Andrew Weissman (1:47)

I don't know the details about that. That seems outrageous. The president is asking his own Justice Department to give the president money.

Ari Melber (1:54)

Unless it's something that's done in the normal business. And I don't believe that it is. At the very least, it's horrible timing given that we're in a shutdown.

Andrew Weissman (2:04)

I didn't talk with him about that. I know that he believes he's owed that reimbursement.

Ari Melber (2:09)

It seems a bit odd to me.

Andrew Weissman (2:10)

Asking his Justice Department to find a.

Ari Melber (2:14)

Settlement that will enrich the president. I've got a lot of optics concerns and I just don't know if there's precedent for it. There is no precedent for it. You could probably tell who the Republicans were in that medley, but he didn't have any there. Defending this outright. No president has tried anything this brazen. Trying to seize over $200 billion in taxpayer money is obviously unethical. It is an ethics violation to abuse government power to enrich yourself, full stop. It's also very likely unlawful. No president has tried. So we don't exactly have some clear court precedent on how much money you could just try to seize or take out a taxpayer grifting, but certainly not 230 million. And history is instructive. No one has come close to what Trump is trying. Richard Nixon famously faced blowback when he was the nominee for Vice president and it was over about $18,000 in alleged gifts. He gave a national address over the scandal and he famously tried to say that the problem alleged that he was taking, you know, ten plus thousand dollars, wasn't true. The very opposite of Trump today and that the main gift he took was his dog named Checkers. I'm sure that you have read the charge and you've heard it, that I, Senator Nixon, took $18,000 from a group of my supporters. The question is, was it morally wrong?

Andrew Weissman (3:39)

Not one cent of the $18,000 or any other money of that type of.

Ari Melber (3:45)

Ever went to me for my personal use. You see the denial. He was saying, hey, he didn't take any of the money, the $18,000. Trump is pursuing the opposite, trying to take it for himself. And it's 230 million. If you go back to 1960s, there was a Supreme Court justice who was caught taking about a $20,000 retainer, and it was such a big scandal that you would have that much government power but still be trying to take outside money. He ultimately resigned over the obvious ethics violation. If you check the numbers, Trump isn't seeking 100 times that amount or 500, but actually over 1,000 times that amount in these taxpayer funds. He's going to see if he can take, see if he can get away with taking your money. In 1981, a judge ultimately ordered Vice President Agnew to repay over $200,000 that he took in alleged bribes, which were determined to ultimately have belonged that money to the people of Maryland, much like the federal money belongs to the people of the United States, not to politicians who are temporarily in power now. You might have cynics who say, well, that was then. I guess things have changed. Things are different now. And Trump and his family make money off business, while their fathers in government, they make money off crypto and the hotels. So maybe they can start just taking it from the taxpayers, too. Maybe they want people to get that cynical. But it's also off base, even if some people want us to give up or go downhill. Because I want to show you, in Donald Trump's first term, he ousted two cabinet officials over these types of money and ethics scandals. He, Donald Trump, whether it was the bad press or the optics or the ethics, but he ultimately said no to these officials who were caught with allegations about misusing about hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some of that, by the way, in fairness, was paid back. And we're not talking about 200 million. So few may remember the exact people involved. Price and Pruitt, their Griff scandals were too much even for this same president, at least when it came to him getting in trouble or bad press for this type of enrichment. The recent talk that Trump may take these millions from taxpayers, but what if he didn't take them personally? What if he put it to a charity? That's one of the defenses now floating, which again is a sign that things still matter. And maybe they don't want to go forward with the original enrichment plan. But that wouldn't address the ethics here at all. Because if he takes the taxpayer money, it's not his money, whether he uses it for a charity or something else. And I would remind you if in the past he has taken these type of formats and used the money to enrich himself. So what he called a charity ultimately led to the shuttering of the Trump foundation because of credible allegations about misuse, what the Times reported on as a pattern of illegality. Congressional Democrats say their probe on this tonight is serious. If they win in the midterms, well, then this could be something that they probe with the full subpoena power of a majority in the House. Democrats and ethics experts view several of Trump's activities as impeachable offenses, things that he's tried to do in the past, doing now or plotting to do. The DOJ plot here is not something he's yet pocketed the money. Now, Trump is the only twice impeached president in our history, and you remember it was for his alleged role in an insurrection that Republicans condemned at the time and a separate plot to get a foreign country to push a probe into his domestic rival. He wanted Ukraine, remember, to probe the Bidens. That's why he got impeached the first time. And what Trump could only try to get other countries to do in the first term has now become his domestic operating playbook. It is now at the same DOJ that He's shaking down for money. And he's not just probing them. He's indicting people who have crossed him on largely old fact patterns, incidents that were already reviewed or previously rejected by prosecutors. The lawyers for some of these individuals say these are clearly vindictive prosecutions. They will try to get them dismissed. Trump is also stalking the DOJ with his past criminal defense and personal lawyers, leadership that bend, apparently, to these recently requested indictments and that now could imperil their own future careers if they okay Trump's demand to just seize hundreds of millions of dollars with the DOJ as his atmosphere, something that you just heard a Republican senator say does not look like the normal course. The guardrails are off. This is all happening in plain sight. The pushback, though, is also happening. And the reason it's all at the fulcrum of the DOJ is because over time, the president did figure out that the DOJ is a powerful and independent arm of the United States government, one that he has increasingly tried to control. So that which he used to try to get Ukraine or other countries to do in secret, he now might get his own DOJ to do in the open. Joined by Andrew Weissman, who is a top DOJ prosecutor trusted by Robert Mueller to help run that independent special counsel probe, was also general counsel of the FBI, which is, of course, the law enforcement arm of the doj. General counsel being the role where you tell them what they can and can't do. Andrew, welcome back. It doesn't seem that people inside the DOJ under this administration are doing much of that, telling Trump what he can't do. Your view of both the legality and the ethics of him trying to get this money out of doj?

