← The Beat with Ari Melber
The Beat with Ari Melber
NYT: Trump Plotting to Take $230M in Taxpayer Funds
00:41:06
President Trump is demanding that his own DOJ pay him $230 million, citing his own conduct that led to past federal investigations, according to The New York Times. MSNBC's Ari Melber reports and is joined by House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
Loading summary
Transcript116 lines
- [00:00]
A
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 really make you feel like you're pulling 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. I like things my way.
- [00:37]
B
My coffee, my schedule, and my treatment.
- [00:40]
A
So I talked to my doctor about self injecting with the Vivgard Hytrulo pre filled syringe, which contains fgartigamide alpha and hyaluronidase qvfc.
- [00:48]
B
It's injected under your skin subcutaneously.
- [00:51]
A
It means I can inject in my space on my time.
- [00:54]
B
It's my treatment, my way.
- [00:56]
A
Visit vivgartmyway.com that's V D Y-V-G-A-R-T myway.com and talk to your doctor about Vivgard Hytrulo. Brought to you by Argenics. Welcome to the Beat. I'm Ari Melber and I'll tell you right off top, our leadoff guest tonight is the top Democrat in Congress, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. We're going to get into this major news on Trump trying to pocket money from the executive branch, the shutdown and the no kings protest. So we appreciate the leader being here. He'll join us momentarily. The story rocking the Trump White House right now is about rank profiteering, an ethics scandal about conflicts and corruption. The headline is President Trump is trying to move over $200 million from taxpayers into his own pocket. It is a blatant grift. It's an ethics scandal. But it actually gets worse in the details of why the president claims that he should be paid out of the federal funds. You, of course, pay through your tax dollars. Trump demanding that his own doj, which he still oversees, of course, it's in the cabinet, pay him 230 million from taxpayers. He cites his own conduct that led to past federal investigations as the reasoning. Now, just off top here, no president has ever tried to take money directly for himself from the DOJ like this. Never. The plot comes also as an escalation of a range of profiteering and ethics scandals by Trump himself as well as his family members. He's insisted on profiteering from his businesses while in office. No other president's done that. And most other presidents have had other jobs or worked at law firms, but they cut that off in office. He has not. He's offered White House access recently to crypto investors. Again, that's not political campaign donors only. It's just people involved in enriching him and his family's crypto funds. His family also trades on his government power across several businesses. It's almost hard to keep track of. So this damning bombshell from the New York Times today comes in this context. It's about the money. First, shaking down the government. Second, a kind of a king attitude of, hey, he is the state, the state is him. Even as there is a no kings backlash that we've all been covering. And then basically, third, Trump is claiming the reason, because they're still pushing some sort of reason a taxpayer should pay him, compensate him, is because of his own conduct that led to him being under federal investigation. And by the way, I'm going to make this point briefly and then show you some examples. But other individuals in and out of government have been under investigation. Sometimes you're cleared or there's no trial. Other times you get in trouble. You might recall other presidents have had special counsels. President Clinton was investigated a lot. The notion that you are subject to the rule of law and investigated has never led to massive compensation from the taxpayer. And here's one example that Trump cites. So I'm showing you. What he says justifies this, and it is honestly laughable. As a former president, Donald Trump infamously took secret documents back home, lied to the government about having them, basically hid them, dared them to come back and get them, and they did. His unusual actions ultimately led to a federal search which busted him. Remember, he was in the wrong. They found the missing documents. I've got some on the screen to remind you. They were at his Mar A Lago property. Not exactly a obscure hiding place if you are a former president, people know where you live, but that's where he hid them until the government said, we're taking them back. He was at the time, a citizen, a former president. He was in the wrong. The search was proven to be right. Trump, of course, you might recall, was indicted for that. And in all fairness, he was not ultimately put on trial or convicted. The Supreme Court delayed that case, and then, of course, it was dropped when he became president again. That's also the rule of law. He benefited from that. That's okay. But there is no legal doubt about the original misconduct by Donald Trump that led to the search. The search was valid. The search was authorized by an independent judge at the Time in advance. It