← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
'Breathtakingly corrupt, and mind-blowingly stupid': Trump DOJ on shaky ground with Comey indictment
00:40:23
George Conway, president of the Society for the Rule of Law, and Liz Oyer, former Department of Justice pardon attorney, talk with Jen Psaki about the myriad flaws and shortfalls in the Trump Justice Department's case against former FBI director James Comey.
Loading summary
Transcript78 lines
- [00:03]
ExxonMobil Narrator
When it comes to reducing carbon emissions, the heaviest industries face the toughest challenges. That's where we come in. ExxonMobil is investing in technology to help American industry lower its emissions, including in our own operations, all while empowering businesses and creating job opportunities. It turns out that fewer emissions can mean a stronger economy. ExxonMobil, let's deliver.
- [00:31]
Progressive Commercial Insurance Announcer
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Commercial Insurance. Business owners meet Progressive Insurance. They make it easy to get discounts on commercial auto insurance and find coverages to grow with your business. Quote, in as little as 7 minutes@progressivecommercial.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company coverage provided and serviced by affiliated and third party insurers, discounts and coverage selections not available in all states or situations.
- [01:00]
Jen Psaki
All right. So as I just mentioned, this news just broke, just broke in the last hour. And I'm going to start there because this is a New York Times report that outlines the seeking of information by the Justice Department about Fani Willis, of course, the Georgia DA who prosecuted Trump. And here's what the report says. Quote, the Department of Justice has issued a subpoena for records related to the travel history of Fani T. Willis, the Georgia district attorney who charged President Trump in a suicide sweeping election interference case. That's according to a grand jury subpoena reviewed by the Times, which is careful to point out that the scope of the investigation. This is what I just said to Chris, which is in the story, is not yet clear. Also unclear is whether Ms. Willis is the target of the inquiry and whether she will ultimately face charges. Grand jury proceedings, as we know from this past week, are secretive by law. But the document reviewed by the Times is an indication that the Justice Department under President Trump may be investigating another one of his old foes. Yes, that is very clear. Now, of course, this reporting, which we're going to talk with our next guest about in a moment, comes directly on the heels of the James Comey indictment last night. And after Trump said this earlier today, now that James Comey has been indicted, who is the next person on your list in this retribution?
- [02:19]
Donald Trump
It's not a list, but I think there'll be others. But no, there'll be others. Look, it was. That's my opinion.
- [02:26]
Jen Psaki
That's his opinion. So as we prepare for what could be yet another attempt to criminally charge one of Trump's enemies, I think there are two things we should all know about how Donald Trump operates when he wants something like this. I mean, one, the primary driver for him is getting a headline and he rarely spends much Time contemplating what comes after that headline. And two, Trump will always find a henchman who will stop at nothing to get him the headline he wants. And today, Donald Trump got the headline he has wanted for nearly a decade. Grand jury indicts longtime Trump target former FBI Director James Comey. We know Trump wanted that headline because he told us pretty openly just last weekend, he posted a lengthy message to his attorney general on his social media platform demanding that she prosecute James Comey. Not a secret. In fact, he's been telling us that's what he wanted for a while now, going back years.
- [03:25]
Donald Trump
Comey and that whole group of criminals, they're criminals. I only wish that Bill Barr had the guts to do the job he should have done. If it were the other way around, the people would be in jail for 50 years right now. That would be Comey. Unlike Comey, who didn't go to jail for lying, by the way. And I watched Comey. He couldn't remember anything. But he's writing all these books. They're guilty as hell. They should all be in jail.
