← The Beat with Ari Melber
The Beat with Ari Melber
Former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton Indicted
00:41:45
Trump's former National Security Adviser John Bolton has been indicted by a grand jury for allegedly mishandling classified documents. MSNBC's Ari Melber reports and is joined by former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann and former federal prosecutor John Flannery to discuss.
Loading summary
Transcript86 lines
- [00:01]
Host 1
You ever wonder how far an EV.
- [00:02]
Host 2
Can take you on one charge? Well, most people drive about 40 miles.
- [00:06]
Host 1
A day, which means you can do all daily stuff no problem. Go to work, grab the kids at.
- [00:11]
Host 2
School, get the groceries and still have enough charge to visit your in laws in the next county. But they don't need to know that.
- [00:19]
Host 1
And the best part, you won't have.
- [00:21]
Host 2
To buy gas at all. The way forward is electric. Explore EVs that fit your life at.
- [00:27]
Host 1
Electricforall.Org now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of its national red tag sales event going on right now through October 19th. Stop by any of its participating communities and find select red tag homes at incredible Pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the red tag sales event going on right now. Discover the Dr. Horton Difference at drhorton.com Dr. Horton America's Builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder.
- [00:59]
Host 2
Welcome to the beat everyone. We turn to breaking news. The Trump DOJ is indicting a former Trump official from the first term National Security Advisor John Bolton, who served the Trump administration, indicted late today by a grand jury. The case involves allegations of mishandling classified information. Now this is a lengthy indictment unlike some of the recent cases we've been covering. We're got about 26 pages that we've been flipping through and they are trying to make a big case out of it. There's technically 18 criminal counts here that involve the retention that is holding onto or saving and the transmission that is sharing national defense information. Now it details an account that begins in about 2018, in August where the government says Bolton was abusing his position as nsa, sharing more than a thousand pages of information about his day to day activities with what they describe as two unauthorized individuals. So under the rules here, they're not trying to name or shame those people. What we have reporting that suggests it's his family, his wife and daughter who were involved in what his lawyer says today was basically a diary. But the DOJ is saying that this involved the unlawful retention of documents, writings and notes relating to national defense in his own home. And then they used the same D word saying it was diary like entries with this is where they say the legal problem comes in with the government says classified information transcribing handwritten notes from his day's activities into word processing documents sent through a commercial non governmental messaging application to his wife and daughter. And I could just tell you that's a lot of legal language. But just to break that down into plain English, they are saying that during his government service and after, he was keeping notes or diary entries that involved or included classified information and that he was sharing that. And whether it's with his family or anyone else, even a single person under the law that is unauthorized can be, of course, the unlawful transmission of said information. So that's the core of this case. And while there are issues around whether Donald Trump likes another targeting of someone that while once was his aide, is now had been a public critic, we'll get to that. But on the law here, Bolton's own attorneys say this was cleared up a long time ago and that it's known that he kept diaries. That's not a crime. They say they look forward to proving that Ambassador Bolton did not unlawfully share or store any such information. Now, Bolton is among a list of people that we have seen suddenly get indictments after Donald Trump had generally and sometimes publicly demanded more action on his so called revenge list. We knew that FBI agents had already searched Bolton's home and office. That was earlier this summer, seizing documents. And this case may be different from some others. Remember that the Bolton probe, the underlying search for whether there was misconduct around classified information, began before Donald Trump even came into office. Trump didn't name him a target, regardless of evidence, as he did say with Comey. And career prosecutors in Maryland have been looking at exactly this case for a longer period of time. As for the pressure campaign that we've been covering, well, you have former FBI Director Comey and New York attorney James, New York Attorney General James named and then indicted. You have these other individuals who have been pursued. And so this entire set of actions at DOJ do come under this cloud. And remember, if you look at this and say, how could you ignore an environment where the DOJ has broken the rules and protocol? We heard this week from Jack Smith, who described in detail why he, a DOJ prosecutor veteran, understood and knew that the process they used against, for example, FBI Director Comey was wrong, that it looked like they were building the case against the person rather than following the evidence to see where it led. And yet, one other thing you have to keep in mind is Donald Trump has been very happy to have anyone that he dislikes get in trouble. That can be true even if, in addition, the underlying evidence was reviewed or began being developed earlier on. We will follow this case and see whether there is a sort of a stench or a cloud over it based on the way Donald Trump has acted. As for the defendant here, remember you can work for Donald Trump for a long time. You can be very loyal to him in government and politics, et cetera. And if you break with him at all, you may find yourself on the other side of his criticisms and targeting. And so as other people in the country, Republicans, people in the MAGA movement, people on Wall street, people who say, well, if you just stay quiet or support Trump, you'll be okay. As a practical matter, this would be a first big domino showing that may not work either. Because remember, John Bolton has spent the bulk of his public career as a conservative, hawkish Republican in good standing in the Republican Party, who rose all the way up to a top official in Trump's first term.
