← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
Melania Trump stages bizarre announcement denying links to Jeffrey Epstein despite evidence
00:41:38
Jen Psaki wonders at the motivation of First Lady Melania Trump to make a sudden, surprise speech denying any past relationship with notorious sex trafficking pedophile and Donald Trump's long-time friend, Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. The first lady even went so far as to make denials that are directly contradicted by evidence in the public domain. Why? And why now?
Loading summary
Transcript49 lines
- [00:00]
A
It's tax season, and at Lifelock we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it. Guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com specialoffer for the threats you can't control.
- [00:29]
B
Terms apply.
- [00:30]
A
Listen to your favorite msnow show shows anytime as a podcast. Enjoy new episodes of Morning Joe, Deadline, White House and the Rachel Maddow Show.
- [00:40]
B
Every small d Democratic muscle that we have is flexing.
- [00:44]
A
Plus the Last Word with Lawrence o', Donnell, the Beat with Ari Melber, the Weeknight and more on the Go wherever you get your podcasts for ad free listening to all of your favorite shows. Subscribe to Ms. Now Premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [01:00]
B
I just have to start with something absolutely mind blowingly bananas that happened today. I mean, you probably didn't know that Melania Trump was scheduled to deliver a rare public statement today, but even if you did know, you probably didn't guess she was going to single handedly reignite the whole Epstein scandal in the process. And when she reached the podium today, in a very self important way, she cut right to the chase. Good afternoon. The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today. Well, good afternoon to you, Melania Trump. I mean, I was watching that in my office. First of all, it popped up on the screen. I was like, what is happening here? And I was thinking, am I hallucinating? What the hell is going on? Whose idea was this? I had lots of questions. I mean, I guess one possibility is that it's a sign the war really is going that badly. Certainly gonna talk to John Kerry about that. Another is that they are trying to get ahead of a story that a reporter is working on. I guess we'll learn if that's the case soon enough. Who knows? Now during her remarks, the first lady went on to denounce what she described as false smears against her, citing numerous fake images and statements on social media and saying she said that she wanted to clear her good name. From what exactly? Because again, the unavoidable question on everyone's mind was why now? Why at all? Why ever? I mean, most people hearing her remarks probably had never even heard any of the so called lies she was responding to. According to msno Lots of White House staffers were caught off guard. And Trump himself claimed. Claimed he knew nothing about her statement. Though that seems a little hard to believe, especially when you consider that Melania's own spokesperson told the New York Times that the President knew beforehand that she was going to make a statement. But I mean, regardless of who knew what and when they knew it, inside the White House, nobody on the outside was betting that the first lady would give a surprise speech on Jeffrey Epstein. And when I say nobody was betting on it, I mean literally, literally nobody. Because ahead of the speech, the prediction market Kalshee took wagers on what Melania would say during her remarks. Now, the anticipated topics range from education to peace and security to AI they must have seen the robot. Who knows? But nobody put their money on a random denial of her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The few lucky gamblers did manage to make a few bucks betting that she would mention children or minors. So I guess there's that. The whole thing was even more bizarre given that the first lady seemed to formally stage her remarks to match the visuals of the President's primetime address to the nation on Iran last week. And having worked in multiple White Houses and been a part of preparing for many of these formal speeches, I can tell you where you give a speech is basically a signal of. Of how important you think it is. And let me just tell you, Melania was exuding self importance this afternoon. So now that Melania Trump has put Epstein back in the news. Congratulations, Melania. Let's just take a look at how she described their relationship. I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice, Maxwell. Well, relationship can be a flexible term, I suppose. But we do know, of course, that Melania Trump has been photographed with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell over a number of years. I mean, there's the picture of Melania with her future husband and the two of them at a February 2000 party. And another of her with her husband Enghilaine at a fashion show in September of that year. You can see it right there on the screen. And the Epstein files include an email dated October 23, 2002, addressed to G. You can also see that email address. The sender asked, how is Palm Beach? I cannot wait to go down. Give me a call when you're back in New York. Have a great time. And