Andrew Weissman (9:28)

Well, the ethics are absolutely clear. You cannot do it. One, the President of the United States cannot be both a plaintiff and the judge and jury on his own case. And if you are a political appointee, you ethically should not be doing this, particularly if you're a political appointee who used to represent the President of the United States and you still have an ethical obligation as a former client. If anything, let's assume that Donald Trump is a huge assumption. It's not hypothetical. Let's assume that he has an argument that he has a meritorious claim and that he was a victim of DOJ prosecutions under the Biden administration, and he could show the requisite legal factual standard was met in his case. Well, that means that a career person at the department should be handling it and should be making all the arguments which they make all the time as to why this should not go forward, why that plaintiff is not entitled to money. And if a judge overseeing it thinks that this is something that they are entitled to, let's go to a hearing on it where Donald Trump would have to show why he is legally and factually entitled to it. That's the last thing in God's green earth that he wants, is a hearing where he would have to show that he in fact was innocent and that the of everything that DOJ has charged him with. So to me, this is something that is so akin to his just robbing the taxpayers of $230 million as if he had just gone into Fort Knox and taken gold bullion.

Ari Melber (11:27)

And the history shows far smaller sums were enough to derail careers. Our colleague Rachel Maddow has done a lot about the Spiro Agnew case, and she was writing about this when Trump was coming back in the second term. Watch your wallet, she wrote in the New Yorker. If history is a guide, it might be worth remembering. America's most accomplished demagogues have also all been crooks. Let's not be surprised about where this is heading. We'll shout down our own fear, yes, but we'll also expose and humiliate thieves. Your thoughts on that, that linkage, Andrew, and why, when it works, the Constitution tries to guard against those corruptive temptations?