- [06:05]
Host 1
The separation of powers, it is critical to the survival of the constitutional system. It's the kind of leadership that's been completely absent from the Clinton Gore administration. I think it's the kind of leadership President Bush would provide. I will continue to work closely with members of Congress to advance President Bush's policies. The President spoke quite clear to that point in Germany today when he said Israel had a right to self defense. We're not going to engage in the talks unless and until there's a full and verifiable suspension by Iran of its uranium enrichment activities and the State Department needs a cultural revolution. Donald Trump is a strong personality, has strong views, he's got a strong resolve, which makes him the polar opposite of Barack Obama. Live with North Korea with nuclear weapons, which Susan Rice, Barack Obama's National Security Advisor, is prepared to do, or look at military force, these are not attractive options. We're here where we are today because of the pressure that the Trump administration has put on North Korea. They've never seen an American president this tough before.
- [07:11]
Host 2
That's how John Bolton sounded for the majority of his public career, life and tenure. And the criticisms he's since voiced leaving office about Donald Trump tend to involve evidence, foreign policy, substance. He is someone who basically says that he is the conservative hawk. And when he disagrees with people he's worked for or people in public life, he will make that case. That's as American as any other discourse or democracy. And whether you like or dislike John Bolton's foreign policy, this is one of those charges that will be heard in a lot of different places than some of the other targeting this year. That is, if you give any credence to what his lawyers say, that he is innocent and they argue this case is not on the level. I want to bring in our Experts tonight. Former U.S. attorney Joyce fans and Msnbc analyst, former FBI general counsel and Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissman, also an analyst here. Andrew, your response to this charge? I've tried to basically mention the two factors that there is a longer case record here and you can look at the evidence and these national security information cases can be a little wonky. But on the other hand, this is not a DOJ in the last few months that's entitled to great automatic deference for every criminal case it has brought. Your thoughts?
- [08:30]
Host 1
I do think with this one you need to keep 2 thoughts in your head at the same time. These are serious charges. There is no question as someone who is in the intelligence community, you cannot send classified information, including so it's alleged top secret information that really when you they have some descriptions, short ones about the nature of the information. It is not quite as jaw dropping as what we saw in the Mar? A Lago case, but it is significant. He sent that over unclassified communication systems. Gmail, it's a fancy way of saying that sent it over Gmail, you'd obviously know you can't do that and sent it to two people, albeit his wife and his daughter, but still people who are not cleared to get it. And that risk manifested itself because in fact there was a hack. And so these are serious. There's also precedent for it. General Petraeus did something very similar to this. He was charged. Now he was dealt with in a very different way. But remains to be seen what happens here. It's also the case that unlike the other charges with James Comey and Letitia James, there's a slew of career people who signed this indictment. At the very last page you see what you normally would see, sort of trial attorneys, AUSAs. So all of that is sort of on the one hand and as somebody in the intelligence community previously, I really do take this incredibly seriously. The reason it's you have to keep two things in mind at the same time is that there are two systems of justice going on. Donald Trump was alleged to do something far worse in many ways with many more documents and two forms of obstruction of justice. Pete Hegseth used signal, which is also not a secure system for classified information to what I think has to be classified information that was highly sensitive. And you don't see Pete Hegseth being investigated at all. I would note that Jack Smith in the interview that I conducted said that any administration, any normal one, would have opened a criminal case on that. So I think there's sort of two things going on at the same time. And I have to tell you I think the most serious is two systems of justice, because that is something that's a systemic law, a systemic problem with what's going on in America.
- [11:03]
Host 2
Joyce?