was later upheld. The higher courts never held otherwise. It was a valid search to see if he had stolen secret documents, which he did. I'm reminding you of this in some detail. You might say, okay, Ari, we get it. We remember. But because tonight, Trump wants to take your money that you pay your taxes with and take it for himself. And the reason, he says, is those documents that he was searched, investigated that way, that the DOJ should compensate him for the valid search where he was in the wrong. Trump is trying to do all this to enrich himself, but he also clearly wants to destroy the traditional, credible independence of the Justice Department. His past Attorney General, say, in the first term, never signed off on anything like this. It is hard to imagine, say, Attorney General Barr doing it now. But Trump, of course, has moved on to a different type of. Of appointee. He stalked the DOJ with his own criminal defense lawyers, not because they have experience running the prosecution side. They run the defense side not because they have a ton of DOJ experience, but because they are personally loyal to him in those cases. And now they're the ones that would be compensating him with your money over the cases that they worked on. They're on both sides of this case now, which is an ethical conflict exactly of the type that many, Richard Painter and others have warned against. The current attorney general also fired the DOJ's top ethics advisor. One of those many stories that are hard to keep track of. While the department now claims that the ethics advisors at DOJ will be the ones to maybe weigh in or bless this again, Trump is trying to take taxpayer money from this DOJ process, your paid money. And he's also made a statement about this that if it's understood to be referencing this situation, this is a misleading statement at best, where he claims that he already has a lawsuit on this and that he's suing himself. I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said, I'm sort of suing myself. I don't know. How do you settle the lawsuit? I'll say, give me X dollars.
- [07:10]
C
Right.
- [07:11]
A
And I don't know what to do with the lawsuit. It's a great lawsuit, and now I won.
- [07:14]
B
It sort of looks bad.
- [07:15]
A
I'm suing myself. Right? So I don't know. But that was a lawsuit that was a very strong. It went on like that. In Trumpian fashion. He is both demanding something that no president has ever tried. Obviously, it's a type of scandal, because plenty of people, whether you like him or his policies or not, don't think the DOJ that he controls should be issuing checks to him. And why stop at 200 million? Why not billions? Why not tens of billions? This happens in other countries. Rachel Maddow, among others, have warned that when countries lose their controls, their checks and balances, one of the first types of abuse is the corruption, kleptocracy and self enrichment that officials can benefit from because there's no one there to stop them. Now, it's not clear which DOJ officials would ultimately back this scandal, this quite corrupt request. The Times has reported on the plot, on the process. But if you are a DOJ lawyer, this type of thing could land you under investigation in any future DOJ that would follow or enforce government ethics rules. Trump is also demanding to be paid for basically two sets of probes. The search I mentioned and the 2016 Russia probe. But remember, the idea that DOJ would be ordered to pay Trump for mishandling secret material that led to his search is a kind of a Trump MAGA autocratic era equivalent of Gotham's finest paying the Joker for investigating him. And remember, the Trump Bondi DOJ is also using the same type of classified probe against one of their apparent critics, John Bolton. Trump has attacked him for criticizing him. And so they're not talking about compensating Bolton for the exact same type of secret document search. No, they're grinding on forward because obviously there are two different sets of rules here. And Trump is not hiding that like other people who've tried to break the rule of law, he celebrates it. He wants to make it very clear that he should be able to get away with anything and get paid for it. While several other officials are facing official actions, from indictments to subpoenas that are including Bolton there being targeted by doj. Their lawyers, several of them, allege that this is selective prosecution, that it ultimately could be tossed that way. One of the faces you see there was the indicted Democratic Congressman McIver. Foreign interaction outside an ICE facility with similar charges against the mayor of that same area already fell apart. They were withdrawn. She though, was back in court today in that case. Here's how she describes the Trump DOJ's approach. This was on the beat.
- [10:01]
C
Anyone who is a critic of this administration and this president, who holds this administration accountable, they are targets. They become on Trump's hit list and then you have them intimidating you, bullying you, charging you, bringing up Trumped up charges. I mean, this is real life. This is happening. To be a critic isn't a crime.
