E (2:53)

You have been lying to the American public about this war from day one, and so has the president. The strategy has been an outstanding example of incompetence. This war of choice is a political and economic Disaster at every level. You were incompetent then, you're incompetent now.

A (3:13)

Do you believe that the president is mentally stable enough to be the commander in chief?

E (3:17)

Do you believe.

B (3:18)

Did you ask the same question of

E (3:19)

Joe Biden for four years?

D (3:20)

Joe Biden is not the president.

E (3:22)

You need to resign immediately. It's the incompetence.

D (3:28)

Hegseth testified that the cost of the Iran war has hit $25 billion so far. That is an enormous figure, but according to Politico, it, quote, falls far behind many outside estimates. Hexeth dodged other critical questions on the Hill today. He refused to give an estimate on the timeline for withdrawal from Iran. He refused to say whether he is, quote, beholden to the president or whether he's beholden to the Constitution. He also refused to say whether he had advised the president to go to war. And then there was this. He got tripped up on a key point. Take a listen.

E (4:09)

Their nuclear facilities have been obliterated underground. They're buried and watching 24 7. So we know where any nuclear material. Reclaiming my time. We're watching a second here. We had to start this war, you just said 60 days ago, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat.

F (4:29)

Now you're saying that it was completely obliterated.

E (4:31)

They had not given up their nuclear ambitions and they had a conventional shield of thousands. So Operation Midnight Hammer is nothing of substance. It left seeing the same place we were before.

D (4:46)

Joining me now to kick things off tonight is admirable ad. The admirable Admiral John Kirby, the former White House national security communications adviser. He is also an MSNow national security analyst. Admiral, even some of the Republicans say that the Trump administration has failed to provide a compelling rationale for this war or to articulate what the end game is here. Do you think that Secretary Hegseth provided any clarity today with this jaunt on the Hill?

B (5:15)

I think there were some missed opportunities for the secretary today. I think this would have been a terrific chance for him to lay out what the strategic objectives are and how they're. And how they're going after each and every one of them. And I didn't see anything in the hearing today, and I watched a lot of it that convinced me that they were actually trying to answer that question. It was a missed opportunity for sure, to lay out to the American people finally. I mean, it's been 60 days before the secretary testified, finally to lay out why we're doing this and why now.

D (5:48)

Well, I thought it was interesting that he did take the opportunity to do some political Mudslinging. So what did you make of the Secretary calling both Democratic and Republican critics of the war the, quote, biggest problem and the biggest adversary here?

B (6:04)

I was really sorry to see that. I was not happy to see that very early on in the hearing. You know, it got so political and so partisan and, and the rhetoric coming from the Secretary was so vitriolic about the critics of the war. It's not unpatriotic to question your government when your government takes you to war. And given the fact that this administration did not go to Congress before they went to war, did not try to lay the predicate for why they were going to war with the American people, I think it's fair for critics and supporters to have an opportunity to express those views and ask those questions here at this hearing today. So again, again, I think it was a missed opportunity for the secretary and I'm really sorry to see that it got so vitriolic so soon because again, it's not unpatriotic to question your government. It's actually one of the most patriotic things you can do, particularly in a time of war.

D (6:59)

Well, there have been a lot of questions about the strike on the Iranian girls school. This happened in the early days of the war. And today Democratic Congressman Adam Smith brought it up. Let's take a listen to that exchange between the congressman and the secretary.

E (7:16)

The girl school that got hit in the first days of this war. There is absolutely no question at this point what happened. We made a mistake and that happens in war. We identified this target based on earlier charts, and yet two months after it happened, we refused to say anything about it. Giving the world the impression that we just don't care. We do not care about the casualties and the chaos that is caused by our war and we should care.

D (7:48)

What do you make of the fact that military leadership has refused to take ownership of what many are regarding as a colossal mistake?