- [11:06]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I agree with Andrew and I think the point he's making is exactly the right one. When we talk about selective invention, vindictive prosecution. This is a selective prosecution of John Bolton for very similar conduct to what Donald Trump was indicted for. And what there's public reporting that Pete Hegseth did that I think is something that Abby Lowell, the very capable lawyer representing Bolton, will force the court to address. But while that's true, I don't think it does anything to undercut what we read in this indictment. This is an indictment that you would expect, expect to see from professional prosecutors. It's very different than the Eastern District of Virginia indictments that we've seen involving Jim Comey and Letitia James. There's a 20 page factual predicate for the charges that are brought against Bolton, 18 of them for both retention of classified material and more seriously, in my view, for transmitting it. As Andrew was discussing through these unsecure lines of communication. I mean, I simply can't imagine sending a Gmail home at the end of the day that contained classified information. It's almost as though Bolton was carving out time during his day to begin writing his book and sending the information to his editors, albeit family members, in a non secure form. Let me just say, Ari, the most damaging paragraph, I think in the indictment, I've been through it once, I'm still reading it, is a paragraph that suggests that Bolton discloses to the intelligence community that he's been hacked by Iran at some point, but he does not disclose that he was sending classified information using the account that got hacked. Now look, the government has to prove willfulness and intent. That's the state of mind that's always the difficulty in these Espionage act cases. But boy, it's telling that he didn't make that disclosure when he disclosed the hack.
- [13:06]
Host 2
Yeah, and Andrew, you mentioned the process near the end of this indictment. They quote Bolton's recent public criticism of Trump officials using signal, using an app to discuss things that shouldn't be on there. And you know, you mentioned this, which road you're on, if you're just on the road approving the case as an attorney, that's the kind of evidence that you can argue shows at least contemporaneous or later awareness that something's bad. So don't do it. You can't say, I didn't know. Here he is in public making the same point, and he's got a lot of experience. On the other hand, Andrew, I thought it was odd reading it tonight because it draws attention to the fact that current officials in the same type of administration are using the same sloppy protocols. What did you make of that?
- [13:56]
Host 1
So, you know, I was thinking about the same thing. And it just if you put yourself in the position of career people in Maryland, the career prosecutors, what are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to not bring this case? Which is at least on the face of it, as Joy said, it remains to be proved. But on the face of it, this is what a charge would look like whether it's using signal or not. If you're a career person, you can't say, well, I'm not going to do it because you know what? I've got an administration that's not willing to hold the president to account or the secretary of defense to account. And that's something, you know, judge is going to be able to decide whether that is selective prosecution or not. And the defendant can raise that. But if I'm a career person and especially somebody who's been in the intelligence community and there were people from the National Security Division that sort of owns this statute and has to approve charges under the statute, at least under normal times, you know, this is what you have to do. And you sort of can't say everybody gets a pass because the secretary of defense got one, even though for all of us sitting here, that is not the way that rule of law should work.
- [15:14]
Host 2
Joyce Vance, I want to thank you for joining me tonight. We're going to finish a quick break and come back with Andrew in 90 seconds.
- [15:23]
Michael Hirshhorn
Are you curious about the hidden side of the Everything? Then I have a podcast for you. I'm Stephen Dubner, host of Freakonomics Radio. Each week we hear from some of the most fascinating scholars and thinkers as we tackle big topics like how whales became the face of environmental activism, how to succeed at failing, and whether public transportation should be free. Go ahead, listen to Freakonomics Radio wherever you get your podcasts.
- [15:52]
Host 1
Did you know 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving? Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with greenlight. Infinity's driving reports monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety plus with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time. Help keep your teens safe. Sign up for Greenlight infinity@Greenlight.com podcast what is comfort?
- [16:25]
Joyce Vance
Comfort is a mattress that feels soft and supportive, made without harmful chemicals. Comfort is being able to invest in your well being and still having money left for the things you love. That's the Eco Organic Mattress from Avocado. Thoughtfully made, surprisingly affordable and trusted by families and with flexible financing from a firm, Organic Comfort is more accessible than ever. Shop the Eco Organic mattress today@avocadomatras.com and save 10%. Avocado dream of better.
- [16:56]
Host 2
We'Re back with DOJ vet Andrew Weissman and we're joined by Ankush Khaduri, a former federal prosecutor and political writer. News breaking here of John Bolton's indictment, a Trump first term official. Ankush One of the things that comes through is that Bolton was into his diaries and viewed that as an on ramp to his book. That whatever that motive is, legally, this was his focus. And a reading from the new charges, it says Bolton began sending basically sections of his book to his publisher and literary agent through a non governmental messaging app. So again, the external stuff that's supposed to be limited and what they say is bad is that the government concluded and told him that that manuscript already contained significant amounts of highly classified information. And their view legally is when you're doing that review to find out what can ultimately be published and shared, anyone like Bolton should know and has a duty not to pre disclose what they haven't authorized yet.