ends. Love, Melania. Well, here's how Melania Trump described that email today. My email reply to Maxwell cannot be categorized as anything more than casual correspondence. Casual correspondence, I suppose, maybe. Although in her response to Melania Ghislaine addresses her as, quote, sweet Pea, an apparent nickname that seems a little more intimate than the casual correspondence the first lady described. And to be clear, Melania's initial email to Maxwell doesn't seem to be a reply at all, which is how she described it today. It looks like she initiated that outreach herself. And just about two and a half weeks after that exchange, Melania and Maxwell appeared to have connected again at an event in New York, according to this photograph of them accompanied by Donald Trump and supermodel Naomi Campbell. So definitely looks like the two had something of a relationship. The files also offer another detail relating to some other things that the first lady said earlier today. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump. My name has never appeared in court documents, depositions, victim statements, or FBI in interviews surrounding the Epstein matter. It appears that second part about Melania's name is decidedly not true. In fact, Melania's name does appear in at least one FBI interview with an unidentified witness, a witness who told the agents that, quote, epstein introduced Melania Trump to Donald Trump. Of course, we don't know if or how that witness would know that, but it would appear to contradict what Melania and her former modeling agent have been saying about how she and Trump met for years. So the first lady talked a lot about herself, and in her own La La land, she also tried to present herself, the spouse of the man withholding the Epstein files, as some sort of a defender of survivors. Now is the time for Congress to act. Epstein was not alone. I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors. Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress with the power of sworn testimony. Okay, first of all, I don't know if she's been living under a rock, but Democrats have tried to hold hearings. They have brought survivors to Congress to speak and tell their stories at high profile events. But there have been no hearings because Republicans have not let that happen. And there's no way Melania's own husband has wanted them to happen either. After all, his Justice Department spent months defying a congressional subpoena for the Epstein files. So given all of that, it's not surprising that Melania Trump's bizarre self involved public statement also did not sit well with survivors. I mean, in response to the First Lady's remarks, a group of 15 survivors and family members of victims said in a statement, first Lady Melania Trump is now shifting the burden onto survivors under politicized Conditions that protect those with power. The statement calls out the Justice Department, law enforcement, prosecutors, and the Trump administration, which is still not fully complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And they add that it also diverts attention from Pam Bondi, who must answer for withheld files and the exposure of survivors identities. And they issued a call to action saying survivors have done their part. Now it's time for those in power to do theirs. Maybe the first lady can just saunter over across the hallway in the residence and ask her own husband to release the remaining Epstein files. That would be far more powerful than her performance this morning. Joining me now is Congressman Robert Garcia. He's the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. First of all, I just described my reaction when I saw this happen this morning. And Melania Trump's remarks. You have been so close to this. You've been in it. What was going through your mind when you watched Melania Trump deliver that statement today?
- [09:29]
C
I mean, honestly, I was stunned. It was pretty shocking to see her come out obviously using that location in the White House with no one anticipating this address. And I think a couple things are important from that speech. I mean, one is it's been interesting how she has essentially put herself into the Epstein story. I mean, look, the survivors are right. They've been demanding justice. They've been demanding Pam Bondi testify. And it's been her own husband that has been the one that's been calling this investigation a hoax. It has been former AG Pambondi that has tried to bury this investigation. And just two days ago, Todd Blanche, the acting AG said to the press that essentially the Epson investigation was over and not a future part of DOJ investigations. And so for the first lady to inject herself this way and to bring this all back, I think was a pretty, pretty rare moment that we're seeing in this administration. She is distancing herself in some ways from, from the positions of her husband. But at the same time, where has she been this entire time? Where has her calls for hearings been over the last few months? Why not call for the release of the entire files? 50% of them have not been released to the public. And so I think we're all kind of waiting and seeing what's the next step here. What's gonna happen next? Is this anticipating something else we're all waiting to see?
