Kimmel Returns to TV

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Beat with Ari Melber — “Kimmel Returns to TV”

Date: September 23, 2025
Host: Jason Johnson (subbing for Ari Melber)
Guests: David Litt, Tara Setmayer, Leah Litman, Michael McFaul, Richard Painter
Main Theme:
This episode examines late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s controversial return to television amid debates over free speech, political censorship, media monopolies, government overreach, corruption scandals in the Trump Administration, and the spread of political and medical misinformation.

---

1. FREE SPEECH AND JIMMY KIMMEL’S RETURN

Timestamps: 00:31 – 04:48

• Intro to Kimmel's Comeback:
  Jason Johnson introduces the day’s major headline: Jimmy Kimmel is set to return to his late-night show, only days after Disney had suspended him indefinitely for political jokes and criticism of the Trump administration.
• Political Fallout:
  • Trump allies and MAGA supporters are livid over Kimmel’s return, with some right-wing corporate media continuing to preempt his show, blocking one in five Americans from viewing it.
  • “This kind of corporate media consolidation can pose a risk as companies seeking to curry favor with Trump can effectively censor what what millions of Americans get to see and hear.” — Jason Johnson [02:16]
• Notable Quotes:
  • “The ability to critique the government and the president is a constitutional guarantee. That’s why it’s the First Amendment.” — Jason Johnson [02:16]

Key Insight:
The episode sets up Kimmel’s reinstatement as a flashpoint in the broader battle over free speech, government pressure on media, and how much control corporations can wield over what Americans see.

---

2. MEDIA CONSOLIDATION & POLITICIZED INFORMATION

Timestamps: 04:48 – 12:40

• Debate: Regulation and Monopoly Concerns
  • Johnson, David Litt, and Tara Setmayer discuss how Nexstar and Sinclair (large, Trump-aligned media conglomerates) are pushing to raise FCC caps, potentially allowing them to control up to 80% of the national media market.
  • “It’s controlling the narrative. It’s controlling the information that people consume. And that’s the reason why we have antitrust laws against monopolies in all different sectors of our economy.” — Tara Setmayer [05:25]
  • Litt warns this could reduce American media decisions to just “four or five people making the major decisions about what we can say and what we can hear.” [08:25]
• Unexpected Coalitions on Free Speech:
  While Trump and MAGA figures attack Kimmel’s return, unexpected support for free expression came from figures like Ted Cruz and Joe Rogan, illustrating rare bipartisan concern over censorship.
• Media, Market & Ideology:
  • Setmayer points out how, increasingly, ideological decisions (not market forces) are guiding companies like Sinclair, Elon Musk (Twitter/X), and others — who are willing to lose money to silence voices or propagate their agenda.
  • “There’s nothing capitalist about this...They’re literally crossing the line into areas that are straight authoritarian.” — Tara Setmayer [09:53]

Notable Moment:

• “If anybody happens to be watching this and is a multi billionaire who is a Democrat, buy some TV stations. I hear that’s useful to spread your political agenda.” — David Litt [07:48] (sarcastic commentary on media power)

---

3. GOVERNMENT OVERREACH & THE COURTS

Timestamps: 12:47 – 21:41

• Weaponization of DOJ:
  Johnson highlights how Trump is placing personal lawyers into key DOJ roles to investigate political opponents (Comey, NY AG Tish James), sparking worry among career attorneys, some of whom are being advised to get malpractice insurance.
• Criminalization of Ideology:
  Guest Leah Litman (law professor) critiques Trump’s executive order declaring “antifa” (an ideology, not an organization) a terrorist group, warning this is a pretext to suppress dissent.
• Supreme Court’s Role:
  Litman discusses the Supreme Court siding repeatedly with Trump (a “16 case winning streak”), effectively enabling executive overreach:
  • “The Republican appointees on the court have long been trafficking in this fringe theory...that imagines that presidents are, in effect, kings, that they can violate the law, and that they have some residuum of basically king, like monarchical powers...” — Leah Litman [18:38]
  • She advocates for public education and structural court reform (term limits, jurisdiction curbs, expansion, ethics rules).

Notable Quotes:

• "If people understood these things from the beginning, they would be more informed as to what would be important in a democracy..." — Tara Setmayer [15:34]

---

4. FOREIGN POLICY AND TRUMP’S STANCE ON UKRAINE/RUSSIA

Timestamps: 21:41 – 29:23

• Trump, Putin, and NATO:
  Johnson and Ambassador Michael McFaul examine the ongoing Ukraine–Russia conflict under Trump’s watch:
  • Trump claimed he would end the war “on day one,” but now admits it’s not ending soon.
  • Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin in Alaska, securing “nothing in return,” which McFaul argues has emboldened Putin.
  • “It’s not only has he not ended the war, he’s made things worse because he’s emboldened Putin by embracing him, literally rolling out the red carpet in Alaska, getting nothing in return.” — Michael McFaul [24:49]
• Shifting U.S. Policy?:
  • Trump makes a sudden, surprising (and likely disingenuous) commitment to returning all Ukrainian land, alarming and confusing analysts.
  • McFaul doubts Trump’s sincerity, critiquing his reactive, inconsistent policy.