Andrew Weissman (12:09)

Well, so let's remember before this happened, we have examples that appear completely extortionate, whether it's abc, cbs, Law firms being your phrase was shaken down. You have universities being shaken down here. The difference is that he is on both sides of this, so that the he is basically the plaintiff and he's saying, oh, you know what the fig leaf of this bogus claim is? You know, I'm going to say it's meritorious. And guess what? I get to judge it. So I'm going to be the plaintiff and then I'm going to judge it. So he doesn't actually need to engage in the kind of extortionate activity of the type that Rachel referred to the litany of things that we've seen with law firms and academic institutions and media organizations, because he can actually just order the Department of Justice to say, you know, just settle it. Because guess what? I've determined I'm the plaintiff and I've determined I'm right. And so it is both obviously ethically wrong. I should say, if you are Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, you know, they do have there are bar associations that can get involved and can look at their conduct if they decide that they are going to handle this matter in spite of the fact that there's an obvious conflict because it's the president who appointed them, it is the former client of theirs. So there really is good reason within the Department of Justice to make sure that career people are handling this. Because if career people handled this, they would be fighting it up one side and down the other, saying that he just doesn't. His, his fig leaf is just a ruse to get this money. And they would make the arguments they make every day of the week when people similarly tried to get money, saying they really prevailed. And the government usually, except the most extraordinary circumstances, says, no, you haven't prevailed. You're not entitled to this money.

Ari Melber (14:17)

Here's what we heard from some other senators today. This is from both parties. I don't know what to make of that, what the procedure is. I've read the same thing you've read. I think it is absolutely mind boggling, head spinning.

Gene Robinson (14:34)

I'm not sure what the remedy is.

Andrew Weissman (14:36)

But I'll let the Department of Justice sort that out.

Ari Melber (14:39)

We ought to use the power of the purse, which is granted to us under the Constitution, to stop any payment by the United States Department of Justice. You've been around these issues and dealt with Congress over the years. What does it tell you that nobody on the Republican side wants to get anywhere near saying this is acceptable.

Andrew Weissman (15:02)

So this is outside of my area of expertise. But I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist that you, I mean, I think you completely, completely nailed this, which is you're not hearing anyone say, this is good. You know, you're not hearing anybody on either side of the aisle saying that this is appropriate. But I just want to make sure people understand that this is just a natural outgrowth of the kind of extortionate activity that we have seen with respect to all of these other institutions. The thing so that, you know, when my reaction was to the settling of what looked like frivolous lawsuits by, you know, paying, you know, tens of millions of dollars to, you know, a presidential library, you know, that is a shakedown. And here the only reason it's like strikes people is even worse is because he gets to decide it on his own and he's not actually just, you know, trying to, you know, twist the arms of Harvard University or Columbia or, you know, and I could go on and on. So it really is a sort of capstone on the kind of grift that we have seen from day one being engaged in. It's Just, it is really sort of like hope is sort of the straw that breaks the camel's back where they say, you know what? Enough. That's, you know, when you go into public service, it is not to enrich yourself. That happens. And Banana Republic, it's not supposed to be what happens in the United States of America.

Ari Melber (16:36)

Yeah, and these are some expensive bananas for the public that might tune in and figure out where his priorities are. Andrew, I want to turn to those revenge prosecutions as well. You've been in the middle of all this. You just spoke with Jack Smith, the former special counsel. We're back with Andrew to continue this in 90 seconds. Hi, I'm Jenny Slate and believe it or not, someone is allowing us to have a podcast. I'm Gabe Wiedman.

Andrew Weissman (17:02)

I'm Max Silvestri and we've been friends for 20 years and we like to reach out to kind of get advice on how to live our lives.

Ari Melber (17:09)

It's called I need you guys.

Andrew Weissman (17:11)

Should I give my baby fresh vegetables?

Ari Melber (17:14)

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.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (17:22)

So that you never miss an episode.

Ari Melber (17:24)

I need to go.

Andrew Weissman (17:29)

Foreign.

Ari Melber (17:35)

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 with 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.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (18:03)

Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult.

Ari Melber (18:07)

Life skill to teach?