- [03:52]
Jen Psaki
I mean, the man has never been subtle. He clearly wanted James Comey to be indicted. And so when the Trump appointed prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia told Donald Trump that there wasn't enough of a case to prosecute Comey or Trump's other perceived enemies, Trump forced him out of the job. That was just a week ago, believe it or not. Did he care that career prosecutors wrote a memo arguing that there was not enough evidence to move forward? Of course not. Did Trump care that his own loyal Attorney General, Pam Bondi, also expressed reservations about the strength of the case? Nope, he definitely did not care. Instead, Trump brushed off her concerns and sent her a very public DM of sorts, urging her to hurry up. And so, when rule number one reaches its inevitable conclusion, when Trump's inability to think beyond the headlines stops him in his tracks, we proceed directly to rule number two. There's always a henchman waiting in the wings ready to carry out Trump's orders, no matter how ridiculous they are. And he will keep shopping until he finds one. Enter Lindsey Halligan, a 36 year old former beauty pageant contestant and insurance lawyer who has never prosecuted a single criminal case. Trump installed her as the new Acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia on Monday. And against the recommendations of all those queer prosecutors, she was the one who went forward with the Comey indictment. Now, I would note, even the most experienced prosecutors wouldn't have the depth of knowledge about such a high profile case to move forward in a matter of days, one that everybody in the office is saying, don't move forward on. And she has proceeded to embarrass herself in ways that only a loyal Trump henchman really can. Halligan presented the case against Comey to the grand jury by herself, a highly unusual move. Halligan was also the only prosecutor in an office of about 160 prosecutors to sign the indictment, another highly unusual move. Then Halligan actually failed to secure an indictment on one of the three counts against Comey, which is another bad sign. Only 14 of the 23 grand jurors voted in favor of indicting on the two counts that did go forward. Another bad sign. And Halligan then screwed up the paperwork, misidentifying one of the counts in the indictment. And when the whole thing finally reached a judge, it was clear the errors were starting to compound. And I'm just going to quote from the official transcript here. Here's the judge. So this has never happened before. I've been handed two documents that are in the Mr. Comey case that are inconsistent with one another. There seems to be a discrepancy. Well, Halligan goes on to say, I signed that one. I did not see the other one. I don't know where that came from. You didn't see it, Ms. Halligan? I did not see that one. The judge eventually points out, it has your signature on it. To which Ms. Halligan simply replies, okay, well, not exactly the stuff of Atticus Finch there, is it? Look, we all make mistakes from time to time. That's true. I do, too. But in what is unquestionably the biggest case of her career, Lindsay Halligan has made more than a few right out of the gate. After the charges were officially made public, Halligan released a statement in her own words saying, quote, the balance of power is a bedrock principle of our democracy. Spelling, as you can notice on the screen, principal with an A, like the principal at a high school, not the principle of democracy. Now, sometime after 1pm today, that press release was quietly edited to fix the typo. Good on them. So Lindsay Eligan really is shaping up to be exactly the kind of Trump henchman or henchwoman we've come to expect in Trump world. The kind who gets in way over their head trying to do the President's bidding when so many others, more experienced, more credible people, decline to do so. It's oddly reminiscent of the other big abusive power story we just watched play out over the course of the last week. I mean, Trump's attack on late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel is a perfect example of this. There. Once again, Trump started with the headline that he wanted to see. Comedian Jimmy Kimmel taken off the air. That's what he wanted to see. And we know that's the headline he wanted to see because once again, he told us. Back in July, Paramount announced it was ending the Late show with Stephen Colbert. We all remember that. Just as the Trump administration approved a high stakes merger for the company. And at the time, Trump posted on his social media site, I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. That's what he said. So it's pretty obvious what headline Trump wanted to see. All he needed was a henchman willing to try and make it happen. Enter Brendan Carr, Trump's handpicked head of the fcc. Carr seized on comments Jimmy Kimmel made about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and issued a not so veiled threat to Kimmel's parent company, Disney. Disney then responded by pulling Kimmel's show off the air. But Carr's tactics were so blatantly thuggish that it provoked immediate backlash from people all across the country, even people like Ted Cruz. And in the end, Disney was forced to put Kimmel back on the air. And all Carr managed to accomplish was to get Kimmel temporarily suspended before handing him some of the highest ratings of his his career.
- [09:00]
Ro Khanna
On Tuesday, we had our second highest rated show in almost 23 years on the air. Our monologue from Tuesday night has more than 21 million views just on YouTube alone. And I want to say we couldn't have done it without you, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
- [09:23]
Jen Psaki
Bang up job there, Brendan Carr. You really crushed it. Now, even after Jimmy Kimmel went back on the air, it looked like the pressure was still working in some places. ABC stations owned by the conservative conglomerate Sinclair refused to show Kimmel show, as did stations owned by nexstar, a company looking for approval from the Trump administration on a potential very large merger. But tonight, those companies have reversed course as well, putting Kimmel back on the air on all of their stations. And those victories are an important reminder of just how weak and inept Trump's tactics can be in the face of real sustained opposition. As much as Donald Trump doesn't seem to have a plan for after he lands the initial headline he wants, neither do the lackeys working on his behalf. And we should remember that as we watch this administration begin to bring criminal charges against Trump, targets like James Comey and Maybe prepare to do the same against Fannie Willis. Being a henchman for Trump is not without personal consequences. I mean, just ask Michael Cohen or Rudy Giuliani or Kenneth Chesbrough or Peter Navarro what it's like to be Trump's loyal henchmen. All of them have wound up either losing their law licenses or serving jail time or paying huge legal settlements as a result of their efforts to get the President the headline he wants. My first guest tonight are two people who were given the opportunity to do Trump's bidding and chose to stand up to him instead. George Conway and Liz Oyer are standing by to talk about all of this and about this late breaking news from the New York Times about the Trump Justice Department seeking information on Willis. We're back in 90 seconds.
- [10:58]
ExxonMobil Narrator
When it comes to reducing carbon emissions, the heaviest industries face the toughest challenges. That's where we come in. ExxonMobil is investing in technology to help American industry lower its emissions, including in our own operations, all while empowering businesses and creating job opportunities. It turns out that fewer emissions can mean a stronger economy. ExxonMobil, let's deliver.