Memorable Exchanges:

• Q: “Do you think that NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft if they enter their airspace?”
• Trump: “Yes, I do.” [27:57]
• McFaul: “The words are one thing and the actions and the policies are another.” [28:35]

---

5. GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION: THE TOM HOMAN “BORDER CZAR” SCANDAL

Timestamps: 31:11 – 39:39

• Corruption Allegations:
  MSNBC uncovers evidence that Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, accepted a $50,000 cash bribe (caught on FBI sting video). Homan claimed “nothing illegal happened” but did not deny taking the money.
• Ethics & Accountability:
  Richard Painter, former White House ethics lawyer, frames the issue:
  • “Bags of cash? I haven’t seen stories with that kind of bribery for a long time. It’s amazing that we could have a federal government official in a high ranking position who took bags of cash, $50,000, promising that he could get contracts for people.” — Richard Painter [34:41]
• Political Brush-off:
  The White House spun the matter as a partisan DOJ/FBI “entrapment” operation, rather than addressing the bribery evidence.
• Warning for Institutions:
  • Painter warns that corruption is becoming normalized and institutionalized:
  • “What we are watching is the destruction of the rule of law...The message is clear that this administration is open for business...” [38:27]

Memorable Quip:

• “It’s fine if cash rules everything around you in the rap game, but not when you’re supposed to be protecting the law and following the Constitution.” — Jason Johnson [39:39]

---

6. POLITICAL AND MEDICAL MISINFORMATION

Timestamps: 40:34 – 43:19

• Trump’s Bogus Health Claims:
  • Trump falsely claims that Tylenol use in pregnancy increases autism risk, and that vaccine scheduling causes autism — both claims long-debunked by the scientific community.
  • Senator Bill Cassidy (R, physician) rebukes Trump: “It is simply, quote, not the case.” [40:34]
  • A top vaccine expert calls Trump’s press conference “the most dangerously irresponsible press conference in the realm of public health and American history.” [42:32]
• Vaccine Conspiracy:
  Trump: "This is based on what I feel." [42:03]

---

7. VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS INTERVIEW TEASE

Timestamps: 43:19 – 44:03

• Highlighted is a forthcoming Rachel Maddow interview with Kamala Harris, who denounces Trump as “a tyrant with a fragile ego” and calls for business leaders to stand up as guardrails against his abuses.

---

Episode Takeaways

• Free speech remains under threat not only from government but also from corporate consolidation and ideological gatekeeping.
• Bipartisan concern exists over unchecked mergers and the power of major media companies to silence “unprofitable” or dissenting voices.
• The Trump administration is portrayed as normalizing corruption and executive overreach, using government appointees to settle political scores and looking the other way on ethical breaches.
• Supreme Court actions are repeatedly characterized as facilitating authoritarianism and in urgent need of reform.
• Misinformation, especially about health and vaccines, is spreading from the highest levels, endangering public trust.
• Memorable Quotes encapsulate the tone:
  • “There’s nothing democratic about this. There’s nothing capitalist about this.”
  • “What we are watching is the destruction of the rule of law.”

---

For listeners:
This episode offers a trenchant look at the intersection of politics, media, free speech, and governmental integrity—unpacking how today’s headline news connects to enduring American principles and ongoing political conflicts.

Transcript

[MSNBC Announcer]

Saturday, October 11th. From New York City, it's MSNBC Live 25. Join your favorite MSNBC hosts, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Nicole Wallace, Ari Melber, Alicia Menendez, Simone Sanders Townsend, Michael Steele, Chris Haynes, jen Psaki, Lawrence O', Donnell, Stephanie Ruhl and more. Visit msnbc.comlive25 to buy your tickets today.

[Jason Johnson]

Welcome to the Beat. I'm Jason Johnson in Safari Melbourne. We begin tonight with a victory, Swords for free speech as late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel returns to the airwaves in just a couple hours. Just days after Disney announced that he was suspended indefinitely. Reports say Kimmel plans to address the controversy tonight in his opening monologue, his first public comments about the ordeal. Fellow late night host Stephen Colbert was celebrating Kimmel's return. Wonderful news for my dear friend Jimmy and his amazing staff. Once more, I am the only martyr in late knifes. Wait, unless CBS you want to announce anything? Huh?

[Richard Painter]

No.

[Jason Johnson]

Still no. Right? Because the money thing, I forgot.

[David Litt]

Yeah, the money thing.

[Jason Johnson]

Oh yeah. Colbert, also a frequent Trump critic, poking fun at his own demise. His show was in its final season. But this free speech crisis is far from over as Trump allies and MAGA fans are furious over Jimmy Kimmel's return. The LA Times noting, quote, disney wanted to be done with politics, but politics wasn't done with Disney. It never is. The backlash now coming from the right as Trump rages against anyone who, who criticizes him.

[Unidentified Caller/Guest]

All they do is in trouble.

[David Litt]

They're licensed.

[Unidentified Caller/Guest]

They're not allowed to do that. 97% of the stories are bad about a person. That's no longer free speech. They'll take a great story and they'll make it bad. See, I think that's really illegal.