B (7:57)

I. I think it's important for the United States military to complete this investigation as quickly as possible. I'm frankly a little surprised that it's taken this long, although I know there's a lot of interagency coordination that has to go into to laying out the findings conclusively. But I think it's important to wrap this up quickly and to completely transparent with the American people about what happened, why it happened, and more critically, how we're going to prevent it from happening in the future. I know that the US Central Command did a thorough job here. I've talked to some officials there. I think there's a process problem here that it's taken too long to work its way through, but it's imperative. And Representative Smith is not wrong. I mean, we should come clean on this so that we can, more importantly, learn from it and prevent it from happening again.

D (8:49)

What does it mean, though, that we won't acknowledge that perhaps a mistake was made here? Even in the absence of a conclusive investigation, something obviously went wrong.

B (8:58)

I want to believe, Melissa, that what's slowing this down is the interagency coordination process, because the preliminary findings, at least as reported in the press, made it seem like it was. The intelligence was perhaps old, that was applied to the targeting solution, and the intelligence that was provided to the military came from outside the military. So I want to believe that what's slowing this down is the coordination process with the intelligence community, and they'll wrap this up quickly. That's the generous view of this, and that's the view that I plan to take. I think the cynics view would be that this administration doesn't like to admit mistakes, doesn't like to apologize, doesn't like to show what they consider weakness. But it's not weakness if you've made a mistake, if you've hit something in error, then admit it as soon as you possibly can and tell the public what you're going to do to try to prevent it from happening again. That's not weakness. That's strength. That's confidence. That's security in your process and in your military capabilities. And that's not what's being transmitted to the American people right now. Again, I want to believe this is a process problem and not a policy problem. But the cynics I know, I understand are out there thinking that this is more of a policy issue.

D (10:11)

Well, the cynics are not just focused on that particular issue. They also have raised concerns over Hegset's personnel decisions. Take a listen to Congressman Don Bacon.

E (10:23)

I share a bipartisan concern of the firings that we've seen at the Pentagon for the six service chiefs, for example, the Coast Guard. We had a huge bipartisan majority here that had confidence in the army chief of staff and the secretary of Navy. And I would just point out it may be constitutionally right. You have the constitutional right to do these things, but it doesn't make it right or wise.

D (10:50)

So there have been a lot of discussion of these personnel firings within the military, and some news outlets, including the New York Times, have noted that women and minorities appear to bear the brunt of these firings. What do you make of this shift in the personnel. And what does it mean for the fighting force that is incredibly diverse as our armed forces are, to have a leadership structure that may be less diverse in terms of race and gender than it has been in the past?

B (11:18)

It's hard to know, to know exactly how to answer that question because they haven't been transparent about why these individuals are being fired. Now, Representative Bacon is right. They certainly have the constitutional authority to hire and fire as needed. If you lose the trust and confidence of the commander in chief, then you need to go. I get that. But the congressman's also right that that doesn't necessarily make it the proper thing to do. And you have an obligation to explain to the American people why you're doing it particularly. And you're doing it at the scale that this administration is doing, the numbers of generals and admirals that are being let go with no explanation whatsoever. And the math bears the math. Right. It is largely people who are minorities or women. And I think that that requires explication. I think that they with an all volunteer force. To your second question, when you're not governing conscription, when you're not making people join the military, it's an all volunteer force, you have a special obligation, maybe a higher oblig, to explain how you're recruiting and retaining individuals and just as importantly, letting them go. It sends a horrible message to the rest of the force that to open a question to them as well whether their service is even needed because they're not white and they're not male. Again, I hope that's not the case here. But we don't know because they're not explaining it. And the numbers do certainly contend a very worrisome pattern here of getting rid of people who are in the minority of the American population. Look, when you're an all volunteer force, you can't afford to ignore any segment of the American population. And when our service members raise their right hand and swear that oath of the Constitution, they're swearing an oath to defend all Americans no matter who they are, no matter who they voted for, no matter what they believe or where they worship. And that's a really important traditional foundation of our democracy and the US Military today.