- [17:58]
Andrew Weissman
Yeah, I mean, these are pretty bad allegations. I mean, on the notion that like he was preparing to write a book, I mean, I just gotta say as an American, I find this so offensive that we put these people in these incredible positions of public trust and they're there spending their time taking notes to write a book. It's pretty outrageous. And if the allegations in the indictment are accurate, that remains to be seen. Of course, they're just allegations. It's not evidence. This is gonna be a pretty tough sled, tough sledding for Bolton. There's been already some suggestion that he'll have a potential selective prosecution defense. No doubt he will pursue it, maybe bring it. The problem that he is going to have is that in order to mount a selective prosecution defense, it's not enough to point out that you were singled out for an improper reason. You have to be able to show that other people who engaged in similar conduct have not been charged. And the problem is that plenty of people engage in this sort of conduct have been charged over and over and.
- [18:53]
Host 2
Over again and again. That seems to hang over all of this. There was a different era where DOJ charges like this would be given a lot more deference. Of course, in journalism, we look to the underlying evidence and we give. Try to give people the whole picture. And here you're both referring to what legally is called selective prosecution. And what is this environment? Andrew, you mentioned some of the newsworthy things that former special counsel Jack Smith said to you in your discussion, and we saw that this week. It also got the President's attention, both the interviewee and the interviewer, if you will. And so I want to play what the President said about that. And you take a look. Jack Smith, in my opinion, is a criminal. And I noticed his interviewer was, I think that was Weisman, and I hope they're going to look into Weissman, too. Weissman's a bad guy and he had.
- [19:45]
Host 1
Somebody in Lisa, who was his puppet.
- [19:48]
Host 2
Worked in the office, really as the top person, and I think that she should be looked at very strongly. So the President responding, making allegations, and then I would say almost very casually or comfortably using the power of his office to suggest two other individuals, DOJ veterans, yourself and Ms. Monaco, be investigated. Your response?
- [20:15]
Host 1
Well, I think there are a number of things to note. One, this was done the day after Jacksness interview was posted online at an academic institution where he spoke the prior week with me. So sort of commenting on that, sort of to bring a criminal case because you don't like someone's First Amendment speech or the person interviewing that that person would be consistent with numerous judges who have found that this administration has violated the First Amendment. I just want to say one thing about Lisa Monaco. To suggest that anybody and any man needs to tell Lisa Monaco what to do is first, he obviously doesn't know her, and second, it is incredibly sexist. And the final thing is, you know, a lot of times people cover adjectives and we have to cover it when the President is doing something like this. But, but adjectives and adverbs are not evidence. They're not even rational argument. It's just invective.
- [21:29]
Host 2
Understood. And it's, you know, it's where we are. So I wanted to get you on the record on that, Ankush. The President again, also admits to a lot of this. We've covered the parallels to things that Nixon long denied and that came out on tape were the smoking gun and here the smoke's coming out of the barrel, proverbially, all the Time. I want to play this again. And I always tell viewers why we're playing certain things, not for its factual nature, but for its confessional nature. The President is claiming that like some tin pot dictator, he can phone in indictments of anybody. And that's not how the grand jury and legal system is set up. It very explicitly requires evidence, not just him in charge or anyone in charge. Take a listen to Trump on Wednesday saying he can direct these probes. But if anything, I think this Justice.
- [22:19]
Host 1
Department has been so respectful of the.
- [22:22]
Host 2
Law and what we're doing is nothing.
- [22:26]
Host 1
Are you kidding?
- [22:27]
Host 2
Nothing? They write stories. Why aren't they doing this, this? And I don't have to leave it up to them, but I choose to at this moment, at least the claim is I don't have to leave it up to the independent system or the DOJ than he claims he does. Fact check. False. He was caught addressing Pam Bondi, not leaving it up to her, but very directly agitating for two charges that have since come down. So I wanted to get your response legally on that. And anything else about the Bolton case that we haven't hit yet?
- [23:02]
Andrew Weissman
Well, I mean, look, as a legal matter, can he direct the Attorney General to pursue some charges against them is just like a legal barrier. Not necessarily. But of course, that's not how we want the President to run the executive branch. Or it's not how we want the Justice Department to be run where the President can just direct prosecutions against his enemies for any reason, even frivolous reasons.
- [23:21]
Host 2
Well, you can finish. But to be precise about it, if he says, hey, I want you to make up a case, or I don't care what the grand jury said, I mean, that's the goal, right? If the goal is, hey, indict person A, isn't a valid Attorney general supposed to be able to respond with the facts in the law? And if the facts and law don't support it, they say that's not acceptable.