[Jason Johnson]

Yeah, fact check. That's false. The ability to critique the government and the president is a constitutional guarantee. That's why it's the First Amendment. But the Constitution doesn't stop private companies from stepping in. Nexstar and Sinclair, who own dozens of ABC stations nationwide, have announced they will continue to preempt Kimmel, effectively blocking one in five Americans from hearing what he has to say when he returns tonight. This kind of corporate media consolidation can pose a risk as companies seeking to curry favor with Trump can effectively censor what what millions of Americans get to see and hear. The move to consolidate more apparent considering this, a host of MAGA friendly billionaires already control various social media, cable and broadcast news sources. And they're attempting to acquire more as they vie for administration approval to swallow up additional outlets. Joining me now to discuss is David Litt, former speechwriter for President Obama and author of It's Only Drowning, the True Story of Learning to Surf and the Search for Common Ground. And Tara Settmeier, co founder and CEO of the Seneca Project and author of Uncompromised on Substack. David, I'll start with you because subtitle of your book is Attempting to Find Common Ground. That is a laudable goal. Most of us would like to see common ground, but it seems like what we're seeing right now from this administration is shutting down any voices of opposition. What's your response? Just to finding out that Jimmy Kimmel is back on the air. Is that, is that success for free speech or is it just the market pushing back against the government?

[David Litt]

Well, Jason and Tara, first of all, it's good to see you both. And to answer your question, I would say this is both of the things you described. This is a big win for free speech, and it's the market pushing back on Disney. Trump and the FCC thought that Disney would cave. They were right. But consumers didn't cave, and other celebrities and comedians didn't cave. And because of that, you see Kimmel back on the air. And so I do think you brought up this notion of common ground. I don't think that Donald Trump and I are going to find common ground on the meaning of the First Amendment because he doesn't understand what it says. But I do think that you saw a surprising amount of common ground on free speech, to his credit, which is nothing I never thought I'd say about Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz criticized the FCC's role here. So did Joe Rogan, Andrew Schultz. So it's not like you saw a groundswell of MAGA support for Jimmy Kimmel, but you did see some surprising bedfellows on this one.

[Jason Johnson]

Tara, you know, one of the things that I think is concerning about the financial and political background of this is that nexstar and Sinclair and a lot of these organizations are pushing the FCC to raise the cap. Right. The current cap is any media company is never supposed to be able to get more than 39% of the US population. They're hoping to move that to 80 or eliminate the cap entirely. What's the danger if, if companies like Sinclair or companies like nexdar, what's the danger if they're able to just control as many affiliates as they want across the country to the American people?

[Tara Settmeier]

Well, it's controlling the narrative. It's controlling the information that people consume. And that's the reason why we have antitrust laws against monopolies in all different sectors of our economy. And that's why the FCC exists. We need to understand something here that, you know, Sinclair is a Trump supported company. So is Nexstar like they are? They have a $6 billion merger that has to get approved by the FCC. So once again, Donald Trump and his MAGA minions that are in government, his lackeys that he's placed there, are doing exactly what he put them there to do, which is to weaponize government against his political opponents and to squash political dissent. I mean, Brendan Carr was an architect of the Project 2025 section about the FCC. So you know, people need to, when we put this all in its totality and you see what you're doing, this attack against political dissent, against Trump's, you know, perceived political opponents, it's all to control the flow of information and the propaganda and the lies that Donald Trump and MAGA perpetrate. Without pushback, truth is under assault as well as our free speech. And it's against a fundamental hallmark James Madison is spinning in his grave.

[Jason Johnson]

Amongst other things. Yes. David, I want to play you some sound from Jon Stewart last night when he was talking about Disney's Monopoly and get your thoughts on the other side. Wasn't it interesting to try and figure out all the tentacles Disney has in your daily life? It's one thing to swear off cruises, but the Avengers, nah.

[Unidentified Caller/Guest]

How is it possible that by getting.

[Jason Johnson]

Rid of one company I can't watch.

[Richard Painter]

Winnie the Pooh or Monday Night Football.

[Jason Johnson]

Or listen to early Hilary Duff? David, one of the things that's most concerning to me about what we've seen over these last couple of weeks is that it's a reminder that I think both Republicans and Democrats have been at fault. We've seen 25 years of, of mergers and, and the lessing and breaking down those rules and laws. What do you think should be the Democrats perspective going forward? Because as long as these oligarchs and media monopolies keep growing, we're going to see more of this. What should Democrats be saying right now?

[David Litt]

Well, first of all I would be saying if anybody happens to be watching this and is a multi billionaire who is a Democrat, buy some TV stations. I hear that's useful to spread your political agenda. But the other thing, and I think this is the more important point, is that you shouldn't have to do that in order to have free speech and debate and comedians allowed to criticize the president or make fun of the president. I think when you're looking at here is. And it's in media, but it's in all kinds of different areas, this consolidation. And to a large extent, Americans were okay with it because we didn't see some of the worst consequences coming to pass. So I think, in a strange way, I don't think any of this is good, but I do think that it's. The mask is off and the consequences, the effects of this consolidation, because ultimately this is not. These decisions are not being made by some corporate entity or even by a majority vote of some kind. It's just a couple of people. And the graphic you showed earlier, we could get to a place where it's just four or five people making the major decisions about what we can say and what we can hear. And that's a different kind of threat against free speech. It's not necessarily covered by the First Amendment in every case, but it's deeply antithetical to the spirit of the First Amendment, which is essential to the spirit of the country.