- [10:21]
A
This is real life. The Justice Department is one of the most powerful parts of the government, which is why the Constitution and our laws protect against abuse there. Because the power to investigate, to search, to arrest, to try to imprison and sometimes to take human life, those are some of the greatest powers the government wields. And now it is the doj, this Justice Department, that is in the core, the fulcrum of Donald Trump's efforts to break the protections on that, to turn it into a weapon, to use it as a kind of, well, as John Bolton said, a kind of Stalinist police state against his critics. And now tonight, apparently, it is also the next chapter of Donald Trump's efforts to grift, to turn the doj, in addition on the side, into his personal atm. With your taxpayer dollars, I want to bring in, as promised, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Good evening. Your response first to that DOJ story.
- [11:23]
D
Well, the Trump Department of Injustice at this point in time is completely and totally out of control. The Department of Injustice has been weaponized to target Trump critics and adversaries and perceived enemies in ways that undermine the notion of this country as one anchored in the rule of law. And now, of course, as you've pointed out, Donald Trump is trying to use the Department of Injustice as part of his ongoing pay to play scheme, the largest that we've seen in the history of the country. And he's doing it without any shame. And it remains to be seen whether anyone within the administration is willing to actually stand up to him at this point in time, which is why we need a Congress to actually conduct itself like a separate and co equal branch of government, as opposed to what we've seen under House Republicans, which is just a reckless rubber stamp for Donald Trump's extreme agenda.
- [12:22]
A
Would this be a valid use of taxpayer funds? And can Congress do anything about it?
- [12:27]
D
Well, it's a completely and totally invalid use of taxpayer funds. The irony of it all is that the government is shut down right now. It remains shuttered because Donald Trump and Republicans are unwilling to find the resources necessary to extend the Affordable Care act tax credits and prevent tens of millions of people from experiencing dramatically increased premiums, co pays and deductibles. But he has all the time in the world to engage in another grift to enrich himself for legitimate health investigation that occurred under the prior administration. It is definitively illegal. Congress has the power of the purse. And you can't simply transfer $230 million of taxpayer funds because Donald Trump has directed his sycophants within his administration to do just that. And so I expect that if they were to engage in this type of unlawful action, of course they will be sued aggressively, immediately. And I think, Ari, as you've pointed out, appropriately so the statute of limitations on all of this behavior is five years. And so accountability is coming for all of these people who are engaging in real life criminal activity at the behest of Donald Trump. Supreme Court may have given him some immunity. It hasn't given any of these other sick offense immunity.
- [13:57]
A
Right. As you mentioned, and I mentioned that in our reporting because that's our understanding of it. These are pretty clear rules and attorneys, especially government attorneys, have extra obligations. You mentioned the shutdown. Where do we go from here? Are we to understand that Democrats are not going to give in? And if they don't give in, then how long are we bracing for a shutdown? And what do you think you're achieving?
- [14:21]
D
Well, this is week four of the Trump shutdown and we've been clear that we want to reopen the government. We want to find a bipartisan path forward to enacting a spending agreement. But that spending agreement actually has to make life better for the American people. And at the same time, we have to decisively address the Republican healthcare crisis that is crushing people all across the country, including working class America, rural America, urban America, small town America, the heartland of America, and black and brown communities all throughout the United States of America. It's a real time crisis, as Marjorie Taylor Greene herself has acknowledged. And so we're going to continue to hold the line. I'm thankful for the courage and the principled strength that has been shown by my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats. We're in this fight until we win this fight on behalf of the American people.
- [15:15]
A
What do you see in the no Kings protest out there and is it broadly aligned with the Democratic agenda? Do you view it as potentially independent but concerned about autocracy? And how are you trying to meet that energy?
- [15:30]
D
Well, the protests were peaceful, they were patriotic and they were powerful. And another indication that the American people are not standing for the type of extremism that we've consistently seen, seen be unleashed on the American people by Donald Trump and his administration from day one. All of the promises that they made about doing things like lowering the high cost of living have been broken. And what we've seen from this administration is implementation of their Toxic Project 2025 agenda, which they lied about all of last year. And it's extraordinary to see more than 7 million people show up across the country consistent with the best of what America has to offer in terms of pushing back peacefully but aggressively against an out of control administration, which is the case right now. And it will make a difference as we continue to march forward toward accountability. We'll see some of that accountability two weeks from today on November 4th in New Jersey, I believe in Virginia, and in terms of Prop 50 in California, where we are working hard to stop Trump from stealing the midterm elections by engaging in this aggressive gerrymandering. And that accountability will continue as we move forward beyond this upcoming election.