D (13:23)

All right, Admiral John Kirby, thank you so much for kicking us off so admirably tonight. Thank you. We will be back in just 90 seconds with Congressman Seth Moulton, who is also on the Hill today directing some hard questions to Secretary Hexa.

F (13:41)

Earlier you called us feckless for questioning your war. Do you think Congress was smart or feckless when it failed to ask tough questions of the Bush administration and gave them a blank check for Iraq. How is this war going? Do you think we're winning? Do you call Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz winning? They blockaded us, and then we blockaded their blockade. That's like saying, Tag Garret, are you afraid to take ownership of this? Do you think it was a good idea or not?

D (14:09)

As promised, joining me now is Congressman Seth Moulton, Democrat from Massachusetts and an Iraq war veteran who you just saw grilling Pete Hegseth. Congressman, those were some tough questions for the secretary, but what did you make of his answers?

F (14:25)

I mean, first of all, he confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that he still has absolutely no plan for how to bring this war to a conclusion. And he's becoming very squeamish about even admitting that he advocated for the war to the president and that he thinks it's a good idea. Now, of course, he insisted on saying that it was winning, but when I went through the various measures by which you might judge whether he's actually winning this war, it seems like they're losing on every count. And at the end of the day, he should not be losing a war that he should not have even started.

D (14:56)

Was that the biggest takeaway from today's hearing, that there's no plan here, there's no path forward, and there's no reason for us to be in Iran right now?

F (15:06)

I mean, look, there is a reason to recognize that Iran is a national security threat. We don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And Democratic and Republican administrations over the last 50 years have agreed on that. In fact, the first Trump administration agreed on that. And guess what? Iran has never had a nuclear weapon under any of these administrations, and they've all been able to achieve that without starting a war. So the fundamental question is, what are you gaining from this war? Because we know some of the costs. 14Americans dead, a cost to taxpayers of about $600 apiece if we go with the $100 billion estimate, which is revised down from their initial request to Congress, of an additional $200 billion. At the same time, they're advocating for a $1.5 trillion defense budget. $1.5 trillion. What does that mean? We throw these numbers around Washington, and I asked the secretary if he could just explain what that means to the average taxpayer. Look, that's $9,000. $9,000. If you have an extra $9,000 lying around to pay for Hegseth's Pentagon, let me know.

D (16:12)

But I certainly don't Congressman, you have served in the armed forces, and you know that leadership matters. Did today's testimony make you more or less confident about whether the secretary is the right person to be leading this war effort right now?

F (16:28)

Less confident, although I can't say I was surprised. He's the most incompetent secretary of defense in American history. Remember, he was only barely confirmed by the Senate. And what you heard from not just Democrats, but Republicans on the committee as well is that we really do not have any confidence in this decision. And when asked questions about decision making, he cannot justify what he's doing.

D (16:59)

All right, Congressman Seth Moulton, thank you so much for joining us tonight. Still ahead, the Trump DOJ's Comey indictment. The second one is already backfiring, with many legal voices on the right objecting. Take a listen.

E (17:14)

There's no crime here.

B (17:16)

I think the case is frivolous. Just showing the picture is going to be a weak case in terms of a threat.

D (17:24)

But first, the Supreme Court guts the venerable Voting Rights act, triggering an extraordinary dissent from the liberal justices. We will get into it. That's up next.

A (17:36)

On any journey using Uber, it helps to know you're getting into the right car. Pin verification adds an extra step to make sure your ride is your ride before the trip begins. Your app gives you a unique pin. Just tell it to your driver and they'll enter it in their app before the ride can start.

F (17:50)

Hey, what's your pin?

D (17:52)

2538.

A (17:54)

That way you know you're in the right car taking the right trip, and your driver knows you're the right passenger. Make sure your ride is your ride with pin verification from Uber. One more way Uber is putting safety at every turn. Learn more on the Uber app.

E (18:07)

Simone Sanders Townsend and I have known each other for more than a decade, tussling over politics and policy when she worked in the White House and I reported on it.