- [11:28]
Bic Soleil Glide Razor Announcer
Surprise beach day. No excuses. I'm in. Gimme five. With Bic Soleil Glide Razor, you'll have hydrated, smooth skin that's ready to go on the fly. No shave cream needed. You can prep, shave, and hydrate all in one step thanks to moisture bars that hydrate your skin during and after shaving. 5 flexible blades hug your skin for a close shave. Glide into smooth. It's your time to shine with Bixole. Buy now at Amazon and Walmart. Ready? Your skin looks amazing. So smooth and beach ready.
- [11:55]
Jen Psaki
Let's go. Are you ready to get spicy?
- [12:02]
George Conway
These Doritos Golden Sriracha aren't that spicy.
- [12:06]
Jen Psaki
Sriracha sounds pretty spicy to me.
- [12:09]
George Conway
Um, a little spicy, but also tangy and sweet.
- [12:13]
Jen Psaki
Maybe it's time to turn up the heat.
- [12:16]
George Conway
Or turn it down. It's time for something that's not too spicy. Try Doritos Golden Sriracha. Spicy, but not too spicy.
- [12:36]
Jen Psaki
As promised. Joining me now are two great legal minds injecting truth, facts, we love that into the world these days. George Conway is the president of the Society for the Rule of Law, and Liz Oyers, the former pardon attorney for the Justice Department, who was fired last spring for refusing to do Donald Trump's bidding. Okay, as always, there's always breaking legal news. Don't you feel this way? I feel this way. I wish I had a law degree. There's not a lot of information in this story, but I just want to start by asking you about it. I mean, it is the headline is Justice Department Seeks Information on Georgia DA who prosecuted Trump. I would note it says in the story the scope of the investigation is not yet clear. Also unclear is whether Ms. Willis is the target of the inquiry. We don't know a lot. It also notes in Georgia, federal investigators are seeking records related to travel they believe Ms. Willis took abroad around the time of last year's election, but it was not immediately clear as to why. So there's not a ton of detail in here. But I just want to ask you, George, about Fani Willis being the person who's named here.
- [13:32]
George Conway
Well, it's another, it's the revenge tour and she's on the list, obviously. And so they're looking for things to find on her. And I guess maybe they think she did something wrong with her reporting of expenses. I don't know. I mean, who knows what this is and who knows whether it's going to make any sense?
- [13:50]
Jen Psaki
We don't know. Any thoughts you have, Liz?
- [13:52]
Liz Oyer
You know, George is right. The Comey indictment is just the tip of the iceberg. Donald Trump has made it clear that he's going to prosecute all of his enemies, as many as he can possibly fit into the next three years. And he's just getting started. So it's no surprise that Bonnie Willis is on that list.
- [14:06]
Jen Psaki
One of the things that has struck me, and you were both actually lawyers, so I'm very grateful for you being here, is that Trump and I just sort of outlined this. He loves the headline. He loves the initial look at that. James Comey has been indicted. It's much harder to go from there to convicting someone. Of course, you both know that. Well, do you think, George, I mean, you spent a lot of time thinking about this guy. I'm sorry.
- [14:28]
George Conway
I'm sorry, too.
- [14:29]
Jen Psaki
Do you think he even cares?
- [14:31]
George Conway
No, he doesn't care whether he wins, loses, or anything like that. It's just everything for him is just sort of the instantaneous sugar high of getting that headline or causing some pain. And if, if by chance, which I think is likely, he's going to lose this case, the government will lose this case. He's just going to blame it on the judge or blame it on the left or something like that.
- [14:51]
Jen Psaki
Yeah, I mean, this seems that he has looked for, he said, called them his henchmen or henchwomen, whatever you want to call it. Lindsey Halligan is whatever you want to call it. She's not a person who's qualified for this position in any judgment of the word. Right. I just outlined some of the things that were reported out of the courtroom yesterday. Liz. You know what it's like and what this requires. What stuck out to you of what you've seen about the reporting of how the last few days have gone down?
- [15:17]
Liz Oyer
Lindsey Halligan is a sham prosecutor. She's somebody who was appointed without any relevant qualifications for the job solely because she is loyal to Donald Trump. Her background is as an insurance attorney. She did some work as Donald Trump's personal attorney. She's got no business running one of the largest and most important, important prosecuting offices in the nation. I think it's really striking that she appears to have presented this case to the grand jury herself, which is not something that she's trained to do. And it suggests desperation. They were so desperate to bring this case that they put somebody with no experience into the grand jury because no career member of the staff of that office and there are hundreds of career people in that office was willing to go into the grand jury and bring this case. The grand jury process is very, very secretive. It's not public. There is no defense lawyer in the room. There's no opportunity to present a defense. So who knows what Ms. Halligan told the grand jury to get this indictment. At this point, there's no reason to trust that the information that was presented was complete or accurate or not misleading.
- [16:22]
Jen Psaki
There's.