[Jason Johnson]

Tara For a long time, we were sort of under the impression that these, even if they were conservative leaders of these media companies, they were primarily concerned about the market, right? The market pushed back. People were threatening to boycott Disney. They were ending their Disney plus licenses. So the market is going to hold some of these ideologues back. But what we're seeing now is people willing to make decisions that aren't financially wise for ideological reasons. Elon Musk is willing to lose money just so he can do a catch and kill on Twitter. You have things happening in other different kinds of networks that are ideologically not financially driven within the conservative movement, within Republicans. How can they fight back about this? Because these are not market forces operating here. This is ideology. And they were supposed to be the party of market forces, right?

[Tara Settmeier]

Well, there's a lot of things that Republicans are supposed to be the party of that they are no longer, which is why I'm not in it. And a lot of other people are. Don't recognize today's Republican Party. This isn't Ronald Reagan's Republican Party anymore. And this is another example of that. The, the idea that capitalism should have been the answer to cancel culture, which is something that conservatives were very upset about years ago and some could argue went too far and areas, okay, fine. But this boomerang effect here, now what they're doing, they're literally crossing the line into areas that are straight authoritarian. There's nothing democratic about this. There's nothing capitalist about this. From the perspective of how Republican, Republican businesses and companies are Handling this, the fact that it is so ideologically driven is, I think, what is more which is, which is different. That's what's different about the environment we're in now. And for some people, it's in apocalyptic holy war terms. So not even the Constitution is something that, that, that they will follow as their, as their guide here, as the guardrail. So we have to really fight back against this because there are more of us than there are of them. And the reaction by Disney to Jimmy Kimmel and reinstating him is a win for the American people. It is a. The righteous anger of the American people can push back against this, and this is an example of that. But it's just a battle. There is a larger war here that we're fighting that everyone needs to wake up and recognize what we're up against here. You've got to know the enemy you're up against. And that's, I think, where we have to start and make sure that we're unified on it. We cannot let them get away with trying to gaslight us, that somehow we're the problem.

[Jason Johnson]

And, you know, and there's a huge difference, even for the people who complain on the right. There's a huge difference between a bunch of people saying, I don't like your offensive jokes anymore. You need to improve your material, and the federal government coming in and saying, I don't like your jokes. I'm going to snatch your license. We're running up on a break here. I got to say this really quick. I want to play some quick sound from Clay Travis on Fox and get your thoughts on this, David, real quick. I think the Trump administration needs to look aggressively at that potential acquisition of the NFL Network and say, well, wait a minute, is Disney slash ABC really trying to speak to all of America? If they won't do it on a late night show, will they do it with sports? I think that's real questions that are deserved to be asked. David, should the FCC be stopping anybody from buying the NFL?

[David Litt]

A, no. And B, you hear these people talk. It's like they all saw gangster movies and are like, oh, that sounds like a good idea. They all sound like thugs.

[Jason Johnson]

Makes absolutely no sense.

[Tara Settmeier]

Market forces allow for independent media, which is why you're seeing an explosion of that as well. So if you want to see capitalism still alive, that's where it is.

[Jason Johnson]

David Litt and Tara Seppmeier, I could talk to you guys about this all night. Thanks so much for starting us off on the beat tonight.

[Tara Settmeier]

Thank you.

[Jason Johnson]

Coming up, Democrats Launching probes into Trump's so called border czar. And that $50,000 in cash. Plus our fact check on the new Trump RFK attack on science and public health. But first, DOJ attorneys are so worried about Trump's abuse of power that they're getting malpractice insurance. We're back in just 90 seconds on the beat. I want to turn to Donald Trump's latest power grab. Trump now putting one of his personal lawyers in a top DOJ post. She has no prosecutorial experience and is now tapped to be the interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. That attorney, Lindsey Halahan, now leading investigations into Trump's political foes, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Tish James, the former U.S. attorney in the role was forced out late last week. This all happening at a questionable time. The Comey investigation is now running against the clock. The statute of limitations on Comey's September 2020 congressional testimony running out in just eight days. The wall Street Journal reporting lawyers in that office are concerned they could be forced to rush and out an ill found case and have received outside advice to, quote, secure insurance against legal malpractice claims. This all comes amid growing overreach from Trump declaring Antifa a, quote, terrorist organization. And a new executive order requiring his administration to, quote, investigate, disrupt and dismantle individuals and groups associating themselves with the anti fascist ideology, including against, quote, those who fund such operations. And an important fact check. Federal law enforcement has characterized antifa as an ideology, not an organization. And this marks the first time a U. S. Based entity is labeled as a terrorist organization. So Trump seems to be doing just about whatever he wants. And the highest court in the land is enabling this behavior. The Supreme Court allowing Trump to fire the FTC commissioner while they consider overruling a legal precedent limiting a president's ability to fire top officials at the agency. Justice Kagan rebuking the majority in her dissent writing, quote unquote, our emergency docket should never be used as it has been this year to permit what our own precedent bars. Justice Sotomayor joining Justice Kagan in dissenting, also warning against federal overreach recently. Here's what she said just last week on presidential powers.