- [16:51]
A
Leader Jeffries, another difficult topic that weighs on a lot of our leaders are these threats of violence. In this instance, as you well know, there was an individual who'd been convicted of storming the Capitol here and they had threatened you. I have a headline, pardoned Capitol Rioter charged with threatening to kill Hakeem Jeffries at a New York City event this week. The complication here, I've heard you and others condemn all, of course, political violence here. You would be a potential target. But should this person be out of federal prison in the first place, that would seem a relevant safety consideration given that the president did choose to pardon them.
- [17:31]
D
Yeah. The real problem that the country confronts, and I'm thankful for local, state and federal law enforcement in terms of identifying the immediacy of this threat and taking decisive action. But the American people across the country are under threat because Donald Trump made the decision to pardon hundreds of violent felons who brutally beat police officers on January 6 and have now been unleashed in communities all across the country. And we've seen multiple instances of these January 6th rioters having engaged in reoffending, having engaged in violent crimes and other things that are jeopardizing the safety of the American people. That's the big problem that we confront right now. And, you know, we just need a handful of Republicans to actually raise their voices and make clear that this is problematic. But of course, they can't do it. When Donald Trump says jump, they just respond, how high?
- [18:31]
A
I'm jumping around. Because your time is limited. We are told that with a new member sworn in, you would get to a vote on the Epstein files. Can you tell us the status of that? And what would the American people potentially learn?
- [18:46]
D
Representative Elect Adelina Grijalova was elected by the people of Arizona four weeks ago today. And it remains the case that Speaker Mike Johnson and House Republicans have continued to prevent her from being sworn in. Why? We believe it's because she will be the 218th signature on a discharge petition that will force an up or down vote on the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files and that legislation will pass. And House Republicans and Donald Trump clearly want no part of that type of transparency and accountability. They don't want that information.
- [19:25]
A
You say if we'll learn much. I mean, it's a tricky one because you don't know what they have or are hiding. So do you view it as the right thing to do in theory, or you're under the view based on what you know, that there's more information there to come out?
- [19:38]
D
Well, it's either one or two things that are true. Either Donald Trump and the extremists spent years lying to their own base about what was in the Epstein files, fanning the flames of a conspiracy theory that people were being protected, or it is, in fact, the case that the files are very damning in terms of what's in them. That's probably more likely than not the scenario that we'll confront. And that's why they're doing everything they can to, to hide them, including by unlawfully preventing Representative elect Adelita Grijalova from being sworn in. But we're going to stay on the case. She is going to get sworn in and we're going to see these files released and accountability brought to any of the wrongdoers who are in that file.
- [20:25]
A
I know your time is short. I appreciate you coming On THE Beat here with a lot going on. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on several topics. Thank you, sir.
- [20:32]
D
Thank you.
- [20:33]
A
Appreciate it. We have a lot more coming up by the end of the hour. We will hear from Neil DeGrasse Tyson himself, back ON THE BEAT as we make sense of everything from science to technology today. But right now we are going to turn to the warnings about Trump's use of the military. How far can he go? I have a special item for you that is relevant to those warning about what he's going to do. I'm going to show you where he came from on this when we're back in 90 seconds. Hey, everybody, Ted Danson here to tell you about my podcast with my longtime friend and sometimes co host Woody Harrelson. It's called where everybody knows your name. And we're back for another season. I'm so excited to be joined this season by friends like John Mulaney, David Spade, Sarah Silverman, Ed Helms and many more. You don't want to miss it. Listen to where everybody knows your name with me, Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson. Sometimes, wherever you get your podcasts, 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.
- [22:02]
C
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. Infiniti'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.
- [22:34]
A
In this second term, President Trump is clearly testing and sometimes seizing military powers to see how far he can go, and lawmakers in Democratic cities are sounding the alarm. There are the attempts to use or misuse the National Guard to deploy troops like you see here, to avoid the local checks and balances, to misuse the statutory references to rebellion that give wartime powers over some of these troops. Illinois Governor J.B. pritzker even went this far with this stark warning.
- [23:09]
D
I think it's not very far away from him offering and providing military to.
- [23:15]
A
Protect the polling places across America, but.
- [23:21]
D
Particularly in blue states and blue cities.