- [16:23]
George Conway
She couldn't. And she couldn't even get all counts in the indictment approved. And then she couldn't even get. She barely got a majority on the other two. So.
- [16:29]
Jen Psaki
Which is like. How does that strike you? I just noted that.
- [16:32]
George Conway
Well, because. Because now somebody's got to go into that courtroom, into an actual courtroom before a federal judge and prove in front of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt something that she couldn't prove as the one count beyond show probable cause for, which is just a very, very low standard. And I mean, I read that there was a former Assistant US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia said he had never, ever seen a grand jury reject an indictment, and here it happened on her first try.
- [17:04]
Jen Psaki
And here we are. Let me ask you, because I feel like our intrepid reporters here and others are trying to figure out all the details here. And one of the things that came out today is that the indictment identifies Comey's associate, Daniel Richmond, as the person who allegedly leaked at Comey's behest. That's what they're arguing. I'm not validating that in any way. Yet in 2019, during a previous investigation, Richmond denied doing so, which strikes me as what are they. They have to come up with evidence. You guys tell me that goes beyond that. Right. That shows that that was wrong. Daniel Richmond. So how do you prove in a courtroom, how do you get to the point of a conviction?
- [17:39]
Liz Oyer
There are a lot of elements that they have to prove to prove this case. They have to prove that Comey knowingly made a false statement, the statement was actually false, and that it was material, meaning that it had the potential to influence an official proceeding, which is not a low bar. They're going to have to subject their evidence to challenge by the defense. And Comey has very good defense lawyers representing him. And if the evidence is not credible or if they have selectively cherry picked pieces of information that they presented to the grand jury, that's not going to get them to a conviction in front of a trial jury.
- [18:13]
George Conway
And it's even worse than that because the count doesn't really say what Comey said. And it comes from an exchange before Congress, before Senator Ted Cruz, that clearly was not about. This was not about Richmond. It was about whether he had authorized McCabe, the deputy director, to leak something to the press. And McCabe testified he did. It wasn't true. Right?
- [18:34]
Jen Psaki
You're right. To your point. I mean, McCabe was the only person referenced in that question.
- [18:39]
George Conway
Correct.
- [18:39]
Jen Psaki
And Daniel Richmond's not referenced in the question.
- [18:41]
George Conway
And the overall question that Cruz was going after was a prior question, I think, from a prior hearing that basically said, did you ever direct somebody from the FBI to leak something for you? And it turns out that Richmond was not with the FBI at the time. That those memos that they're apparently now talking about in 2021, I mean, not 2021, 2017, when both men were not at the FBI. It doesn't even make sense. It doesn't. The charge is on its face, flimsy. It doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't say anything.
- [19:15]
Liz Oyer
And Jen, to get to even that point of trying the case, we're going to have a robust motions practice, most likely, and there will be probably for a bill of particulars, which is to get more information about what is the theory of prosecution here, as well as motions to dismiss the indictment. Donald Trump has not done himself any favors by making all of these very inflammatory public statements in which he has informed the public that he's already concluded that James Comey is guilty. That raises questions about whether Comey can even receive a fair trial in front of a jury, whether this is a vindictive prosecution. So there will be opportunities for Judge Nachman off to dismiss this case before.
- [19:52]
Jen Psaki
It even reaches the jury, before we even get there.
- [19:54]
George Conway
This indictment is just quintessentially Trumpian. It is both breathtakingly corrupt and mind blowingly stupid. And that's basically, that's classic Trump.
- [20:05]
Jen Psaki
Perfect place to end. George Conway Lisler, thank you for bringing all your legal expertise and energy to us on a Friday evening. Appreciate you both being here.
- [20:12]
Liz Oyer
Thank you.
- [20:13]
Jen Psaki
All right, we're gonna take a quick break. After that, we're gonna talk about how the House Oversight Committee just got its hands on a state stack of new documents from Jeffrey Epstein's estate. And among the many high profile names in this batch, you can't make it up. Is a guy named Elon Musk. This is quite a detail. We're going to talk about it with Congressman Ro Khanna, who's standing by. When we come back, what if we.
- [20:43]
ExxonMobil Narrator
Could reduce carbon emissions and strengthen the economy? At ExxonMobil, we believe both are possible. As a global leader in carbon capture and storage, we're empowering industries to reduce their emissions all through technologies that are creating job opportunities in America. How's that for a win win? Exxon Mobil. Let's deliver.
- [21:09]
Bic Soleil Glide Razor Announcer
Surprise Beach Day. No excuses. I'm in. Give me five. With Bic Soleil Glide Razor, you'll have hydrated, smooth skin that's ready to go on the fly. No shave cream needed. You can prep, shave and hydrate all in one step thanks to moisture bars that hydrate your skin during and after shaving. 5 flexible blades hug your skin for a close shave. Glide into smooth. It's your time to shine with Bixole Buy now at Amazon and Walmart. Ready? Your skin looks amazing. So smooth and beach ready.