[Richard Painter]

Do we understand what the difference is.

[Jason Johnson]

Between a king and a president?

[Tara Settmeier]

All right. And I think if people understood these.

[Jason Johnson]

Things from the beginning, they would be.

[Tara Settmeier]

More informed as to what would be.

[David Litt]

Important in a democracy in terms of.

[Tara Settmeier]

What people can or should not do.

[Jason Johnson]

Joining me now is Leah Littman, law professor with the University of Michigan, co host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast and author of Lawless how the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories and Bad Vibes. Thank you, Professor Lippman. I've got to start with this. The idea that the President is sending federal investigators after antifa, the first thing that comes to mind is, again, antifa is an ideology. It's anti fascism. By that standard, the Boy Scouts, right? The Boy Scouts are anti fascist. You know, every, every reading club that talks about the Constitution or American history is anti fascist. We are not fascist country. Talk about how dangerous it is that the President, United States is basically weaponizing the DOJ to go after something that should be a core belief in the American people.

[Leah Littman]

Well, so first, I think we should recognize that federal law actually doesn't allow the President to denominate an ideology rather than an organization, a domestic terror organization. It's also never been the case that a president has designated a domestic entity as a terrorist organization. So what the President is really trying to do here is just stifle political dissent and I think create misinformation, create a real atmosphere of fear where people are concerned that they are going to be targeted if they actually engage in political dissent and challenge this government as fascist, as authoritarian. And that is what this executive order is designed to do. That's what so many of the President's policies are designed to do, just stifle any political opposition, period. I mean, in addition to the Boy Scouts, I mean, is believing in the tooth fairy now anti fascist? Right. And like, now you can be, I don't know, rounded up for that. Who knows?

[Jason Johnson]

Yeah, I mean, the tooth fairy, we, we know she's a socialist giving out money for teeth and things, but that doesn't mean that she should necessarily be under assault from the doj. I want to bring up this full screen. The Trump administration has been really optimistic about getting more favorable rulings from SCOTUS. They are currently on a 16 case winning streak. They, they are essentially the Miami Heat from 10, 12 years ago. Every single time they go into the court, they seem to be winning. And the problem here is not just that the court seems to have capitulated any sort of oversight, but it brings to mind the issues that were exposed about the Supreme Court two or three years ago with the number of justices who might be financially or ideologically compromised. You wrote a whole book about this. What's the danger of this completely captured court when it comes to all of these different cases that Trump is bringing in for in front of them?

[Leah Littman]

I Mean, the danger is that the Supreme Court is just going to keep on giving Donald Trump a green light to allow him to do whatever it is he and the Republican Party want. I mean, I think the reality is the Republican appointees on the court have long been trafficking in this fringe theory, the unitary executive theory that has been pushed by the right wing legal movement that imagines that precedents are, in effect, kings, that they can violate the law, and that they have some residuum of basically king, like monarchical powers in addition to whatever the Constitution provides for them. You know, Justice Kagan, in one of her previous dissents, has accused the court of favoring this president over our precedent, effectively allowing Donald Trump to preemptively overrule the Supreme Court's prior cases that had said Congress can actually prohibit a president from removing someone like the Federal Trade Commissioner, as he just did, and as the Supreme Court let him. And we should look at the stark dichotomy. The reality is that this Supreme Court, with a super majority of Republican appointees, have allowed Donald Trump to act in violation of congressional statutes. They didn't allow Democratic President Joe Biden to actually exercise the authority that Congress gave him to cancel student debt. And yet they give Donald Trump the power to act in violation of Congress's prohibitions. And I think if you look at that stark material hypocrisy, it's clear the underlying ideology that's at work driving their decisions.

[Jason Johnson]

So here's the thing. 10, 12 years ago, a lot of people, and certainly people on the left, were not concerned about the Supreme Court. They didn't realize, you know, in 2015, 2016 election, how serious this would be. What is the position that people who are concerned about jurisprudence in this country, that the Democratic Party. What is the position of reform? That people should be screaming from the bleachers. Now, we can't do anything about this current Supreme Court, but should the levels of power ever go into non problematic, authoritarian hands, what's the solution to this? How do we fix this court?

[Leah Littman]

I think the first step is public education. People should understand that it was really the Supreme Court's immunity decision that has enabled some of these abusive prosecutions, because it was in that case where the Supreme Court said the President has exclusive powers over investigations and prosecutions, including sham investigations and prosecutions not based in law. So the first step is public education and building a base and a coalition that understands addressing the Supreme Court has to be part of democracy reform. There are many things you can do to democratize an institution like the Supreme Court. You can limit its jurisdiction. You can limit its ability to grant these emergency applications with unreasoned decisions to an administration like Donald Trump. You can impose term limits, you can impose Essex limits guidance so that they are not to moneyed interests and corporate interests. You can expand the size of the Supreme Court. There are so many things that can be done. And we just need to educate the people and get people invested in changing our democracy for the better, including the Supreme Court.

