, thank you. We'll be watching all of that tonight. And we'll be right back. That does it for us. Keep it locked here on election night. The weeknight starts now.

[H]

Thursday, June 25, an MSNow Live event from Philadelphia celebrating America's 250th anniversary. Join Rachel Maddow and Allie Velshi with a special guest appearance from Cheryl and Ifill for a dynamic evening exploring our nation's most pressing issues. At this pivotal time.

[C]

You are helping yourselves. You are helping your country.

[H]

ML Ms. Now Live presents We the People, America 250. Visit Ms. Now America 250 to buy your tickets today.