- [21:37]
Jen Psaki
Let's go.
- [21:39]
Kelly Ripa
Hey there, it's Kelly Rupa and have you been listening to my podcast? We are knee deep in season three, and if you haven't heard it, it's time to get on board. After years of interviewing celebs on camera, I finally get to bring you the real conversations that take place when the cameras aren't rolling. Where else are you going to hear Michelle Obama talk about keeping her girls out of Page Six? Hilaria Baldwin's hilarious reaction to Alec running for office, or Jeremy Renner's lucid hallucinations about Jamie Foxx? Nowhere else. It's raw, it's honest, and best of all, it's off camera. And believe me, that's where you get the good stuff. So download. Let's talk off camera with Kelly Ripa now, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [22:26]
Jen Psaki
Okay, remember that day back in June when Elon Musk and Donald Trump's bromance very publicly crashed out? Can you believe that was June? And remember this tweet from that very day? Time to drop the really big bomb, musk wrote. Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, djt. Well, nearly four months have passed since then, and the Trump administration still has not released the Epstein files. The story goes on, but Democrats have been fighting tooth and nail to get their hands on whatever documents they can. And today, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released new documents obtained from Epstein's estate. This batch included flight logs and some of Epstein's daily schedules. Now, included in those documents are the names of some pretty powerful people, including Trump allies like billionaire Peter Thiel, Steve Bannon, and, yes, Elon Musk himself, as Epstein's calendar put it. Reminder, Elon Musk to Island, December 6th. Is this still happening? Question mark. There you go. Well, I mean, okay, then. It's just, it's there. And look, there's a running theme here. Every time the House Oversight Committee gets to work, something new comes to light. We've seen that over and over again. That's kind of the point. That's why they want all the files released. And there's been a big step forward in the House toward doing just that. The discharge petition to force a vote on a resolution to compel the release of the Epstein files is now on track to hit the required 218 signatures. Democrat Adelita Grijalva won a special election in Arizona on Tuesday, but she hasn't been sworn in yet. Grijalva and other Democrats have said Speaker Mike Johnson can swear her in at any moment, but that he's dragging his feet. Two weeks ago, Johnson swore in another Democrat based on unofficial results, but now he's insisting on official results to come in before swearing in at Eliza Grijalva. Funny how that works, isn't it? And, yes, Grijalva thinks the Epstein petition is definitely a factor. I'm sort of wondering why in two weeks the rules are so different. And maybe it has something to do with the fact that I'm number two 18. Maybe it does. I bet it does. Joining us now is Congressman Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California and member of the House Oversight Committee. As always, there's so much to ask you about. I just have to start by, can we just start on the irony that the Musk tweet was in some ways the spark that lit the match. And today we see a document with Elon Musk's name in it. What did you think when you saw that?
- [24:49]
Ro Khanna
You know, I'm just amazed. How many powerful people does Jeffrey Epstein know? I mean, this is like the President of the United States. He's hanging out with Musk, with Bill Gates, with Peter Thiel. The list is endless. And this is why Americans are asking what is behind this? And the reality is, ok, Elon issued a denial. He said, I wasn't at the island. You know what? The best way to know is? Just release the files. Release all the files, get all the evidence out there, and we'll have the facts out. But the drip, drip, drip actually is just feeding more concern that elite people are being protected.
- [25:24]
Jen Psaki
No question about that. And in the interim, while they're dragging their feet, you guys are tirelessly pushing for more information. I mean, Steve Bannon is also mentioned in these documents. Your colleague, ranking member Robert Garcia, said back in July that he was a target for his 15 hours of Epstein footage. In terms of a subpoena target, are you going to ask the committee for a subpoena for him? I mean, is this somebody whose information and all of his footage would be of interest to the committee getting their hands on?
- [25:54]
Ro Khanna
Absolutely. I mean, he talked to Epstein at a time where Epstein already had had the plea deal. So he has very relevant information. Epstein's brother wanted the information that Bannon had. But we should have complete transparency and we should have the release of the files. And you know, Massie and I have this discharge petition. You mentioned it in your monologue, that Alita Grijalva will be the 218th vote. That is very rare. She should be sworn in on Tuesday. That's the pro forma session. And I just want your viewers to know there were two Florida openings when Matt Gaetz left Congress and when Michael Waltz left Congress and the Republicans swore them in on a pro forma session. That means a session where you don't have votes. They would be breaking precedent by not doing that on Tuesday. The only reason that they don't want us to have votes and that they aren't swearing her hand is because of this Epstein files. Can you believe that the government is about to shut down and they are so concerned about protecting these rich, powerful men and not having a vote on Epstein that they're not willing to swear in someone who won 69 to 29 in her election. And they're not willing to have us take votes this week.