D (18:16)

And now we're friends and colleagues. And on our podcast, Clock it, we are positioning ourselves at the intersection of culture and politics.

E (18:23)

Clock it is where we talk about what we see and hear in the news. So you can start to clock it, too. Clock it with Simone and Eugene. All episodes available now.

D (18:42)

We now turn to a landmark Supreme Court decision with stark implications for American elections. Today, the court's conservative supermajority struck down a Louisiana voting map as unconstitutional, finding that lawmakers, quote, illegally used race when drawing a new majority Black district. The 6 to 3 decision split along predictable ideological lines. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, asserted that the ruling preserves A central tenet of the Voting Rights Act. His opinion reads, quote, allowing race to play any part in government decision making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost any other context. In a scathing dissent which she read from the bench, Justice Elena Kagan slammed the majority for laying the groundwork for what she called the largest reduction in minority representation since the era following Reconstruction. Justice Kagan wrote that the majority's ruling licenses states to, quote, dilute minority citizens voting power. And while the majority claims that this is merely an update to the law, Justice Kagan, writing for the three Democratic appointees, disagreed sharply, maintaining that the decision, quote, eviscerates the law. She called the decision, quote, the latest chapter in the majority's now completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act. During oral arguments back in October, Justice Kagan asked Janee Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who represented a group of black voters, what the stakes were in this case. Take a listen.

E (20:29)

What would the results on the ground be?

D (20:32)

I think the results would be pretty catastrophic. If we take Louisiana as one example, every congressional member who is black was elected from a VRA opportunity district. We only have the diversity that we see across the south, for example, because of litigation that forced the creation of opportunity districts under the Voting Rights Act. Today's ruling is a sad departure from decades of precedent. And it is also a very sad development for a law that was a signature, key accomplishment of the civil rights era, landmark legislation that sought to protect minorities from discriminatory voting practices. Critically, today's ruling is the latest in a series of decisions from the high court that over the last decade have incrementally hobbled the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana, a state with a sizable black population, will likely now lose one majority black Democratic district. And the ruling also opens the door for other states to redraw their congressional maps ahead of an already contentious midterm election year. Today, lawmakers spoke out about the ruling.

E (21:47)

This decision today by the Supreme Court is a slap in the face. This is one huge step backwards for racial justice and for the health of our democracy. It is an attack on a crown jewel of our democracy. It's not Donald Trump or his Supreme Court majority that should be the ones to decide who gets to represent you in Congress. It's the American people.

D (22:20)

Joining me now to break all of this down is the Reverend Al Sharpton, host of Politics Nation here on Ms. Now. He is also the president and founder of the National Action Network. Also with us tonight is Leah Lippman, a law professor at the University of Michigan and My co host on the strict scrutiny podcast, Rev. Let's get right into it. The Voting Rights act was already hobbled after years of the Supreme Court incrementally chipping away at it. What does this ruling mean for voting rights in the United States for African Americans and other minorities?

E (22:50)

Well, it was horrible. Now it's destroyed, in effect, and it shoots in the heart of voting rights and civil rights. Because what they're saying is that you can no longer deal with the fact that there was racial exclusion and therefore you must be able to hold people accountable for continuing a racially exclusive kind of policy. And if you mention Ray saying that it was being exclusionary, then you can't do it. Well, then how do you remedy the fact that we were, you know, people act like we're asking for something. We only are saying to remake what you did to us. That's affirmative move was made against us.

D (23:36)

So this is an important point. The map here was a remedial map drawn after Louisiana engaged in what the black voters termed a racial gerrymander and what a court found to be a racial gerrymander. And so the court ordered Louisiana to draw a new map that created an additional black opportunity voting district. And the court in this decision now says that the consideration of race and drawing that district is itself unconstitutional.

E (24:02)

And what you then have the effect. So you have the huge population of blacks in Louisiana. We'll put y' all all in one district and the ones of you that don't live in that district, you won't matter anyway.

C (24:13)

Yeah.