Haley Cohen Gilliland (18:09)

Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance and keep an eye on your kids spending with real time notifications. Kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Sign up for Greenlight today@Greenlight.com podcast.

Ari Melber (18:34)

We're back with Andrew Weissman. These so called revenge prosecutions are grinding forward. James Comey's lawyers are arguing that the prosecutor who was infamously installed without much experience to replace another temporary prosecutor is actually not legally in that role. This is something that we first discussed in those early days, Andrew. You combine that with what Trump is clearly aware of, which is that there are only so many People willing to do some of this stuff because some of it's over the line. And so he's also trying to get more control over the process of who he puts in political reporting that he now wants Republican senators to basically break something that they've held as a pattern for a long time in the Senate, where home state senators have a little more say over these prosecutors. He's digging into that. What do you think of the Comey motion here and this larger scuffle over prosecutors and independents?

Andrew Weissman (19:33)

Sure. Well, one of the motions, because there were two that James Comey has made, one of them is about vindictive and selective prosecution. In other words, where you're using the phrase sort of revenge prosecutions, that actually is a motion that is now before the district judge, and we will see what he does with that. He has sort of three options. He can just deny it outright. I think that's. That's not likely. He could grant it outright. And there's lots of evidence that has been submitted. Of course, we haven't seen the government's response yet. And the other thing that he could do, which I, I think is probably the wisest course, is he could say that James Comey has done enough. He's substantiated his claim enough that he's entitled to discovery. He's entitled to get information about what was the White House communicating with the prosecutors, what were the career people, and even the point person, the sort of U.S. attorney before Lindsey Halligan, who resigned over this, what was he saying? So that discovery could be really embarrassing and damaging to the Department of Justice and to the White House. And then finally, the other motion is with speak to Lindsey Halligan. This is a kind of motion that's been made around the country, most famously Alina Haba, where the district judge there found that she is improperly appointed to be the attorney general. And so that's the same motion that's been made with respect to Lindsey Halligan, and we'll see what happens there. But it seems to be on pretty straight, strong footing. If the judge follows what other district judges have been doing around the country with respect to these appointments, where he is, what the basic argument is he's usurping the senatorial role that they have to put in place and confirm somebody and just saying I can keep on rolling over interim people and I never have to worry about the Senate.

Ari Melber (21:41)

Yeah, really striking. Andrew Weissman, thank you for the primer on more than one issue. We appreciate it. Coming up tonight, there are new measures of how the public views this administration and why the protests are feeding a larger disapproval that has Trump slumping. I also have a special guest as we look around the world for lessons on how democracies decay and what dissidents and protesters can do. There is also. There's also heat over a pretty strange development. The president doing this East Wing demolition with secrecy and some saying it's a larger metaphor.

Andrew Weissman (22:16)

Donald Trump is literally destroying the People's House because apparently he thinks it's his house and not ours. And I'm guessing he has no intention of moving out of it, ever.

Ari Melber (22:35)

The Republicans, led by Donald Trump, control the White House and Congress. The government is still shut down because they haven't been able to use the powers they have or negotiate with the Democrats to open it. And so that is going to continue to affect a lot of people's lives, including the many people who serve, often at pretty basic salaries, to try to do the public's work. And so, amidst this shutdown, we should note that Donald Trump is demolishing a very treasured, visible sign of American democracy. A big piece here of the White House. In fact, what I'm showing you to make the point here are live pictures. So this is literally what they're doing in the evening in the People's House, tearing down the East Wing for plans to spend $250 million on a ballroom that this politician, this president, has chosen. No sign that they are doing any of the austerity they're asking public employees and others to do during the shutdown that they have ordered. The facade is a pile of rubble. The entire wing is set to be demolished within days. Trump had claimed that the historic structure would not have met this fate. He literally said that what you see on your screen wasn't going to happen. It won't interfere with the current building. It won't be.

Andrew Weissman (23:52)

It'll be near it but not touching it. And pays total respect to the existing.