- [10:53]
B
Well, it also could have been a self involved effort to tell her own version of events before a story comes out. We don't know. We'll see what happens. The other one of the Things that struck me and we just played this and it is, it didn't sit well with the survivors. As you also alluded to is she called on Congress to have survivors testify under oath. Now, the priorities of survivors is, of course, a lot of what you have been doing, which is pressing to have these government officials, Pam Bondi and others testify under oath before Congress and answer questions for why they've withheld the files and also for the files to be released. What do you think that was about?
- [11:33]
C
Look, I think it's obviously there's some deflection going on there, I think from the first Lady. I mean, there's no question and I think the survivors are right. She is trying to put this on anyone else but her and her husband. I mean, it has been Donald Trump that's been leading the White House cover up. Now, look, we've always said we want to hear from survivors. They and there are survivors that are willing to come forward and give testimony. In fact, we've been working with a few of those that want to do so and we've been asking James Comer to provide more forums and opportunities for survivors to actually tell their stories. They have refused to do so. So if the first lady actually wants to help us in this investigation, she needs to ask her husband to release the remaining half, half of the files that they have not released. She needs to ask her husband to, to stop and stop the DOJ from putting out private information about their survivors or their photos or information that doxes them and their families and puts them in danger. And so for her to pop in right now at this moment, I think is incredibly bizarre. But once again, we're asking the President and Comer to do the right thing. Let's bring Pam Bondi in, let's get the questions answered and let's release the
- [12:41]
B
rest of the files as also, as you well know. But just to remind everybody watching, a lot of the survivors don't want to name names because they're afraid of defamation, they're afraid of being lawsuits, they're afraid of being doxed, they're afraid of threats. That's a big part of it. What did you make of, I don't know that this is even the most important part of this, but it did strike some of our very smart producers. There was a lot of inconsistencies. I just walked through this between Melania's remarks and the public record. I mean, she clearly had at least some kind of relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. And her name was mentioned in at least one Way one time in an FBI interview. What do you think that was about?
- [13:20]
C
Look, I mean, she and her remarks tried to go out of her way to somehow distance herself from Ghislaine Maxwell. That's just not what the public record shows. I mean, they were clearly social at parties. I mean, Donald Trump was a good friend of Jeffrey Epstein's. I mean, Jeffrey Epstein called him his best friend for 10 years, essentially. And we see some of that communication. I mean, the way they refer to each other, the way they close their emails, I mean, there was clearly a friendship. And so this idea that somehow there's some just casual correspondence, I think is pretty striking. There is no question that there is more here. I mean, let's be clear, there is more here. And so whatever is going to be revealed in the near future, maybe we're getting close to some pieces of evidence that she is not comfortable with. But whatever is out there, the truth is going to come out. The survivors are going to get justice. Pam Bondi is going to testify in front of this committee, and we're going to end this.
- [14:16]
B
White House cover up certainly raised more questions than it answered. Congressman Garcia, thank you as always, for joining me. Okay, let's just take. There's so much going on. I just want to take a big step back here because for weeks now, people have been making this macabre joke that Trump started this war to distract from the Epstein files. I don't think he actually did that, but that's been out there now. Today, though, it feels like it's not entirely out of the realm of possible that Trump's wife is talking about the Epstein files to distract from the war. Who knows? But perhaps we've come kind of full circle. And frankly, there are a lot of reasons Trump probably doesn't want to be talking about the war right now. And I'm going to talk to, as I was talking with Ali Velshi about, I'm going to talk with former Secretary of State John Kerry about all of that in just a moment, because every new report we get paints the picture of an administration that was completely unprepared for the consequences of this war. I mean, today the news outlet Notice reported that when the war began, the Trump administration failed to alert US Flagged vessels in the region, putting them in immediate danger. Two of those vessels included students from the US Merchant Marine Academy who ended up trapped aboard those ships for weeks as the war played out. That's according to two people familiar with the situation. The start of this war was a particularly dangerous time for US Forces in the region, of course. And you may remember that in the earliest hours of the conflict, Trump struck a US military facility. Iran struck a US military facility in Kuwait, killing six service members and wounding another 20. Now, at the time, Pete Hegseth gave this wild explanation for how Iran was able to carry out that deadly attack. And here's what he said.