[Jason Johnson]

Professor Leah Lippman, thank you so much for joining us tonight. Thank you. Ahead, Trump's border czar caught with $50,000 in FBI cash. His explanation is raising even more questions. Also later, why experts are calling Trump's debunked claims on vaccines, quote, dangerously irresponsible. But First, Ambassador Michael McFaul on Trump's UN speech as critics argue Putin is humiliating Trump on the world stage. Today, Donald Trump speaking to the United nations for the first time since 2019. Trump's nearly hour long speech was riddled with false claims and grievances. But then he said this afterwards.

[Unidentified Caller/Guest]

You got to hand it to the Ukrainian soldiers and everybody involved. It's still going on. And that's, yeah, that's not a good thing for Russia. This was supposed to be quick. And so, you know, Russia doesn't look very distinguished, having taken three and a half years now, right? About three and a half years of very hard fighting. And it looks like it's not going to end for a long time.

[Jason Johnson]

For a very long time. That's a far cry from ending the war on day one, as Trump has claimed he would do in the past. It's now been five weeks since President Trump rolled out the red carpet for Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Despite the lavish treatment for Putin, Trump secured no concessions and not even a timeline for negotiations. Meanwhile, Putin continues to hammer Ukraine with drone and missile attacks and worryingly violate NATO airspace, putting the alliance on edge. Trump's critics now saying it out loud. Putin is making Trump and the United States look weak.

[Carolyn Levitt]

We need to send a strong message to Vladimir Putin that he is done. He needs to end this conflict. He needs to end it now. And why President Trump has allowed him to embarrass not only the president but the United States. Why he welcomed him with open arms in Alaska and got nothing for it has allowed him to cross seven red lines. That the president drew and has not taken action is not a way to end this conflict.

[Jason Johnson]

Joining me now is Ambassador Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia and MSNBC international affairs analyst Ambassador, thank you so much. It's always good to have a conversation with you. So I'm going to start with this. I like, I think most Americans never believed that President Trump was going to end the war between Ukraine and Russia on day one. But what does it mean now that again, three and a half years into this conflict, no end in sight? It appears to be a standstill by most accounts. You have the Ukrainians who have developed more long range attacks. They're starting to attack more infrastructure. The Russians seem to be holding land, but they're not necessarily advancing. What's the impact of the fact that this war is still dragging on?

[Michael McFaul]

Well, it's a horrible, barbaric, tragic war that continues to drag on. Putin not only attacks Ukrainian soldiers, but he attacks Ukrainian civilians every single day. That's why he's been indicted as a war criminal, kidnapping Ukrainian children. And to the point that you were just raising. And with those clips, the president, I applaud the president when he said he was gonna end the war. Of course he wasn't gonna do it in, but I actually think he's made things worse. It's not only has he not ended the war, he's made things worse because he's emboldened Putin by embracing him, literally rolling out the red carpet in Alaska, getting nothing in return. Instead, Putin just ups the ante. And now we've seen over the last several days threats to airspace, to NATO airspace. That's happening on Trump's watch. Trump likes to say that this is Biden's war. It would have never happened had I been president. This is happening now on President Trump's watch. And as the leader of NATO, as the leader of the free world, we have to act like it and just kind of observing it, as he occasionally does today. Sometimes he says some tough things, as he did today, but it's as if he's an observer to all this when he needs to remind himself that he's the leader of the President of the United States, he's the leader of NATO and he needs to act like it.

[Jason Johnson]

Ambassador, you know, today in a huge reversal, the president said Ukraine should get all of its land back. Now, I'm shocked by this. I'm sure a lot of international analysts are shocked by this. Is this something that can be taken seriously? President Trump says a lot of things that he doesn't mean, that he doesn't think about, that he can't back up, that he can't justify. Do you think this is an actual change in U.S. policy, or is it just Something that he was randomly babbling.

[Michael McFaul]

I don't know. I too was shocked. He has never said anything of the type before. Obviously he said it sitting next to President Zelensky. So that proves the theory that whoever speaks to him last has a big influence on him. I hope it means a change in policy, but we've heard a lot of words intimate. You just suggested he says a lot of things. That when he finally imposes one new sanction on Russia, he hasn't done that since he's been president. Then it'll look like he's serious about backing up his words with action when he asks the US Congress for a new assistance package to Ukraine. Not just selling weapons to the Europeans, not just America making money out of the war in Ukraine, but says to Congress and the American people, I want to help Ukraine achieve that end. Then we'll know he's serious. Until then, I think we should just wait and see if he changes his mind tomorrow.

[Jason Johnson]

I want to play this quick sound from the President talking about basically how NATO countries should respond to Russia and get your thoughts on the other side.

[Tara Settmeier]

Mr. President, do you think that NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft if they enter their airspace?

[Unidentified Caller/Guest]

Yes, I do.

[Leah Littman]

Mr. President, any update on your talks with President Putin? And do you still trust him?

[Unidentified Caller/Guest]

I'll let you know in about a month from now.

[Jason Johnson]

Again, we feel like we're a record player on repeat here. Is this something that the President will actually back? Because J.D. vance and this administration has consistently told NATO and, you know, previous sort of post Cold War allies, hey, you're on your own. But if a NATO ally were to shoot down a Russian warplane, is there any reason for any of our allies to believe that the United States would have their back at this point?