- [27:01]
Jen Psaki
I mean, I can believe it because we've seen what they've done over the last many, many months. But, yes, I'm glad you called it out so people understand exactly, exactly what's happening here. Between Grijalva swearing in and the potential for a shutdown. There's a lot of time and I'm sure, I know you're tracking this and you've talked about it, for Republicans to kind of try to pull back those four who have said they'd be for signing the discharge petition. Are you concerned about that? How solid do you think they are?
- [27:30]
Ro Khanna
I was concerned and I've been texting Massie all weekend. And they have been getting pressure from the Republican leadership, from the White House. But to their credit, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace and Lauren Boebert are standing firm and they have not taken their name off. And I think in this case, it's really the human aspect. I mean, they met the survivors, they saw them in tears recounting how they were raped at the age of 14 and then told to go recruit other junior high and high school students to be abused. You can't hear that and not be moved on just a human level. And that is why I'm confident that they're going to stick with it. And as soon as we can get Adelita Grijalova sworn in, as she is supposed to be done constitutionally and based on tradition, we will get the vote on this petition. And it's going to pass next week.
- [28:22]
Jen Psaki
Just a couple of days from now, September 30th. The government is on track to shut down. There are a range of reasons for this, including Republicans won't fund health care subsidies, which I think is a really important part of this, that millions of people rely on. What's going to happen? What do you make of it? What should people understand about it?
- [28:45]
Ro Khanna
Well, look, the premiums for people are going to go up 80 to 90% if you are on health care on the exchange. And one of the issues is that they shouldn't be taking away the healthcare. But there's a much bigger issue as well, Jen, and that is this is an administration that is prosecuting its enemies. It's an administration that is deporting people without due process. It's an administration that is threatening people's free speech if they criticize the views of Charlie Kirk. It's an administration that is putting blanket tariffs that are raising people's prices. So much for Donald Trump's promise I'm going to reduce and lower your prices on day one. All he's done is raise prices. And the Democrats are just saying we're not going to be complicit. We're not going to be complicit with an unconstitutional government that is raising your prices, that is making your health care more affordable, less affordable. You have the votes. You have the Republicans in the Senate, the House. You have the presidency. Go do this if you want to do it, but we're not going to be part of it.
- [29:41]
Jen Psaki
Well, it's going to be a big story next week. We'll all be watching closely. Congressman Ro Khanna, thank you so much for joining me. Okay. We're going to take a break after that. We're going to talk about what Donald Trump's revenge tour has to do with his attempts to rig the 2026 midterms. And yes, they are related. I'll tell you when we come back. So yesterday the New York Times was first to report that Trump's Justice Department has instructed US Attorneys across the country to go after yet another of Trump's perceived enemies. This time it's liberal mega donor George Soros.
- [30:24]
Donald Trump
We're going to look into Soros because I think it's a RICO case against him. I've been speaking to the attorney general about bringing RICO against some of the people that you've been reading about that have been putting up millions and millions of dollars for agitation.
- [30:38]
Jen Psaki
Now, the Times reports that Trump's Justice Department is effectively trying to throw just a bunch of spaghetti at the wall here to see what charges might stick against Soros. On Monday, a lawyer in the office of deputy attorney general and former Trump personal defense attorney, of course, Todd Blanche, person from that office, issued a directive to more than half a dozen US Attorneys offices across the country asking those offices to draft plans to investigate the Soros family's nonprofit, suggesting potential charges ranging from racketeering to arson and wire fraud and material support for terrorism. I should note that we have absolutely no reason to believe there is any evidence to back up any of those. But again, it seems like Trump's Justice Department is just trying to kind of cast out and throw lots of spaghetti on the wall, asking U.S. attorneys in California, New York, Washington, D.C. chicago, Detroit, Maryland and elsewhere to open investigations anyway and see if they can find anything they might be able to charge. Soros Group with Trump targeting an enemy like this is concerning on its face. We've been talking about it all evening. But I also think it's worth zooming out, looking at why Trump targeting a political donor like George Soros is so alarming. I mean, take for example, how Trump has been demanding that Republican controlled states across the country gerrymander their congressional maps to give Republicans more seats in Congress. Last month, Texas Republicans complied with that demand, redistricting the state in the middle of the decade in a completely naked power grab, leaving Texas with a map designed to give Republicans five more congressional seats in the next election. Now, in response, California Governor Gavin Newsom launched a ballot initiative letting California voters decide if they want to fight fire with fire and redistrict California in a way that would give Democrats five more seats and essentially level the playing field. That ballot initiative, Prop 50, will be voted on in November. And already California's airwaves are dominated with ads like these.
- [32:34]
Donald Trump
When Donald Trump and Texas Republicans don't.
- [32:36]
Jen Psaki
Fight fair, Californians need to stop fighting with both hands tied behind our backs. Democracy.
- [32:42]
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling
We got to protect it and we.
- [32:44]
Jen Psaki
Got to go and fight for it.
- [32:46]
Liz Oyer
Protect Democracy in all 50 states.
- [32:48]
Jen Psaki
Yes on Prop 50. Vote no on 50. Yes on 50.