- [23:24]
A
With the idea that they could confiscate.
- [23:26]
D
The ballot boxes if they think there.
- [23:29]
A
Is fraud in the election. That's a very serious charge. Pritzker talking about future elections and discussing the idea of what we've seen in other countries that the military could be pulled into attempts to to interfere in the election or who has the ballots. That's not a good thing. And that could sound like a coup. And some might say, well, there go the Democrats with these alarmist claims about the future rather than the present. But when you look at what Trump is doing with the military and a claim like that, we can actually stack it against other times where Trump was still in charge and dealing with an election he lost. So that doesn't apply to last November when the incumbent party was Democratic And Trump did lawfully win the November election. But what about 2020? When you look at the many ways that Donald Trump tried to overthrow the election, he lost, you will see one of the arrows we've charted before for you and you might have forgotten about it. The military seizing voting machines was a plot that you see there around December that was short. It was aborted, abandoned, shut down because it was so illegal at the time that Trump's most loyal aides didn't want to go forward with it. Hence the shortest arrow. But there was, remember, a Trump executive order that was at least drafted, a written plot that wanted to make the Secretary of Defense seize, collect, retain and analyze certain voting machines, and that they would put in a Trump special counsel pick who was actually a Trump attorney who got in a lot of legal trouble later, Sidney Powell, who would, in this very odd coup like plot of mid December, she would somehow, they thought, tell the military how to go and take the ballots, which again, sounds like a coup. In fairness, this did not happen. But let me remind you why. Rudy Giuliani, who didn't see a lot of things he wasn't willing to try for Trump, warned at the time, if they did that and tried to send troops in to steal the ballots, quote, we'd all end up in prison. His then Attorney General as well as other attorneys balked at what was essentially the makings of a request to conduct a MAGA military couple. The President said something like.
- [25:56]
D
Well, we could get to the bot.
- [25:57]
A
You know, some people say we could.
- [25:59]
D
Get to the bottom of this if, if the department sees the machines. I said, absolutely not.
- [26:04]
A
That's not how we do things in the United States. There's no legal authority to do that. What they were proposing I thought was nuts. I don't understand why we even have to tell you why that's. Those are top Trump officials at the time, who served at the time, all going against it because we don't do military coups in America. But when we hear today warnings about what Trump might do in the next one or two elections, we already have in writing and with those witnesses all around him, what he tried to do. And later, as more information came out, the Times reported in 2022, Trump was more directly involved in that plot than people initially thought. He pushed the plans through several channels. They kept hitting walls because even the most loyal people said coups are illegal and you can't use the military that way. So when we hear these warnings today, sometimes from governors and lawmakers who are involved, other times from our experts Understand, we are not hearing mere speculation. We are hearing something rooted in the real history of what Trump tried to do back when there were more people around him saying no. Today, he has installed a heck of a lot more people who will say yes, even after other lawyers and otherwise MAGA loyalists have said they'll do anything for him but end democracy or break the doj.
- [27:26]
C
And.
- [27:27]
A
And he finds the people who will. So what do we do with a problem like this when there are fewer people saying no? Former prosecutor Joyce Vance on that question and more when we come back.
- [27:46]
D
The.
- [27:46]
A
President said something like.
- [27:50]
D
Well, we could get to the bottom.
- [27:51]
A
You know, some people say we could.
- [27:52]
D
Get to the bottom of this if. If the department sees the machines. I said, absolutely not.
- [27:58]
A
That's not how we do things in the United States. There's no legal authority to do that. What they were proposing, I thought was nuts. I don't understand why we even have to tell you why that's ok. Trump officials speaking out against a somewhat forgotten but failed plot by Donald Trump and his aides to explore if they could get the military to help them overthrow his 2020 loss. We're joined now by Joyce Vance. You know her, of course, as a former U.S. attorney. But she has a brand new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, a manual for keeping a democracy out today. Welcome. We will get to that book. Congratulations. But what do you view here in this history of this military plot as it applies to Trump's potential goals in the future?