Ari Melber (23:58)

Building, which I'm the biggest fan of. It's my favorite. It's my favorite place. I love it. False. It is, as you see, affecting the existing building. Trump brandished plans moments ago in the Oval Office for this ballroom. He's also said, and keep in mind, during the shutdown, he's trying to take money for himself from the doj. He's got his plans here, but he says somehow there'll be no cost. The project's funding, he says, will be completely absorbed by private companies and donors. One problem, though, about how you calculate costs. Those are individuals who might be doing this to get favorable Treatment by or leverage over Trump. CBS reports those donors could have their names etched inside the public White House building or on a website. No final decisions on that. Also unclear whether this is ultimately good for the taxpayer or America if these people are using money this way. Now, that donor list includes many different corporations, including the parent company of msnbc. A note we wanted to include. But there's also other secrecy of things we don't know about. The White House says the building plans will be submitted for some kind of review soon. Okay, but as we showed you, they're already demolishing things. So whatever review that is doesn't involve a lot of oversight. He's already broken one public vow about this, which suggests that maybe Donald Trump, who doesn't like oversight and thinks his ideas are great, had some inkling that interfering with what the White House has long looked like for the public, for tourists, for Americans, wouldn't be a good look for him. As Rachel has said, this also serves up a metaphor.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (25:42)

Trump literally today sent a like a.

Andrew Weissman (25:45)

Rental backhoe to physically rip down the.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (25:50)

East Wing of the White House.

Andrew Weissman (25:51)

Donald Trump is literally destroying the people's.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (25:55)

House because apparently he thinks it's his.

Andrew Weissman (25:58)

House and not ours. And I'm guessing he has no intention of moving out of it, ever.

Ari Melber (26:05)

The point is literal. It is a residence for the temporary official elected by the people. But decisions about it, of course, should involve the public and the Congress, because it ain't your house. Now, there are some more temporary revisions that you can just debate as a matter of style. This president has made the Oval Office a little more gold, and that's well within his rights because it's not some demolition someone else can come in and redecorate. He's also already paved over the Rose Garden, giving it that look, and he's made it more of a social club. That garden area fitting sort of his club style. We're not talking about gold drapes right now. We're talking about semi permanent or permanent changes to the White House, which, again, is nobody's property but the public. Last week, there were plans discussed to erect a big monument of Donald Trump himself. Thank you very much.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (27:06)

Thanks, guys.

Ari Melber (27:07)

Let's go.

Andrew Weissman (27:07)

Let's go. Thank you. Thanks, guys.

Ari Melber (27:13)

Take a look.

Andrew Weissman (27:13)

Location. Thank you. Thank you, guys.

Gene Robinson (27:17)

Thank you.

Ari Melber (27:21)

You could see a bit of the tension there. While Donald Trump wants to talk about the beautiful monument that he's planning and the press staff who might know something about how this plays, are trying to get everybody out of the room, let's not talk about it. We're talking about the physical infrastructure of things that are clearly at odds with democracy as a project where no person is permanent, not in terms of power or their stamp on what we understand to be our democratic institutions and yes, our even buildings that house them, from the Capitol to the White House. We have two special guests on all of this when we return. Hi, I'm Jenny Slate and believe it or not, someone is allowing us to have a podcast. I'm Gabe Wiedman.

Andrew Weissman (28:07)

I'm Max Silvestri and we've been friends for 20 years and we like to reach out to kind of get advice on how to live our lives.

Ari Melber (28:13)

It's called I need you guys.

Andrew Weissman (28:15)

Should I give my baby fresh vegetables?

Ari Melber (28:18)

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.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (28:27)

So that you never miss an episode. I'm done with subscriptions, streaming fitness, razors, vitamins. I've got subscriptions for everything in my life. They lock you in and half the.

Andrew Weissman (28:47)

Time I can't figure out how to unsubscribe subscribe.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (28:50)

That's why I'm so excited about the new Blue Apron. Now you can get delicious meals delivered.