[Michael McFaul]

You know, it's a great question. I don't know the answer. The words are one thing and the actions and the policies are another. So the actions and policies that we hear about is that we're pulling back from our NATO allies, especially those frontline states. And now the President said exactly the opposite, or at least suggested that we're gonna be there with them. I hope the words are followed up by actions. And same with what he just said about Putin. I don't know why in a month from now, we need to hear from him. It always seems like it's gonna be in two weeks time that they're gonna be new sanctions and then two more weeks. I just think the President doesn't fundamentally understand that his words don't have meaning unless they are backed up with actions and I think he's gotta get those to an align they are not.

[Jason Johnson]

Yeah, basically the US Saying we've got your back until the fighting starts. Ambassador McFall, thank you so much for joining us this evening on the Beat. Still ahead, Donald Trump and RFK Jr rebuked by some Republicans as they spread medical disinformation about pregnant women and children. But first, Trump, so called border czar at the center of an ethics scandal. And he's not exactly denying it on that one to we're going back on the Beat.

[MSNBC Announcer]

MSNBC presents the chart topping original podcast the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week she sits down with legendary singer songwriter Joan Baez.

[Jason Johnson]

In all my career I've said that social change cannot happen until somebody's willing to take a risk.

[MSNBC Announcer]

The best people with Nicole Wallace Listen now. For early access, ad free listening and bonus content, subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust, standout moments from your favorite shows, and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up [e-mail] subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Why is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows. Ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddows original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

[Jason Johnson]

We're back with the corruption scandal engulfing Trump's so called border czar, Tom Homan. MSNBC broke the bombshell story that he'd accepted a bag filled with $50,000 in cash from what he thought were business executives but were actually undercover FBI agents and it was all caught on tape. The story, according to multiple people familiar with the probe and internal documents reviewed by msnbc, it happened before he was back in government. Homan indicating that he could help the agents win contracts under Trump. The Trump DOJ later shut down that probe, claiming it was politically motivated. Homan is now fighting for his political life. He claims he did nothing wrong, but did not deny that he took a bag of cash.

[Tom Homan]

Look, I did nothing criminal. I did nothing illegal and there's hit piece after hit piece after hit piece and I'm glad the FBI and DOJ came out and said and said that nothing illegal happened and nothing, no criminal activity.

[Jason Johnson]

Homan also making comments about working on a Government paycheck and making sacrifices.

[Tom Homan]

You're talking about a guy who spent 34 years enforcing the law. I mean, I left a very successful business that I ran to come back and work for a government again. I'm back on a government paycheck. Not only did I sacrifice, but my family sacrifices. I make sacrifices every day.

[Jason Johnson]

The FBI sting happened last summer. At the time, Homan was very publicly advertising his role in any second Trump term.

[Tom Homan]

So you got my word. Trump comes back in January. I'll be honest, he was coming back. And I will run the biggest deportation operation this country's ever seen.

[Jason Johnson]

We learned later that Homan was consulting for a company that ran immigration detention facilities. The head of that company telling investors that they were about to make a lot of money from their friends in the Trump administration.

[Unidentified Caller/Guest]

We're looking at a theoretical potential doubling.

[Richard Painter]

Of all of our services.

[Unidentified Caller/Guest]

This is, to us, an unprecedented opportunity to assist the federal government and the incoming Trump administration towards achieving a much.

[Jason Johnson]

More aggressive immigration policy. Now, Democrats in both the House and Senate have launched formal inquiries demanding answers about why the DOJ shut down Homan's bribery investigation, also calling it a brazen cover up to protect Donald Trump's allies. And many are now urging the FBI to release the tapes recording the moment when Homan took that bag of cash. Joining me now is Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer. Richard, thank you so much for joining us this evening. I have to put this in context. I caught the Untouchables last week. It was running on, it's running on cable. I was like, I haven't seen this movie in years. And the idea of respectable government agents, the idea that we had a bunch of people who were untouchable, who couldn't be corrupted by the mob, who couldn't be corrupted by alcohol, who couldn't be corrupt, I know that's an old fashioned way of thinking, but in your experience with government, is there any way we could justify having a powerful elected, a powerful government official who's been caught taking $50,000 from undercover FBI agents? Is there any world where we could say that's okay?

[Richard Painter]

Bags of cash? I haven't seen stories with that kind of bribery for a long time. It's amazing that we could have a federal government official in a high ranking position who took bags of cash, $50,000, promising that he could get contracts for people. That's what we're told was on the tape. Now, I know that this is before the election and before he was actually selected to be the border czar and all of that, but he anticipated going into the Trump administration. This clearly meets the definition of bribery for the purpose of the Constitution. And the word bribery is in the impeachment clause of the Constitution. And the founders concept of bribery was significant, broader than the current criminal statute. The criminal statute only allows you to prosecute someone who has been selected to be a government official or is a government official. So maybe he can skirt around the current criminal statute. If he didn't take any action in return for the money or accept any more money after he was notified, he would become the border czar. But this is clearly within the definition of bribery that's used for impeachment. A federal official could be impeached for this. That's what the framers intended when bribery was included in the impeachment clause. But am I surprised? No. I mean, look what Donald Trump did with Ukraine back in 2019, extracting a bribe, an investigation of Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, in return for the official action of releasing the military aid. And he gets impeached, but the Senate acquits him. And we've had so many examples of quid pro quo in the first Trump administration and even more in the second Trump administration. The message is clear that this administration is open for business, and that includes the president's crypto business. We see countries from around the world, particularly in the Arab world, are investing in Liberty. His crypto firm, Liberty Coin.