- [32:53]
Ro Khanna
Vota no a la proposicion sin cuenta.
- [33:00]
Jen Psaki
People in California are absolutely inundated now. Making and airing all those ads cost millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars. And tonight, thanks to newly released campaign finance disclosures, we started to get an idea of where that money was coming from. Now here is the headline in the San Francisco Chronicle. This side of the Prop 50 fight has 500 times more donors than the other in the battle over redistricting in California. Supporters led by Governor Gavin Newsom have amassed a huge network of more than 65,000 individual donors. Campaign finance filings released Friday show compare that with the just 130 donors reported by opponents. So while more than 65,000 people collectively pooled their money to air the pro redistricting ads I just showed you, it was just 130 people that funded all of the anti redistricting ads. Now, don't get me wrong, both sides have mega donors. That is where George Soros comes back in here. His family is reportedly the largest single donor on the side pushing for redistricting with a donation of around $10 million. But the side in opposition to redistricting got an even bigger single donor, a man named Charles Munger Jr. The conservative son of billionaire Charles Munger Sr. He has reportedly loaned more than $30 million to the anti redistricting side. Not only is that three times what Soros families put into the fight, but the anti redistricting side has only raised $35 million total. So almost all of their funding is coming from just that one guy. In comparison, the Soros Family foundation donation represents less than an eighth of the funding on the pro redistricting side. Now, mega donors are not a good thing for our political system. Billionaires should not have that much say in our politics. But we also have to be clear headed about how this is an arms race. Remember that last year the person who donated the most money in any political race was Elon Musk. We're talking about a lot tonight. The literal richest man in the world who spent at least $270 million to help Trump win the White House. Trump targeting a Democratic mega donor like George Soros is in many ways just like Trump's gerrymandering plot. Trump wants to stack the deck in his favor, whether it's with billionaire donations or congressional seats. He wants to have an unfair advantage however he does it. And he wants to try to stop Democrats from being able to level the playing field. Coming up, Pete Hegseth abruptly summons hundreds of generals and admirals from around the world for a meeting in Virginia. Yesterday we had no idea why. Today we have more of a sense as to why. And the whole thing is even more absurd than we thought. We'll be right back. In this moment full of surreal head scratching headlines, a lot of which we've been talking about tonight, this one from yesterday really stood out. Hegseth Orders rare Urgent Meeting of Hundreds of Generals and Admirals the Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered hundreds of the US Military's generals and admirals to gather on short notice and without a stated reason at a Marine Corps base in Virginia next week. Now, if the sudden ordering of hundreds of the country's top military brass from around the world for a meeting in Virginia sounds very weird to you and alarming and concerning, you are not alone. As one source told the Washington Post, all of it is weird. Of course it is. And naturally Donald Trump and J.D. vance were asked about it yesterday.
- [36:22]
Ro Khanna
It's actually not unusual at all. And I think it's odd that you guys have made it into such a big story.
- [36:25]
Donald Trump
I think it's great when generals and top people want to come to the United States to be with our now called Secretary of War.
- [36:34]
Jen Psaki
Not weird at all. They're just coming here. They just want to be there with Hegseth. That's the whole thing. Now to be clear, these top military officials aren't just deciding to leave their critical posts to come and say hi to Pete Hegseth. As Trump Insinuated there, they have been ordered. And new reporting today sheds some light on why. Sources told the Washington Post that Hegseth is expected to lecture top military brass about standards and the so called warrior ethos in a short speech. And if that is what this meeting is actually for, maybe this could have been an email or a secure video call. As retired Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling puts it in a piece for the Bulwark, in my 40 years in uniform, I never saw anything like it. While senior leaders have been recalled to Washington to meet with the Secretary of Defense, during all our wars, never once did a secretary summon all of the hundreds of one to four stars from each of the services, plus their top enlisted counterparts from every corner of the globe to a single auditorium. Adding inside the force. This recall will be read as a show of power. It will not be read. It will be received less as we need you here and more as I can make you come. Joining me now is the author of that, retired U.S. lieutenant General Mark Hertling. General Hertling, thank you so much for being here. I mean, I saw this yesterday. It was alarming to me. I have never served in the military. I've had the honor of serving alongside people who have served in the military. The most recent reporting is that Hexith wants to give a talk about the warrior ethos. His definition of that term, at least in my view, is questionable given his public disdain for the Geneva Convention and support for adjudicated war criminals. But this was already a completely out of the norm meeting. You described it much more articulately in your piece, which we will send out as well, so people can read it. But how do you think a meeting with that topic, with the information we now have today, will be received by the top ranking members of the military who are being ordered to come to Virginia?