Andrew Weissman (28:55)

With no subscription needed, including new pre made options. Keep the flavor, ditch the subscription. Get 20% off your first two orders with code APRON20.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (29:04)

Terms and conditions apply. Visit blueapron.com terms for more. Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult.

Ari Melber (29:13)

Life skill to teach?

Haley Cohen Gilliland (29:15)

Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance and keep an eye on your kids spending with real time notifications. Kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely and parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Sign up for Greenlight today@Greenlight.com podcast.

Ari Melber (29:39)

President Trump's second term is drawing alarm from protests to experts over this drift away from democracy and towards an autocratic slide that can be understood sometimes not so much by looking to our own history, but those of other countries from Turkey to Hungary, where systems that once used elections and law as a baseline began to bend to autocrats, where scenes of troops abroad resonate differently now for many in America as Trump repeatedly deploys soldiers inside our country to US Cities that he views as some kind of political opposition. Or take Argentina, where a military coup in 1976 replaced one form of government with violent repression, censorship, crackdowns, mass government agents kidnapping and killing citizens Argentina's dictatorship carried out what came to be known as the Dirty War. The killings estimated to run from 8 to 30,000. A dark, cruel history that also featured a brave resistance, including mothers who gathered to mark and protest how the dictatorship had disappeared young, sometimes pregnant women. It's a story told in a new book by the Economist magazine writer Hayley Cohen Gilliland. A Flower Traveled in my Blood. The New York Times calls it a powerful, harrowing and astonishing story of the moving quests of those grandmothers activism. Haley joins us now. Welcome.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (31:09)

Thank you so much for having me.

Ari Melber (31:10)

Yeah. This book, obviously you've been at work on it for a long time. What motivated you to tell this part of the story?

Haley Cohen Gilliland (31:17)

I moved to Argentina shortly after college to work as a foreign correspondent for the Economist. And I went down with a little bit of a background knowledge in what had gone on during the dictatorship. But it wasn't until living there that I learned the true extent of the brutality that took place during that time. And the story that most astounded me was the story of the grandmothers of the placidimago who are the subject of my book.

Gene Robinson (31:40)

Who.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (31:42)

Their children were abducted by the military, sometimes while pregnant, as you mentioned. And so they were missing not only their children, but also their grandchildren. And in the face of this just unthinkable tyranny, they banded together and worked as a team to find and reclaim their stolen grandchildren.

Ari Melber (32:03)

In the book, you write that they had this reorganization process at the sort of government level brutal plan to quash the political violence, to do away with Congress, restrict political activities. They ban trade unions. Military men and police officers would rove the streets, and when they spotted a target, they'd leap from the car, stuff the person inside and drive away. What does that history and what governments can become tell you? And why would someone want to read that now? Not making any exact comparison because it's a very different set of examples. But what does it tell us about what governments can become?

Haley Cohen Gilliland (32:38)

Right. As you said, there's no direct comparison because we're talking about a regime that their preferred manner of killing people was to load them into planes alive and push them out over rivers and oceans. You know, they disappeared tens of thousands of Argentines. They stole children, they stole babies. So. So there's no direct comparison. I don't want to hyperbolize, but there are some really eerie echoes from that time period. You mentioned unmarked cars, masked officers who don't identify what agencies they're working for making arrests. The growth of this enemy from within narrative the images just of troops in camouflage with guns in American cities and of course the really terrifying spike in political violence. And so there are these echoes. And, and Argentina, I think does studying Argentina does allow. It illustrates lessons for other democracies that want to avoid this fate and essentially is a very stark cautionary tale about how a government that puts its agenda before the rule of law and allows democratic erosion to go unchecked. This is an example of the depths that a country can reach and hopefully my book has a bit of a more inspiring lesson from that historical period, which is how ordinary citizens working together, motivated by a force that's greater than fear, can stand up even in situations of extreme repression.