- [23:45]
Andrew Weissman
Yeah, well, look, if you were to bring contrived charges or fully fabricated charges, that's a different sort of set of issues. What we're seeing so far is colorable, I would say, to be very charitable. Charges against Comey and Letitia James that are unlikely to produce convictions. The problem that he, I think, keeps confronting here, not just with his the Truth social post that he accidentally posted publicly, is every time he makes these statements saying, oh, Jack Smith deserves to be prosecuted or Andrew deserves to be prosecuted, it makes it harder for his own Justice Department to successfully prosecute those people because everybody understands that it's a politicized effort. And to see his attorney general, deputy attorney general, an FBI director just standing there silently nodding, I have to say, was quite shocking and demoralizing. I don't expect much from those people at this point, but it was a bit much to see that display yesterday.
- [24:47]
Host 2
Yeah. And Kosha, Andrew, thanks to both of you. There's a lot happening tonight, I'll tell you. Coming up, we have a very special guest talking about the Mamdani surge and the Trump effect. Also, when it comes to this government trying to to undercut constitutional rights, misuse investigations, the other bombshell is efforts to hijack the IRS as a political tool. Any other night that might be the top story. We get to that with John Flannery next.
- [25:18]
Host 1
Hey everybody, it's Rob Lowe here. If you haven't heard, I have a podcast that's called Literally with Rob Lowe. And basically it's conversations I've had that.
- [25:30]
Michael Hirshhorn
Really make you feel like you're pulling.
- [25:32]
Host 1
Up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J. Fox. There are new episodes out every Thursday, so subscribe, please and listen wherever you get your podcasts.
- [25:53]
Host 2
What is comfort? Comfort is a mattress that feels soft and supportive, made without harmful chemicals. Comfort is being able to invest in your well being and still having money left for the things you love. That's the Eco Organic Mattress from Avocado. Thoughtfully made, surprisingly affordable and trusted by families and with flexible financing from a firm, organic comfort is more accessible than ever. Shop the Eco Organic Mattress today@avocadomatress.com and save 10% avocado dream of better did.
- [26:22]
Host 1
You know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance and keep an eye on your kids spending with real time notifications, kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Sign up for Greenlight today@Greenlight.com podcast.
- [26:53]
Host 2
The Trump DOJ is busy indicting people. We've been discussing the relative strength of the new case against a Trump official, John Bolton, who served in the first term. But there's a lot more going on in general, and I want to turn to that now. A chilling report on the Trump administration openly plotting to use the IRS to target opponents. The Wall Street Journal, a Murdochtone paper says there's an overhaul and the idea is sweeping changes that put political allies or enforcers in some of the top jobs in the building, which enables the pursuit of left leaning groups. And that leads to politically motivated probes. A senior IRS official involved in the effort has drawn up a list of potential targets that includes major Democratic donors. The people said now let's be very clear. This is the alleged abuse of federal government powers. And the IRS of course goes through all kinds of private secret info. And just as the political branches are dealing with the threats and now charges against some individuals. So how do you oversee the executive in Congress when you're in danger of being investigated, indicting by the executive. Now, on the money side, which of course matters in our politics, they are trying to to go after the people that fund the opposition and maybe scare some of them. Maybe people will back down. Maybe they're hoping that just like media executives and other corporate CEOs have done and even college campuses, maybe some of those donors will just pull back. Which of course furthers the autocratic crackdown. The Nixon tapes, as I mentioned earlier in the program, have exactly this kind of stuff in private. He wanted the IRS to go after Democrats so that he would basically be able to cheat and less likely that Republicans would lose the Democrats. And they knew exactly the kind of ruthless person they wanted in charge of the irs.
- [28:45]
Host 1
Are we going after their tax returns? I. You know what I mean.
- [28:48]
Host 2
There's a lot of Google.
- [28:50]
Host 1
I want to be sure that what you say, I want to be sure he is a green plus son of a that he'll do what he told that every income tax return I want.
- [29:01]
Host 2
To see, I seek him that he'll.
- [29:02]
Host 1
Go after our enemies and not go after our friends. Not simple as that. It is a.
- [29:09]
Host 2
Nixon was boldly pushing to abuse power. In that chapter we know how it ultimately ended. We are now in the beginning under 25% into this scheduled four year term of this president. We're joined by John Flannery, federal prosecutor, former congressional counsel. Your view of this rather damning set of allegations, sources reporting in the in.