- [28:44]
C
Right, so there were two problems with that plot back it seems like so long ago. Right. In 2021. Both the idea of seizing voting machines, because of course, we know that we don't have just one election in this country. We have 50 state elections. This notion that the feds could go in and pick and choose and seize ones in areas perhaps where the outgoing president lost, for instance. I mean, that's obvious to all of us what the issue is. But then there's also the idea of using the military to seize the machines. Strictly off the books. Military plays no role in determining the outcome of elections. That's the mantra at both DOJ and dod. We don't interfere with elections. And so I think we're foolish if we don't look at history and consider the possibility that that's prologue to what could happen in this next election, particularly with the guardrails so reduced.
- [29:38]
A
And you mentioned guardrails. It's also just who's in the administration, because Trump clearly wants what he wants. And then when even so called even Rudy Giuliani says no. At times, we see him back off it. Here's what some of the first administration veterans have sounded like. The White House is very serious about using any lever of government that, you.
- [30:00]
D
Know, inflates Trump's sense of his power.
- [30:04]
A
I think when you challenge the Constitution.
- [30:06]
D
Itself, the way Trump has done that.
- [30:08]
A
Is un American, certainly falls into the.
- [30:12]
B
General definition of fascist.
- [30:16]
A
Sure.
- [30:16]
D
I saw over the summer of 2020 where President Trump and those around him.
- [30:20]
A
Wanted to use the National Guard in various capacities.
- [30:23]
D
And my sense is his inclination is to use the military in these situations.
- [30:29]
A
What is the risk with most of those types of voices gone from leadership?
- [30:34]
C
Right. I mean, the risk is that there is no one to tell Donald Trump no. And we know, frankly, that in the last administration, there were sometimes folks who leaned on him, who kept him from engaging in some of the worst, feared sorts of abuses. So here's where we are. We have a president who's now openly seeking the blessing of the courts to federalize and deploy the National Guard and possibly the military. And it is very difficult, I think, and it would be dangerous not to connect that with everything that you're talking about here, with using the military in connection with elections. That's the risk.
- [31:08]
A
Yeah. You, of course, served inside the doj. Most of these lawyers, we. We don't see and hear from them. A longtime career official who rose to acting deputy director of the Immigration Department, who defended Trump's travel ban and other projects, hit that line and people may remember the Garcia case. He's spoken out now for the first time on camera to 60 minutes, and he makes the point that he refused to lie under Trump administration orders and that if we don't have due process, then they can say anyone's a foreigner, anyone's a gang member. Take a look.
- [31:44]
D
They did everything they did to him in violation of his due process rights. What's to stop them if they decide.
- [31:50]
A
They don't like you anymore to say you're a criminal, you're a member of Ms. 13, you're a terrorist.
- [31:57]
D
What's to stop them from sending in some DOJ attorney at the direction of DOJ leadership to delay, to filibuster, and if necessary, to lie.
- [32:08]
A
And now that's you gone and your liberty changed your view of, of what is now a whistleblower, Ezra Venney. And what. What we learned in that new report.
- [32:17]
C
So I think Mr. Yuvany's comments are dead on the mark. Right. This is someone who actually was willing to pursue what he viewed as legitimate Trump administration policies willing to support them in court. He drew a line at this notion of violating due process. That's the right line. That's the line that needs to concern everyone in this country right now. Because without due process, there's no protection. No protection for me. And that's the new risk that we have to be in tune with.
- [32:46]
A
I don't know if he had an advanced copy of your book, but you say giving up is unforgivable. And there certainly are many people right now who are looking at this quest and saying it's not a time to give up. Tell us about your new book, and we're gonna leave it on the screen why people might want to pick it up.
- [33:02]
C
So, look, my whole goal was to imbue people with a sense that our history, and specifically our legal history in this country tells us that we can get through very difficult situations, moments like current one, where people believe that democracy may not be able to withstand the stress on it. Right. And so when you go back and when you look at the history, you realize there have been moments during the civil rights movement or during the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II where things looked very dire and one or more of the institutions stepped up, whether it was Congress, whether it was the court, whether it was the people, and ultimately, that's. That's really the answer. We talk a lot about whether the cavalry is coming to save us. In reality, we are the cavalry. Donald Trump wants us to believe we don't have the power to counterbalance him, but we do.