Ari Melber (34:14)

Stay with me. I want to bring in Gene Robinson, who's a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist known to our viewers for many reasons, but also has reported from Argentina. Welcome Gene. I'm curious if you want to pick up even on just the point Haley just made, that regular people who don't have funding or teams of lawyers abroad and here have proven to show a type of courage against repression.

Gene Robinson (34:39)

Yeah, thanks. Thanks Ari. And Haley, congratulations on the book.

Ari Melber (34:43)

Thank you so much.

Gene Robinson (34:45)

Pertinent subject, I was the post South American bureau chief living in buenos Aires from 1988 to 1992. So Argentina had returned to democracy. But only I believe three or four years earlier. It was the first post dictatorship elected president was still in office. There was the occasional attempted coup still by right wing officers who would bring the tanks into the streets. Down three blocks from my office one day my secretary and I were alarmed to hear machine gun fire in one of these attempted cool lets. So it was a very unsettled time. The mothers of the Plaza de Mayo were still coming out and the brave, brave meaning protests that you write about. And boy the lesson that I learned is that once a democracy is lost, once those democratic habits and norms are lost, when democracy comes back, when there's finally another election, those old habits don't automatically come back. It's not like flipping a switch. It takes a long, long time to get back what you've lost. And I can't emphasize that enough. I watched Argentina struggle to get rid of this awful, horrible hangover. Terrible things. We knew a young man who discovered while we were there that he was not his parents biological child, in fact he was an infant who had been taken away from his leftist parents who had been killed and he had been adopted by another couple and that sort of thing was happening. Democracy is a precious thing and it's a delicate thing.

Andrew Weissman (37:16)

Yeah.

Ari Melber (37:16)

And you're talking about whether human rights and rule of law hold. I mean, Haley, tell us about what you found in that domain, because you're talking about, of course, not only the human rights abuses, sometimes the disappearances and killings, but as Gene mentions, the breakup of the family unit.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (37:31)

Yeah, I mean, I wanted to ground this book in the story of one family because the events, the historical events described in the book are so unbelievable. It's hard for many of us sitting in the United States to wrap our heads around the fact that these types of things happened, that they happened so recently. And so I ground the book in the story of one family, one grandmother, Rosa Roysenblitt, who just passed away in September at the age of 106 and was working with the Abuelas organization until she was 102. So that just gives you a sense of what type of person she was and the iron force of her will. But the book traces her quest to find her grandchild who had been stolen, and really delves into some of the complexities that the grandmother's organization encountered as they did this work to find their stolen grandchildren and how the. So many of these grandchildren were placed with military and police families, as Eugene mentioned, in order to sort of sever them from families that the dictatorship deemed unfit to raise them. And so these families fought very hard to hold on to these children and didn't want to give them back to the grandmothers. So that was a dynamic that came up. And then once the grandchildren were adults, there were other complicated dynamics, because, as you can imagine, these grandchildren were raised in military and police families according to those ideologies. And sometimes even when they were found, the reunions were not always straightforward. So I wanted to bring life to that complexity in the book because it shows the ripple effects that a tyrannical government can have.

Ari Melber (39:13)

So on one hand, that's just really messed up. On the other, does it also sort of give you some canvas for nature and nurture? I mean, our ideology, what we think of as our moral universe, is also nurture. Sometimes.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (39:28)

I think the most surprising thing to me about reporting this book was that despite all those complexities that came up and these situations where sometimes reunions were not immediately smooth, nearly every recovered grandchild that I spoke to had embraced not only their biological families, but also the grandmother's movement. And many of the grandchildren who have been found are now working alongside the grandmothers who are surviving in their 80s and 90s to find their stolen peers. And so it might take a little while, but with time, these grandchildren really embraced who they were and the mission of finding the other grandchildren in their situations.

Ari Melber (40:10)

And Gene, in the short time we have left, can you make us feel hopeful about the future?