- [29:30]
John Flannery
The Journal, it's a continuation of Trump's bag of dirty tricks. Ironically, the term dirty tricks I think to my knowledge was the first time I heard it was during Watergate list of people and so on and so forth. You have to wonder in this case if Doge wasn't a way to identify some of the targets. Now they're going to chase or not. But the shift which is interesting, the balance here is you have a president who is done everything he can to author a distribution of money to the wealthy at the same time, while he wants to shrink those funds that could be made available legitimately for Democratic campaigns. So he's trying to hurt, not just, not just hurt them in some sort of vanity way, but compromise their ability to make a difference in a campaign. So he's trying to eliminate, whether it be how we draw districts for election, whether or not we occupy Democratic cities, all of these things. And so he's kind of, if you look at it, it's often been said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. That's what the government said in a case when the states tried to tax them. And this is the first principle of Trump, whenever it involves money, whenever it involves deals. So he has a whole series of things he does. You know, he will first defame you, then he will terminate you or compromise your job, or he will prosecute you, or he will deport, threaten to deport you. He will do anything he can. And now he will tax you. He will tax whatever group you're in that he doesn't like. If you're doing something with the aclu, watch out. If you're doing something that has to do with the environment, watch out. Because he's already done that on the other side with the budget. He's taken the budget, and in contradiction of what the Congress would approve, he's out there cutting funds for different issues he cares about. None of these people are identified as Democrats, but they're Democratic issues. So he. He tells the public the Democratic issues. So what's wrong with all this? We talk about selective and vindictive prosecution. That's this we're prosecuting. We're going to pick out people just because of their politics, not because of anything they're doing wrong. It's vindictive because he's looking to find a way to win an election improperly by limiting the funds that can go into the election. There'll be statements that are false that will trigger these investigations, and by the time it's cleared up, elections will be over. Funds may have been reduced or captured.
- [32:08]
Host 2
And what are the lessons in terms of dealing with this? Because I mentioned some executives say, oh, they'll run and scatter and maybe he'll pick on somebody else. That doesn't seem to work.
- [32:19]
John Flannery
No, it doesn't work. You can't win a fight that you don't enter. You know the Irish phrase, Is this a private fight or can anybody join in? This isn't one that you do by choice. This is one you have to do. This is about your very existence. If you're a significant contributor, you're also a person who believes in what you're putting funds into a campaign for. You're putting time into it. You're bringing people into it. He wants to scare people on all those levels. And so we have to be resisting and fighting it. If the statements are false, we have to say it. If they're going after weak targets to make a point, we have to talk about it. And the fact that so many are silent when Obama is inviting people to be involved, when the governor of Illinois is saying get out there and fight. And the no kings thing on this weekend is, I think, an important moment to say all of this going on. It's really hard to deny that this guy isn't making a march to monarchy, that he isn't an autocrat, that he doesn't seek to compromise our liberty now and your liberty next time.
- [33:18]
Host 2
Well, and you just reminded everyone it's something Rachel Maddow had also said this week, that there is great resolve and even if you want to use the word bravery from a lot of people, regular people who don't have their own army of, of lawyers and consultants going out standing up to this, exercising their rights, and yet it will take what, as mentioned here, donors or others to at least match the fortitude of those individuals if they choose to resist. And in this case, according to the IRS reporting, it's in their own interest as well. John Flannery, thank you tonight for the sober statements. Definite break. But Michael Hirshhorn, a prominent resistance activist, made some waves in the New York Times. This with a New York Times piece talking about mom Donnie. This week. He's my special guest next Mom Donnie has bested much larger names in New York politics now, including Andrew Cuomo and the outgoing mayor Eric Adams to become the Democratic party's nominee. He's 19 days out from an election debate is tonight and he's already got an eye on national issues, even going into hostile media territory on fox, taking questions and addressing Trump.
- [34:31]
Joyce Vance
President Trump said that you never worked a day in your life.
- [34:35]
Host 1
I went, you've worked as an assemblyman and you've had other positions in the government.
- [34:39]
Joyce Vance
But what qualifies you from your life.
- [34:42]
Host 1
Experience to run the largest city in the country? You know, I want to take this moment because you spoke about President Trump and he may be watching right now. And I just want to speak directly to the president, which is that I will not be a mayor like Mayor Adams, who will call you to figure out how to stay out of jail. I won't be a disgraced governor like Andrew Cuomo, who will call you to ask how to win this election. I can do those things on my own. I will, however, be a mayor who is ready to speak at any time to lower the cost of living.