- [38:31]
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling
Well, Jen, I'll tell you, I spent 41 years in uniform, as many of these people who are coming into the city have, and they've been doing different things, different jobs. But one of the things that happens in the military is the warrior ethos is a core part of the professional ethics and values framework. And it's a cultural foundation for soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. It's expressed in four short, powerful lines. I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit, and I will never leave a fallen comrade. Now that's not taken alone. It's also placed in conjunction with your oath to the Constitution. The kinds of things that every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine does is as soon as they join the force that says we defend ideas, the ideas that are in that document. That's different from any other country in the world who normally vow to defend a president or a king or a queen or a country or a fatherland. We defend ideas and that's important. So a combination of what we've done as military leaders in terms of the military ethos and the character of swearing an oath to the country is something that we don't have to be lectured to. That's reinforced throughout a military career. It's done every time we raise our hand to the oath and promote someone. So it is really a little bit bizarre that that's the purpose of this meeting and to comment on what the President and the Vice President said about they're looking forward to coming to the city. All military guys and gals like to come back when they have work to do. But this was a no notice event. They're traveling from all over the world. Some are traveling 15 hours by plane from the Far east, eight hours from Europe. You know the deal, you've been there and it was a let's do it now. And to hear that it's going to talk about something that's reinforced on a daily basis is just a little bit strange.
- [40:31]
Jen Psaki
There are reasons to your point why military leaders and four stars and three stars are brought back. Times of war or other things where they need to be in meetings and discussions about. But they are deployed around the world because there are conflicts around the globe and peacekeeping efforts around. Just from a practical standpoint, I mean, pulling back to Washington feels also like a terrible use of resources and personnel time when there's so much going on out there. Am I right in that regard or help us understand kind of the impact of that?
- [41:00]
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling
Well, I think the best way I could do that is to explain how I went through a thought process because I always put myself back in uniform. And in my last job as the commander of US Army Army Europe, if I would have gotten this message, the first thing that would go through my mind is what's he looking to do? What's going on? What's the subject of this meeting? How do I best prepare myself? How do I get to a position where I know what he's talking about and I can contribute with a sense of value. But then you go a little bit further. This is not just the four and three stars. The edict is every commander from one star to four star. And had I been in Europe at the time, if I was still serving, I would have been bringing Four or excuse me, five different one stars and two stars with me with their command sergeants, majors. So there would have been 10 of us coming from one theater. And that puts kind of a distrust in the chain of command. If I'm being called back to be told something that I should be echoing to my soldiers and my, my subordinate commanders, let me. You don't need the whole chain of command there. But I guess Mr. Hegseth, Secretary Hegseth, wants to talk to everyone and look them eye to eye. But also surprising, today this is evidently going to be a one hour meeting. So it's going to be a very long run for a short slide.
- [42:23]
Jen Psaki
Is there a scenario? I think I know the answer to this. And we've never been exactly in this scenario before. As you said in the excellent piece you wrote, where someone in your former position could say no or could say, I'm not going to bring the one and two stars. Or is that just not something that would ever be done even in this scenario?
- [42:40]
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling
No, that's disobeying a direct order from your superior. And there's a great custom that we have in the United States, along with vowing an oath to the Constitution and those ideas, we also have civilian control of the military. So when your civilian bosses say something, as long as it's legal and ethically correct, you do what they ask you to do. But I would suggest, you know, even though it won't be shown, there'll be a lot of poker faces in this audience on Monday. There's going to be a lot of internal eye rolling at what they're being asked to do again for a long trip. And the thing that I'd add to that is this could be done so much easier, you know, during the war on terror, Jen, and you know this, every Saturday, commanders around the world would dial in to the worldwide secure video teleconference. And for about three or four hours for me, it was always on a Saturday afternoon. For those in Korea, it was always like three o' clock in the morning. But they would dial in and hear what was going on, exchange ideas, collaborate. You can do this with the kind of technology that we have in the military without putting a lot of people on a plane and in a hotel room and in cars. This is going to be a massive logistics effort for a one hour briefing. And again, that's where a lot of military folks will say, this doesn't quite make sense.
- [44:03]
Jen Psaki
Thank you as always, for bringing your expertise and really helping us understand how to look at this and how it could impact so many people serving around the world. General, Lieutenant General Mark Kirtland, thank you again for joining me. Got one more thing to tell you about. We'll be right back. Okay. MSNBC Live is right around the corner. It is on Saturday, October 11, in New York City. And some tickets are still available, so scan the QR code on your screen or go to msnbc.comlive25 to buy your tickets. Now that does it for me.
- [44:40]
Bic Soleil Glide Razor Announcer
Surprise beach day. No excuses. I'm in. Gimme five. With Bic Soleil Glide Razor, you'll have hydrated, sleep, smooth skin that's ready to go on the fly. No shave cream needed. You can prep, shave and hydrate all in one step thanks to moisture bars that hydrate your skin during and after shaving. 5 flexible blades hug your skin for a close shave. Glide into smooth. It's your time to shine with Bixsol A buy now at Amazon and Walmart. Ready? Your skin looks amazing. So smooth and beach ready.
- [45:07]
Jen Psaki
Let's go.