Gene Robinson (40:16)

Well, you know, democracy is coming back. You know, Argentina is having problems, political problems as usual, but has successive elections, as Haley said, the reunions have taken place. There was never full accountability or very much accountability at all for the crimes that were committed in the dirty war. And that hangs over the society and probably always will. But it's difficult. We have a democracy here. Let's not lose it. Let's keep. It's the wrong choice to lose it.

Ari Melber (41:06)

I think that's a fitting point. The book is A Flower Traveled in My Blood. Haley, thanks for being here. Gene, an expert on so many things. A great addition here. Up next, why Trump's approval is actually plummeting and why that fits with this backlash. So is everybody down with what's happening? Do you ever look around during this term and say, how do we get here? Do people want this? Well, most people are opposing the Trump second term. Now, we know he won more votes last year. That was for what he campaigned on. And if you think about it like this, last year in July, Biden dropped out of the campaign. After that debate, his disapproval was 58%. So we all remember the anti Biden vibe that actually led to the displacement of the Democratic nominee was 58. Well, Trump is hitting Biden numbers or worse because he is now at 60% disapproval. So whatever you heard after that debate, Republicans said, oh, look, Biden's not up to the job. And some Democrats said, maybe we need a different choice. That whole vibe, remember that summer vibe? Trump is worse than that. Right now. You might say that the combined total of what he's doing is being received as even worse than a debate night where people said, I don't think this guy's up to the job. 60% of people don't think Donald Trump's up to the job or at least the way he's doing it. And there's a risk here for Republicans who keep enabling Trump as they may seem completely out of touch with that 60%, that worse than Biden view. And a gulf between ordinary Americans watching the government being shut down and Trump trying to pocket their taxpayer money while they hear fear mongering from some Republicans.

Andrew Weissman (42:59)

Your Hate America rally is over.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (43:02)

This is the most American thing that you can do. Protest and speak for what you believe in.

Andrew Weissman (43:08)

Some of the most radical elements that you saw at the Hate America rally.

Ari Melber (43:11)

Would just come up because of equality.

Andrew Weissman (43:14)

Equality and support for a country.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (43:16)

How did Democrats celebrate? Well, they partied with communists and socialists who hate America.

Andrew Weissman (43:23)

I wore the uniform since I was 18 years old. There are no kings rallies there hate America rallies.

Ari Melber (43:28)

Well, you know, I believe in what our nation was founded on. And it was founded on checks and balances.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (43:35)

The left and Democrats, they don't love America. They don't love our values here in America.

Ari Melber (43:40)

What is the most important issue to each of you?

Haley Cohen Gilliland (43:41)

Our Constitution, the rule of law? Democracy.

Ari Melber (43:46)

Who are you going to believe? Millions of Americans who gathered to peacefully exercise their rights? Or politicians accusing them of being full of hate just because maybe they have different views? We heard from the top Democrat this week on this program. Here's what he had to say. And it remains to be seen whether anyone within the administration is willing to actually stand up to him at this.

Andrew Weissman (44:11)

Point in time, which is why we.

Ari Melber (44:12)

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. Rubber stamping someone this unpopular with 60% disapproval, that'd be like rubber stamping Joe Biden after the debate, which, remember, even his own party figured out not to do. Hakeem Jeffries is out, clearly trying to get the message out. We had him on this program. He'll be on MSNBC again tonight at 8:00pm Eastern with our colleague Chris Hayes. Encourage you to check that out. And I'll be right back. Thanks for spending time with us on the Beat with Ari Melber. Hi, I'm Jenny Slate, and believe it or not, someone is allowing us to have a podcast. I'm Gabe Wiedman.

Andrew Weissman (45:03)

I'm Max Silvestri, and we've been friends for 20 years and we like to reach out to kind of get advice on how to live our lives.

Ari Melber (45:10)

It's called I need you guys.

Andrew Weissman (45:11)

Guys, should I give my baby fresh vegetables?

Ari Melber (45:14)

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.

Haley Cohen Gilliland (45:23)

So that you never miss an episode.