- [35:11]
Host 2
There you go. Mamdani, straight to camera. And a camera he knows often has Donald Trump on the other side. The president, of course, has derided Mamdani as a kind of quote, crazy communist, but he's also worried about him winning. Remember, rather than say, welcoming a supposedly extreme liberal foil, Trump aides have been warmer to Adams and Cuomo and admit they are concerned about Mamdani as a rising Democrat. Now, these two men have opposite views on the economy, social issues, foreign policy. But they both use a style of sweeping rhetoric and big swings that may fit our populist era and the communication styles that seem to get traction these days. Now, the New York Times this week has an essay that notes there may be no two politicians farther apart on the ideological spectrum, but the appeals they make to voters are uncannily similar. And there is a kind of freaking out of the business as usual power elites as they appraise mom dummy inside the Democratic Party. But that's the same spirit that motivated many to vote for Trump. A piece there was written by TV producer and resistance activist Michael Hirshhorn, which notes Trumpism is more than politics. It's an emotional gas main explosion from people who felt unheard, patronized, left behind. Romdani phenomenon is a pressure valve, too. And so in the case of both of these politicians, their critics often hear simply unrealistic, outlandish claims in their big pitches. And yet these candidates, fans from the right to the left, appear to embrace the ambition, the spirit, the vibe of tear down the house. We need Greenland.
- [36:49]
Host 1
We have to have Greenland. It's not a question of do you think we can do without it?
- [36:52]
Host 2
We can't.
- [36:53]
Host 1
I have said I'm going to freeze the rent for more than 2 million rent stabilized tenants.
- [36:56]
Host 2
I will build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall.
- [37:04]
Host 1
Municipal grocery stores. I proposed a pilot, one in each borough. That's five in total. Frankly, Canada should be the 51st state, okay? It really should. Taking the slowest buses in the nation, making them fast and free.
- [37:15]
Host 2
Now, one could respond with detailed skepticism. Are we really going to annex Canada? Are you really going to freeze the rent for 2 million people. And on the other side of the ledger, all the local businesses that deal with those 2 million places people live. But in the piece, Hirshhorn argues that response I just gave might actually miss part of the wider magnetic energy at play. There are signs that Mamdani and Trump are both forces to be reckoned with right now and in life. That means whether you like them or not, they matter. And there could be merit to understanding these forces at work during our tumultuous political times. The author of that provocative New York Times piece, Michael Hirshhorn, is here. He's thought a lot about this. He's making waves. And he joins us next. We need Greenland.
- [38:13]
Host 1
We have to have Greenland. It's not a question of do you think we can do without it?
- [38:17]
Host 2
We can't.
- [38:17]
Host 1
I have said I'm going to freeze the rent for more than 2 million rent stabilized tenants. Frankly, Canada should be the 51st state, okay? It really should. Taking the slowest buses in the nation, making them fast and free.
- [38:29]
Host 2
Is there a parallel? That's the argument of Michael Hirshhorn, a producer, filmmaker, resistance activist who wrote this week's New York Times essay, voting for Mondami taught me why Trump won and what you call a kind of energy or magnetism that they share, not on ideology, but on politics. Explain.
- [38:47]
Michael Hirshhorn
Yeah, I think the idea that has been prevalent in the Democratic Party in particular is you kind of figure out what people believe through polling, through research, and then you kind of regurgitate it back at them. And what Mamdani is doing is similar, but also quite different. He's taking seemingly out there policies and ideas and putting them in really digestible form. And he's willing to have enemies, and Trump was willing to have enemies because if you have enemies, you have people that are passionate about you. So he's very clearly picked aside and that's the source of his power. Right. He has 75,000 volunteers knocking on every door in the city for him. And Democrats don't generally have that. They haven't had that since Obama.
- [39:39]
Host 2
It's not even that new to observe that rhetoric is different than policy. They used to talk about campaigning and poetry and governing and prosecution, and yet Democrats and elites in all sorts of ways have been shocked by that. With Trump, he is to be taken literally. We cover a lot of things he's really doing, but he's not really trying to take Canada and Greenland.
- [40:02]
Michael Hirshhorn
Not yet.
- [40:03]
Host 2
Well, okay. Well, he never built the wall.
- [40:06]
Michael Hirshhorn
Never built the wall.
- [40:07]
Host 2
So there are certainly things he doesn't do. And yet his voters hear it as he'd like to. He's not afraid. And with Mamdami, for a host of reasons, it's pretty hard to indefinitely freeze rent on 2 million people's homes. That's just how it works. And yet I don't know that. You tell me all of his excited supporters, including young people, hear that as a fault if it doesn't fully happen.