E (24:14)

And so we can end up with several white congressmen from Louisiana and one black. And that's fair and equal because you can't bring up race. And that's what they will try to do all over the country is lump one district, two at the most, and have the rest of the state in smaller populated districts, because you're not even talking about the same population, smaller populated districts. So in effect, you will have the number of blacks in Congress and in state legislatures and in city councils. Minimum. Minimum. So we will have minimum input, but we gonna have to pay the same taxes.

D (24:56)

All right, Leah. Speaking of paying the same taxes, we called this right on strict scrutiny. We said this was going to happen. We listened to the oral arguments. Let's take a listen to some of the sounds from that oral argument last fall where Justice Kavanaugh and some of the other justices basically signaled where they were going on this. Take a listen.

E (25:17)

This court's case, in a variety of contexts have said that race based remedies are permissible for a period of time. They should not be indefinite. If it happens to be that people of one race or another race overwhelmingly prefer one of the political parties, does that transform the situation into racial voting? Is it acceptable under section 2 for

F (25:46)

a court to intentionally discriminate in a

E (25:49)

remedial map on the basis of race?

D (25:53)

So, Leah, we called this. We said that this is a court that's extremely skeptical of any use of race, even if it is for remedial purposes. Did this opinion translate the way you expected after listening to the oral argument, or was it even worse?

C (26:08)

It did translate what we expected, but that doesn't make it any less appalling. The oral argument clips you played signaled some of the things, things that Justice Alito, Justice Jim Crolito wrote into this opinion, basically declaring that time's up on multiracial democracy. Since things have changed so dramatically, racism is apparently over that we no longer need the Voting Rights Act's protections. You also heard Justice Alito's question, which basically signaled that, in his view, racial gerrymandering just doesn't exist in a world where there is racially polarized voting. That is, it's not permissible for minority voters to argue that they are entitled to a separate opportunity district if they don't align with the state's partisan objectives. And then you have Justice Gorsuch just saying it is equivalent for the Voting Rights act to require states to consider enfranchising racial minorities with Jim Crow segregation. He's treating the two as equivalent, calling them both intentional discrimination.

D (27:09)

And this really prompted outrage from inside the chamber. So Justice Kagan chose to read her dissent from the bench. It's a very unusual step. Insiders in the courtroom said that she struck a defiant tone and was clearly upset when she was reading this. And she was especially aggrieved when she read the parts where she disagreed with the majority's claim that they were, quote, unquote, preserving the central tenets of the vra. Is this a preservation of the Voting Rights act, or has the court effectively overruled old Voting Rights act, decades of precedent, and basically hobbled the statute?

C (27:46)

I think they've effectively nullified it. Justice Alito's majority opinion made it all but impossible to establish a violation of the Voting Rights act, saying that in order for plaintiffs to succeed on a Section 2 claim to establish illegal racial discrimination in redistricting, they have to show that you can create an additional majority minority district, including a majority black district, that would result in the same partisan breakdown as the chosen Partisan breakdown, I. E. That the majority black district would have to vote Republican. This is, of course, describing a null set. So by making it impossible to establish a violation of the Voting Rights act, he's all but nullified the law. You know, Justice Kagan obviously read her dissent with passion. And in the oral argument later that morning, she said, I'm losing my voice. I lost my voice. Indicating maybe how emphatic she was.

D (28:38)

All right, revolution. This ruling, many commentators have noted, will likely create new GOP districts across the South. The New York Times map this out what this region might look like. Here's what the map currently looks like, with democrats holding around 24 seats. And here is the plausible redistricting scenario without the input of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It shows Republicans gaining 12 more seats. Can we expect other states to begin pushing to take advantage of this ruling ahead of the midterms? Florida has already passed a law through its legislature to redistrict their seats going forward. They've already.