- [33:55]
A
A very timely book. I'll put it back up on the screen. Giving up is unforgivable. We try to be independent and objective around here, but I will admit, we like you. And so we. We think it's going to be an interesting book, brand new manual for keeping a democracy. You can check it out. I'm going to fit in a break, but guess who's coming up. Neil DeGrasse Tyson himself. Stay with us. Hi, I'm Jenny Slate, and believe it.
- [34:20]
C
Or not, someone is allowing us to have a podcast.
- [34:23]
A
I'm Gabe Liedman.
- [34:24]
B
I'm Max Silvestri, and we've been friends for 20 years, and we like to reach out to kind of get advice.
- [34:30]
A
On how to live our lives. It's called I need you guys. Should I give my baby fresh vegetables? Can I drink the water at the hospital? My landlord plays the trombone and I can't ask him to stop. You should make sure that you subscribe.
- [34:44]
C
So that you never miss an episode.
- [34:57]
A
It's Cybersecurity awareness month and LifeLock is here with tips to help protect your identity. Use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication and report phishing scams. And for comprehensive identity protection, LifeLock is your best choice. LifeLock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft. Guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected with a 30 day free trial@lifelock.com Specialoffer terms apply.
- [35:26]
C
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.
- [36:01]
A
You don't know how to fix the hyperdrive?
- [36:03]
C
Chewbacca can do it.
- [36:04]
A
I'm standing here in pieces and you're having delusions of grandeur. You did it. Star Wars Imagine talking robots who might help us get things done. And well, we are past R2D2 level robots. When you look at today's AI, we have news tonight. The big AI company OpenAI with ChatGPT is launching a Google competitor. If you think about how big a deal Google is, they're going to do their own web browser. While Trump, meanwhile, is not exactly pushing forward on great regulations or big plans for AI, indeed instead undercutting scientific research. But we are learning more as we go. NASA, which is functioning pretty well even amidst a government shutdown, its long term research shows that the Earth has two moons. Scientists have found material from a different version of our planet. These are just quick examples of what we call learning. In news, it's what's brand new, but in science it's sometimes actually expanding our understanding of what we even know. Famed astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson says you cannot blame scientists for discoveries of the universe that you do not like. As we live in this anti fax era, he says, that'd be like blaming the postal service's letter carrier for the contents of your mail. Unlike governments who meddle in their citizens affairs, scientists do not tell the universe what to do or how to do it. Just Visiting this Planet is an exciting book by an exciting thinker. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is here next. We are back with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the author of Just Visiting this Planet, Revised and updated for the 21st century. Further scientific adventures of Merlin from Omniscient.
- [38:08]
B
Omniscient.
- [38:09]
A
Omniscient.
- [38:10]
B
That's Merlin's planet. Another galaxy.
- [38:12]
A
Yeah. I had to pause because especially with you here, you know, we all get a little like, well, he really knows things. People look at the world today and they see attacks on science in our own administration, government, out to a kind of a growing illiteracy online. What does this book do for us against these threats?
- [38:32]
B
I. I thought people knew. Apparently not. But I thought people knew the role and the value of science as the taproots of the engines of tomorrow's economy. To cut science funding here and there and willy nilly and pass judgment on some scientific paper because you think it will never be relevant. Because to you, in that moment, it seems silly. It's so shortsighted that it has me question the future competitiveness of the United States on the world stage. And. And it saddens me to observe that not only as a scientist, but as a citizen of the country, Science was set as a priority after the second world War, after we won the war on science. Okay. And it was set as a priority by Vannavar Bush, who was basically the first science advisor at the time to Truman. 1947, a document, the endless frontier. And that there are lines, there are chapters in it. Science in medicine, science in job creation, science and security, science in the economy. It laid it all out. And out of that came the National Science Foundation. So if people don't know this, this character Merlin, which I invented as a vehicle to bring science to people in a joyous way, in a way where you want to keep coming back, apparently we really need that right now because people aren't feeling it.
- [39:59]
A
Right. Well, you celebrate that and we showed Star Wars. People love sci fi sometimes more than the sci.
- [40:05]
B
Yeah. Of the size.
- [40:08]
A
You write that, we could even get a new quote. Understanding of the fabric of space time, where the distance between you and your destination may be lessened. Which we've seen on film. Explain.
- [40:19]
D
Yeah.