- [15:59]
C
Every once in a while, you might have one.
- [16:01]
A
Unfortunately, we call it a squirter that
- [16:03]
C
makes its way through. And in that particular case, it happened to hit a tactical operations center that was fortified. But these are powerful weapons.
- [16:15]
B
He says those service members were in a fortified facility, but a little squirter just happened to sneak through and kill those American soldiers. I mean, that was the explanation of the Secretary of Defense. Well, today, survivors of that attack are disputing that characterization, telling CBS News that the unit was unprepared to defend itself against Iranian attacks. And one of the injured soldiers said of Hegseth's comments, quote, painting a picture that when squeaked through, is a falsehood. I want people to know the unit was unprepared to provide any defense for itself. It was not a fortified position. Now, all of this comes as Trump's efforts to negotiate an end to the war appear to be faltering. It's been two days since the Trump administration supposedly struck a deal to temporarily reopen the Strait of Hormuz. I've been skeptical from the beginning, and so far, it still appears that the strait is completely under Iran's control. New York Times reports that hundreds of tankers are still waiting to navigate the Strait. And we're even getting reports that Iran is demanding cryptocurrency tolls from vessels who wish to access the Strait. Today, the president responded to those reports in a post on his social media account saying there are reports that Iran is charging fees to tankers going through the Hormuz Strait. They better not be. And if they are, they better stop. Now, there are reports. I mean, first, are you getting your information about the closing of a strait because of a war you started by just reading the papers like the rest of us? That's alarming, but I'm sure that will do the trick. Just tell them to stop. Maybe not, because a little bit later he posted, iran is doing a very poor job, dishonorable, some would say, of allowing oil to go through the Strait of Hormuz. That is not the agreement we have. Another of the biggest threats to his disintegrating ceasefire deal is Israel's ongoing strikes against Lebanon, which Iran says violate the deal. But Trump waved away concerns about those attacks during a phone interview with NBC News saying, quote, I spoke with Bibi and he's going to low key it. I just think we have to be sort of a little more low key. Clearly a diplomatic turn there. Again, I'm sure that will fix it. Just tell the prime minister of Israel to be a little more low key. Take a little chill pill about his aggressive bombing campaign he's been pitching American presidents on for decades now. Today, Israel announced that it has agreed to start direct talks with Lebanon, but vowed to continue the fighting in the meantime and rejected all calls for an immediate ceasefire. That doesn't sound that chill, does it? Or like things are about to get low key anytime soon. All of this is a reminder of why it is important to have actual adults in the room, people who can conduct delicate negotiations that go beyond yelling at the Iranian government on social media. Of all the current and former U.S. cabinet secretaries, there's probably no one who spent more time sitting across the table from Iran.
- [19:06]
A
Thank you.
- [19:06]
B
Than former Secretary of State John Kerry. I worked for John Kerry during the Obama administration when he negotiated the deal to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. And prior to that, John Kerry spent years as the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tackling issues that dealt with Iran. And as a former Navy lieutenant who was awarded three Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam, he understands the risks this war poses to US Service members. John Kerry is exactly the kind of adult that these latest Iran negotiations are missing. So what does he think about the Trump administration's handling of this war? I'm gonna ask him about all of it when we come back. I am Michelle. And I am Craig. Craig here is my big brother. We are so excited for you to listen to our brand new podcast. It's called IMO with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson. Together, Craig and I are going to take your questions about the challenges you're grappling with in life. So get in touch, send us your
- [20:06]
A
questions and join us on IMO with
- [20:09]
B
Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson. Subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Joining me now is former Secretary of State, former Senator, and former Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and former Democratic presidential nominee. He has quite a resume. John Kerry, also my former boss. It's great to see you.
- [20:39]
A
Thank you, Jenn. It's great to be with you. Thank you.