E (29:20)

I think you absolutely can look for other states to try to take advantage of it. I think that this is something that was projected when many of us were saying that, don't ignore Project 2025. They're doing exactly what they said they were going to do. And those of us in the civil rights community was warning of this. We were alarmists. Well, we're here now, and we're now going to have to deal with the fact. And let's remember that blacks and whites went to the south and fought to get the Voting Rights Act. Goodman, Cheney, and Swerner, two Jews and a black were killed for fighting for the Voting Rights Act. So was Viola. Luisa. So this was not just blacks saying this. These were blacks and whites saying, let's uphold democracy. And here we are getting ready to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the country. And going in, we're reminding blacks, oh, you can't bring up race. You're not equal. In fact, you weren't even independent in 1776.

D (30:18)

All right, there's so much more to say. In fact, I'm going to make you all stick around. Leah and the Rev are going to be with us for another block. We have so much more to discuss after this quick break

A (30:30)

with Share My trip from Uber. You can send your live trip location to the ones who matter most, like Dan and Hannah, who always wait up to make sure their daughter gets back to her college dorm room. Room. Or Tiffany, who's running late as usual and her friends are tracking her trip to make sure she's actually on her way.

D (30:45)

Look, she's right there. She's three minutes away.

A (30:47)

Or Sam, who never goes anywhere without her roommate knowing exactly where she is. Some journeys are meant to be shared. Share your ride in real time with Share my trip on Uber one more way Uber is putting safety at every turn. Learn more on the Uber App.

E (31:01)

Listen to your favorite Ms. Now shows anytime as a podcast. Enjoy new episodes of Morning Joe, Deadline, White House, and the Rachel Maddow Show.

B (31:10)

Every small D Democratic muscle that we have is flexing.

E (31:15)

Plus the Last Word with Lawrence o', Donnell, the Beat with Ari Melber, the Weeknight and more on the go wherever you get your podcasts for ad free listening to all of your favorite shows. Subscribe to Ms. Now Premium on Apple Podcasts Foreign

D (31:36)

we're back with Reverend Al Sharpton and Leah Litman talking about this landmark ruling in the Voting Rights act case. Leah, I want to come back to something that you said about Justice Alito's majority opinion. As you mentioned, he seemed especially concerned about the question of polarized voting and partisanship in these redistricting cases. And he seemed to be saying that while partisanship is fine, it's fine to draw districts according to partisanship. It's not okay to rely on race. What's the relationship between race and partisan affiliation, though? In many of these areas in the

C (32:10)

south, race and party are very closely correlated. There's racially polarized voting. You know, by some estimates, you know, 70 to 80% of minority voters might be registered Democrats, and so the correlation between them makes it virtually impossible to disentangle them.

D (32:27)

And he seemed to be saying that when these claims are presented as racial gerrymanders, in fact they're just permissible partisan gerrymanders. Can they be both?

C (32:37)

They can be both, and it can still be a racial gerrymander, even where a state says it is advancing partisan aims because they are still suppressing and diluting the voting power of racial minorities. But essentially, Justice Alito gave them a green light to engage in partisan gerrymandering and in so doing dilute and suppress black voting power.

D (32:57)

Another member of the conservative bloc, Justice Thomas, said that he would have gone further and would say that the Voting Rights act doesn't even apply in circumstances Right. Relating to districting at all. What do you make of that? Is that an invitation for new litigation to further hobble the Voting Rights Act?

C (33:15)

Well, he said he would have gone further. He also indicated he was basically fine with the majority opinion, which would do well enough since it would basically bring the redistricting litigation to a close. So while Justice Alito's majority opinion protested that they weren't ending the Voting Rights Act, Justice Thomas has always kind of let the cat out of the bag and said, no, no, no, no, no, we're basically ending any districting challenges under the Voting Rights act and that's a good thing. Thing, right.

D (33:39)

Reverend Sharpton, let's get down to brass tacks. The south has one of the largest shares of Black eligible voter. D.C. actually has the largest share and they can't vote in. So they're not represented in Congress at all other than by a non voting delegate. But the south has a huge share of black voters and now it stands that their representation in that region is going to be severely impaired. Going further, what do you make of this? What are the prospects going forward? What can we do in this situation? Has the Congressional Black Caucus indicated that they have plans? Is there legislation that they are thinking about, challenges that they're bringing? What's the next step here?