- [40:20]
B
Well, that's just the warp drives or wormholes. It's fanciful today, but it could be factual tomorrow. Not literally tomorrow, but the more we understand what's going on in the universe and you can have fun with it, but there's some science. Let me be clear. The science I do in the universe, everybody loves. Like Pluto, the big Bang, Black Holes. I get that. But there's other science out there that is fundamental to how we think of being Americans in the 20th and 21st centuries. And without that, we're going to watch the rest of the world pass us by. And I kind of don't want that. And again, speaking as a scientist, but more importantly, as a citizen of the United States, a country I love and that I. I honed my science interests by the forces operating of educators and other scientists and television programming and wise investments, both parties investing in the future of science.
- [41:17]
A
When you see RFK Jr go up and say he has an idea, he has a musing, he has a hunch. As best we can, putting politics aside, what is he getting wrong about the scientific method by leading with only what might be his music?
- [41:35]
B
So in a couple of cases, he'll find a research paper. By the way, what's taught in school, in science is here's a satchel of information. Learn it, regurgitate it for the exam, and then move on. At no time is science taught as a methods and tools of inquiry to discover what is objectively true. And on the frontier of science, things can move back and forth and it can get bloody. Not literally bloody, but messy. And only when there's multiple tests and multiple observations. When they have agreement, then you've got an emergent truth. You can't do what I've seen others do, including Kennedy. Pick a research paper and say there's one that must be true. Because it aligns with your philosophies. Be it cultural, religious, philosophical. Just because it aligns doesn't mean it's true. Aligns with how you want it to be true doesn't mean it's true. You need corroboration. That's how science works. That's what science is. It is never the efforts of the lone researcher who's on their own. And they make a discovery and say everyone else has got it wrong, but I have it right. That is the surest sign of a cult in progress.
- [42:47]
A
We know about those these days too. I want to show a funny truth, please. Which is that you are so learned, people really look to you. But on key and peel, they joke you can be so abstract that anything could be true. Let's take a look.
- [43:01]
B
Go ahead.
- [43:03]
D
Neil.
- [43:03]
A
It doesn't make any sense.
- [43:05]
D
You're an astrophysicist.
- [43:07]
B
How can you not keep track of.
- [43:09]
A
Little details like this? Well, actually it's the little details that.
- [43:17]
D
Cannot be kept track of by definition.
- [43:19]
A
So expect the papers from a lawyer. Cause we're Parting ways?
- [43:25]
D
Well, actually, no.
- [43:29]
A
No, we are always parting ways and not parting ways in every conceivable combination. Are we? Always parting ways. And do you ever get out of anything, I don't know, homework, chores with this?
- [43:43]
B
No, because my wife actually has a PhD in mathematical physics, so I don't get out of any chores.
- [43:50]
A
What about with anyone else?
- [43:51]
B
In fact, I confronted Key and Peele at the Emmys where my podcast had been nominated that year. We didn't win, but we got nominated. I saw them there. I said, by the way, there's your version of me sort of bamboozling my wife. And my wife has a PhD in mathematical physics and here she is. So they met, but it's all in good.
- [44:12]
A
So that would never work. If someone says, oh, you missed the deadline or you're late, and you say, well, I'm only late in this scalp galaxy.
- [44:18]
B
Yeah, you could say that. But nobody's talking. No, nobody. Nobody's buying that excuse.
- [44:23]
A
Nobody's buying that. Well, maybe they'll buy the book. Just visiting this planet. Out now. We'll be right back.
- [44:30]
B
Thanks.
- [44:35]
A
These massive no Kings rallies have made a major impact, including across late night. You know it's bad when 7 million people make plans on a Saturday, then actually follow through. You know, look at that crowd. There hasn't been a crowd that big in Boston since Duncan held a promotion called Win a Free Munchkin. Every time you scream Jeter sucks. You know New Yorkers are pissed when they voluntarily come to Times Square on a weekend. Look, maybe Trump isn't an all powerful.
- [45:04]
B
King, the kind who can do whatever.
- [45:06]
A
He wants, but he's undeniably King adjacent. King esque.
- [45:10]
B
Moving for more.
- [45:12]
A
He's the imitation crab of kings right now. The I Can't Believe It's Not King. I Can't Believe It's Not King. Thanks for joining us. 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 really make you feel like you're pulling 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.