- [40:32]
Michael Hirshhorn
I think what precedes policy is tribalism. And Mamdani has said, I'm on your team. And he said it convincingly enough and repeatedly enough that people are like, yeah, he's one of us. He may not do these specific policies, but he's going to fight for us. And that's precisely the connection that Trump has with the MAGA base. And I think the other kind of misnomer, there are two misnomers. One is that people really care about policy. Most people don't care about policy. They don't understand about policy. They want to feel an emotional connection to a candidate. And most Democrats are not putting that at the forefront. They're cautious, they're careful, they're tentative. They speak in a certain kind of politician speak. And that just doesn't work in this media environment.
- [41:23]
Host 2
You also touch on young men who've become this sort of disaffected group and Internet and as we say around here, yada, yada, yada. But Trump does 50% among young men, which is better than some candidates have done among young people. Republicans used to struggle with young people. Mondame does 85% there with a slightly, just all the way up to 35. What do you see there?
- [41:48]
Michael Hirshhorn
Well, it's a misnomer again, that I think young men are going right wing. I think young men are going anti establishment. And if you think about like a Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan voted for Bernie Sanders before he voted for Donald Trump. And Andrew Schultz voted for Bernie Sanders.
- [42:05]
Host 2
Before he voted for Donald. Another podcaster.
- [42:07]
Michael Hirshhorn
Yeah, another podcaster. And the numbers are shocking, right? It was. It was this one poll did show 85% in the cross tabs. But then these other polls came out that showed men in general overwhelmingly voting for Mamdani when men in general have been trending Republican. So there's some lesson there. And the lesson is if you can capture them emotionally, if you can capture, I think, you know, a strong anti establishment kind of eff the system feeling and vibe a lot of young men have because they feel disengaged from their personal prospects. They feel disengaged from, you know, they're not going to support Chuck Schumer. And so somebody now has unlocked the vault and everyone else should be paying attention to that.
- [42:57]
Host 2
Yeah, we had two Democrats on last night about the debate. One saying Schumer's time, at least his leader should be up, the other standing by him. When you also broaden out at the, what you call the energy, is it just everyone's psychological issues in a media digital saturated environment that's projected onto our politics? In other words, what do you say to someone who's reading you in the Times and going, oh, so is there any way to challenge that? The only way to do it is to kind of surrender on policy and just do a vibe check.
- [43:31]
Michael Hirshhorn
Well, I think the sense I have is that Mamdani has seriously thought about policy. And I think if you sort of poke at him and you scratch a little deeper, you do find some innovative thinking on some topics, less so on others. But I don't think you can run on that basis. I think the other thing that's really unique about this moment is this is a uniquely messed up time in our lifetimes. And most Democratic strategists ignore the fact that extraordinary things are happening in this country. Democracy is being dismantled piece by piece. And of course, some people are going to be angry. And if you can't engage with that anger, don't even bother showing up.
- [44:18]
Host 2
Yeah, you know what that is?
- [44:19]
Michael Hirshhorn
Mic drop time.
- [44:20]
Host 2
Just a deep pause. You say something that deep, you get a longer pause.
- [44:23]
Michael Hirshhorn
Thank you.
- [44:24]
Host 2
Sometimes communication. Yeah, I mean, it's time so quick.
- [44:29]
Michael Hirshhorn
The world has changed in the last year.
- [44:31]
Host 2
The world has changed. Michael Hirshhorn, you can read him in the New York Times this week. We will be right back. United resistance to the Pentagon's autocratic crackdown on free and independent coverage of the military. A wide phalanx of journalists from Fox News to NBC to the AP joining together to resist these calls to end free press coverage there and thus instead turning in their press badges and you see them walking out of the Pentagon. That was a joint protest against what was almost impossible to describe. The Pentagon saying, to work there as a journalist, you would have to submit everything in advance and agree to their rules, which nobody agreed to. Just about every journalist from these outlets coming together. Brown University has rejected the effort to coerce them to join Trump Priorities in exchange for money. 2000 no Kings protests are planned across the country this weekend after a wave of those protests over the summer proved highly effective and noticeable. This is the other side to some of the breaking stories we brought you tonight peaceful civic resistance and sometimes even surprising unity, at least on the issues of our constitution and the first amendment.
- [45:47]
Host 1
Why does every recipe I try need 18 ingredients, including a jar of something paste I'll never use again but will sit in my fridge for nine months? I just want dinner in the oven fast. That's why I love Blue Apron's new One Pan Assemble and Bake Meals. They send you fresh ingredients that are already chopped. All you do is put it all together and baked. That's it. No chopping, no weird leftovers. Just delicious, easy to make meals get 20% off your first two orders with code APRON20. Terms and conditions apply. Visit blueapron.com terms for more.