[Jason Johnson]

Right.

[Richard Painter]

Some of that may be unconstitutional. Is unconstitutional under the emoluments clause of the Constitution. He doesn't care. He's got a 747 from Qatar. The same country that funds the Hamas organization is giving him a 747. I guess that's okay. Anything goes in this administration.

[Jason Johnson]

They have clearly shown that they don't care, that they are open for business. They don't care if you're, you know, keeping down information on criminal conspiracy. I want to play a sound bite from White House Press Secretary Carolyn Levitt today as she's talking about the Homan scandal. Get your thoughts on the other side.

[Carolyn Levitt]

This was another example of the weaponization of the Biden Department of Justice against one of President Trump's strongest and most vocal supporters. In the midst of a presidential campaign, you had FBI agents going undercover to try and entrap one of the president's top allies and supporters, someone who they knew very well would be taking a government position months later.

[Jason Johnson]

So I have to say this, Richard, there is no circumstance under which you can't say that someone who would take this kind of money as compromise. But the larger, more problematic thing is the way in which corruption is now being absolutely integrated into the functioning of this government, whether or not it's potentially paying off Ghislaine Maxwell by giving her, putting her another court place so that she doesn't say anything about Epstein or using the FCC to, to bully different organizations. And now this. We're seeing that everything about this new administration is not just a quid pro quo, but it's making corruption essentially the law. What does that do long term for how any of our agencies will function? If everything is a matter of if you give me this under the table, I'll ignore the law.

[Richard Painter]

What we are watching is the destruction of the rule of law there. The White House press secretary said that they, the FBI, the Biden administration knew that he was going to go into the Trump administration. Well, they knew then he knew. And that's exactly what the definition of bribery is. When you know you're going to assume a position of power in the United States government and you take cash from anybody, including an undercover sting operation. And we have many of those undercover sting operations that have been conducted by the FBI and you take cash and return for official action. And now the White House is saying they knew that he was going to go in the Trump administration. That's an admission that was a bribe here. And this is a serious problem that we have had that time after time when people get caught red handed violating the law, whether it's bribery or other laws, they simply turn around and say this is weaponization of the justice system. This is we're being persecuted. By who? By the law. We have laws in this country and people need to obey the law, including the people in the highest positions in the executive branch.

[Jason Johnson]

You know, it's fine if cash rules everything around you in the rap game, but not when you're supposed to be protecting the law and following the Constitution. Thank you, Richard Painter, so much for joining us this evening. On the Beat. Up next, Donald Trump rebuked for making bogus medical claims. After this on the Beat.

[MSNBC Announcer]

As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda. Follow along with MSNBC's newest newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.

[Tara Settmeier]

The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this.

[MSNBC Announcer]

Sign up for the Project 47 [e-mail] Project 47.

[Jason Johnson]

Today, broad backlash, including from some top Republicans who found their spines to Donald Trump's unsubstantiated medical claims. On Monday, Trump falsely warned that Tylenol use during pregnancy increases the risk of autism in children. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, an actual medical doctor, saying it is simply, quote, not the case. Researchers say there is no proven relationship between Tylenol and autism. That's context for Trump's claims.

[Unidentified Caller/Guest]

First, effective immediately, the FDA will be notifying physicians that the use of acetaminophen. Well, let's see how we say that Acetaminophen, acetaminophen. Is that okay, which is basically commonly known as Tylenol during pregnancy, can be associated with a very increased risk of autism. So taking Tylenol is not good. All right, I'll say it. It's not good.

[Jason Johnson]

Tylenol maker Kinview disputed Trump saying the drug remains the safest pain reliever for pregnant women. Trump also pushed unfounded claims that childhood vaccine timing contributes to autism, saying it's based on how he, quote, feels.

[Unidentified Caller/Guest]

The mmr, I think, should be taken separately. This is based on what I feel. The mumps, measles, and the three should be taken separately. Just break it up. Break it up. Because it's too much liquid. Too many different things are going into that baby. At too big, at too big a number, the size of this thing.

[Jason Johnson]

The Associated Press calling those claims, quote, long debunked. A top vaccine researcher summarizing the quote, and this has to be read, that was the most dangerously irresponsible press conference in the realm of public health and American history. We will stay on this. Up next, Rachel's big interview, Vice President Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris is blasting Trump as a, quote, tyrant with a fragile ego. The former vice president making Those remarks to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow last night in her first news interview since leaving office.

[Tara Settmeier]

Right now we are dealing with, as I called him at my speech on the ellipse, a tyrant. And these titans of industry are not speaking up. At some point, they've got to stand up for the sake of the people who rely on all of these institutions to have integrity and to at some point be the guardrails against a tyrant who is using the federal government to execute his whim and fancy because of a fragile ego.

[Jason Johnson]

Harris memoir about her presidential campaign titled 107 days is out today. That does it for me.