E (34:21)

We've been on the phone all day, back and forth, members of the caucus, members of the Civil Rights National Organization, and I think that one, clearly we have to get people out in huge numbers to vote vote, so that if you put in a different Congress with a different speaker, you can then talk about legislation which will then have to be challenged by them in the courts.

D (34:46)

Can I just think about the. So the numbers have to be huge because the distortion in the electoral landscape from gerrymandering and suppressive voter laws is already so vast and profound. You have to have a ton of new voters.

E (34:58)

No, you have to have a huge turnout. And they have to understand what's at stake here is our right to vote. It's not about which person you think has the most charisma or whatever, that this is about our right. And we must really get that huge turnout and then have that new Congress, that new Senate, that new city council all the way down, push for new laws, knowing there'll be challenge, but having it go back up through the system to give us time to really not lose a lot of representation, because we're really talking about losing representation for blacks in America systemically. Because the only way we did get the representation at the level we did was we changed the system. So as discouraging as this is, how did we get it in the first place is how are we gonna have to do it again?

D (35:51)

All right. The only way forward is through Reverend Al Sharpton and Leah Lippman. Thanks so much for joining me. Still ahead, why Even conservative analysts admit that the Comey indictment is bogus and new backlash to Trump's attack on free speech and Jimmy Kimmel. That's all after the break. I wonder if the suggestive supporting that

E (36:20)

anybody who posts the numbers 8, 6,

B (36:23)

4, 7 is subject to potential investigation.

E (36:28)

Look, every case is different. Every threats case is different.

D (36:34)

That was Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch facing questions about the prosecution of James Comey. The former FBI director appeared in court today to hear the charges that Donald Trump's Justice Department has filed against him in a second indictment. This new indictment accuses Comey of threatening to kill the President by taking a photograph of these seashells. Comey's lawyers said that they plan to ask a judge to throw out the indictment on the grounds that it is part of a vindictive prosecution. And they may have a point. Even right wing analysts admit that this flimsy criminal case is likely to go nowhere. Take a listen.

B (37:19)

I must be in a parallel universe to be talking about the shell artwork of James Comey.

E (37:24)

There's no crime here.

B (37:25)

I think the case is frivolous. Just showing the picture is going to be a weak case in terms of I think Comey's people will move to dismiss it, that it's protected speech. And I think that motion will be granted. It would very likely be viewed as protected speech if it was the basis of a criminal indictment. That alone would have a hard time standing up in court.

D (37:48)

It's a common theme. One analyst for the conservative National Review says the case is simply bogus. Comey is just one of many targets in Donald Trump's personal revenge campaign, abusing the powers of the federal government to hurt his political enemies. We're also seeing this pattern of retribution in Trump's latest attempt to attack Jimmy Kimmel. As payback for a recent joke about the Trumps, the FCC is now reviewing the licenses of ABC stations that carry Kimmel's show. And many voters are not amused.

E (38:26)

I just look at it like, you know, he's telling a joke, you know, I mean, same thing Richard Pryor, Fred Samford, the rest of them did. So I wouldn't, I get offended.

C (38:35)

I think he likes to take away free speech when he doesn't agree with what is said.

D (38:41)

That's literally the whole point of the

C (38:43)

First Amendment is being able to speak your mind.

E (38:45)

If you take it in other ways in a joke, then maybe you need to check yourself.

D (38:52)

Legally, all of these prosecutions or persecutions are on very shaky ground. And politically, they are creating big headaches for the GOP in the midterm terms. Joining me now to discuss all of this is Alexis Loeb, former Jan. 6 prosecutor who served as a deputy chief at the DOJ overseeing the Capitol siege investigation. Alexis, Jim Comey's lawyer said that they are going to try to get this dismissed on grounds of vindictive prosecution. Are they likely to succeed?

G (39:21)

I think they have a decent likelihood of success here, Melissa, maybe even a higher likelihood of success than they had when they challenged Comey's last indictment on those grounds. And, and the reason for that is

D (39:34)

that a shell game? No.

G (39:37)

One of many puns I've heard, including

D (39:40)

the lowest form of humor. I apologize.

G (39:42)

People are shell shocked at the charges. We could probably spend the whole segment talking about those. But vindicta prosecution looks at whether the defendant is being targeted because they exercised a protective protected right. And here, compared with the last time around, Comey's lawyers can also point to the fact that he challenged his first indictment successfully and on everything they could argue before about being the, the target of retaliation. Now, they can also say that Mr. Comey has been targeted for challenging that first indictment successfully.

D (40:18)

Jim Comey is not the only Comey who has been in the news recently. Maureen Comey, his daughter, who was a prosecutor of the Southern District of New York, was also summarily dismissed by the Trump administration, and she has recently been allowed to continue in her suit against the administration. What do you make of these personnel purges at DOJ and the U.S. attorney's offices around the country, and what they mean both for morale inside the department and for the rule of law more generally?

G (40:44)

They're one example of how the administration has targeted its perceived enemies who hold a whole variety of positions, both individuals and organizations. And I think you also see them come together in the new indictment in another way that's concerning, which is that the DOJ and the FBI simply don't have have the manpower that they used to have in part because of these purges and all the departures. And so I think that that has to make you question the administration's choice to spend law enforcement resources, federal law enforcement resources that arguably are now more scarce than ever. On the picture of Seashells that was posted many months ago.

D (41:30)

So that's a really important point. You have fewer prosecutorial resources because you have fewer people in the department. You still have the same number of crimes that need to be prosecuted around the country. And instead you're focusing on this stuff, this kind of personal retributive stuff that's about one person that's not the way the department has ever operated. Is it going to be possible to put the DOJ back in order after this administration or a subsequent administration?

G (41:58)

I I think that that is a great question and I think it will probably require some combination and people willing to be to come back and perhaps being inspired by a mission to come back and rebuild the department.

D (42:18)

Let's pivot to the First Amendment. It's not the first time we've seen the president take aim at his critics. He has sued media institutions for making statements that he doesn't agree with or making statements that he views as defamation. They've never actually proceeded to an adjudication determining that they were, in fact, defaminatory. What do you make of the FCC's attempt to get in here and target TV stations that broadcast Jimmy Kimmel's show? Is this just a show of brute force on the part of the administration to cow individuals into compliance with this administration?

G (42:53)

Well, I think it's not just targeting individuals, too. It's targeting corporations and the organizations who those individuals are affiliated with. Because in addition to kind of directly targeting or potentially even threatening individuals, it's possible that organizations or corporations might then retreat in the face of pressure and also themselves can exert pressure on the people who work for them, which is

D (43:20)

something we have heard in the wake of a number of these lawsuits and firings. All right, thank you so much, Alexis Loeb, for joining us and sharing all of this. Really dark times in terms of where we are in terms of free speech and the Department of Justice. We will be right back. Back after this short break.

E (43:43)

The Voting Rights act, sections 2, 4, 5 were the cornerstones of providing political power to African Americans that then led to a whole range of other steps to make America more just and more equal. It was the cornerstone and the culmination of years of struggle, blood, sweat, tears, in some cases deaths. I might not be here as president had it not been for those who courageously helped to pass the Voting Rights Act.

D (44:32)

That was former president and former constitutional law professor Barack obama Speaking on June 27, 2013, the day that the United States Supreme Court issued its first blow against the Voting Rights act in Shelby county versus Holder.

A (44:46)

That does it for me with Uber's new women preferences. Women riders can request a woman driver whenever they want, like Amy, who's traveling solo in a city she's never been to before. Or Danielle, who works night shifts at the hospital. Or Kelly and Jana, who were way overdue for a night out because sometimes comfort comes from having another woman with you. Request women drivers with women preferences on Uber. Learn more on the Uber Apple.