- [20:43]
B
So you have not said a lot publicly since this war began. It was one of the reasons I was so looking forward to speaking with you and hearing what you had to say. But just 36 hours before this war started, you debated another Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, at a university in Florida. And here's what you said, which you remember. But just for everybody watching, if you push them too hard into a court or if you drop the bombs before there's a decision to be made, it is entirely possible these folks who are masters of asymmetrical warfare may just say, to hell with them. Tell us what you meant by that.
- [21:19]
A
Well, I meant that there are unforeseen options available to Iran which they've been able to play enormously, effectively. But the most, you know, genuinely what's missing from this discussion is the reality that this is a war that absolutely, positively did not have to take place. And so we're here where we are today with the global economy threatened with masses amount of dislocation, with people dying, innocence, civilians, so forth. I mean, we're witnessing the results of moving too rapidly without making the diplomatic measures necessary. Now, a number of years ago, when President Obama decided that we were going to try to resolve this problem in a peaceful way, we took four years and we secured an agreement that is the strongest nuclear agreement on the planet, strongest since the 1950s and 60s. We have enormous ability not to trust, but to verify. So the tragedy of a president coming in after the United States did not fully keep its own side of the agreement of lifting all the sanctions, you wound up with now a situation where you have killed the father, killed the wife, killed the brother. The ayatollah, we are told the new one is tougher, more conservative. And now the bombing has taken place and entire Iranian society and region have been really put under extraordinary tension. So where do you go from here? The Straits of Hormuz are now in the control of Iran, which they weren't in the same way before this started. So we've wound up after these weeks of war and we have made the distrust much greater. We've made it much harder to find a way forward. We've complicated the global economy. People, average folks in our country are paying so much more now for goods and that inflation will continue even if the war ended tomorrow. That will continue for a period of time. So we, you know, by any standard of how you measure good diplomacy, good leadership, leading a nation in a time of war. This administration has been haphazard, sloppy, you know, putting out maybe a 10 point plan. Oh no, there's a 15 point plan. Oh, no, nobody can admit exactly what's in either plan. That is not the way you lead the most powerful military on the planet.
- [23:57]
B
I have so many follow up questions to ask you about. Let me just start with this. I mean, we're at this point, there's a direct line to your point between Donald Trump ripping up the jcpoa back in 2018 and where we are today and now. Where we are is a ceasefire has fallen apart and there's a US Delegation led by the Vice President that's going to be headed to Pakistan to attempt to negotiate, I guess an off ramp. But the question I have for you, you've sat across from the Iranians, perhaps more than anyone else at the cabinet level when they go into these negotiations. The Iranians, to your point, are in a much different posture now. They're controlling the strait, they have much more leverage. Is their posture going to be to hell with them or what do you expect?
- [24:43]
A
I don't think anybody can predict what to expect because there are a lot of variables in what their considerations may be. And I don't want to speculate. I do know that the new Foreign minister, Rachi, we got to know him very well and he's a capable individual, very smart, and he will try to find, I think, the best way to find the compromise that works for everybody. We have to all understand now there will be some kind of compromise if there is to be a negotiated settlement. And that compromise is going to have to recognize that Iran believes it lived by the agreement. And so what we wound up with is a situation where they now believe you can't trust the United States because President Trump came along and just pulled out of the agreement. And he pulled out of the agreement, Jen, without making a bona fide effort over a period of time to try to change the dynamics. He didn't put ideas on the table. He didn't bring the teams together. If he had things that he really disagreed with, he had an ability to be able to try to change those. And he always had time to be able to bomb if that's what he ultimately wanted to do or if that's ultimately what Prime Minister Netanyahu persuaded him to do. The fact is that here you had ability over a number of years because of the very stringent components of the agreement that was put together. So I think we're going to have to overcome a massive credibility gap and we're going to have to resolve the Straits of Hormuz, because I don't see how President Trump or how anybody leaves those straits to be controlled by Iran, which they were not. Before we began this war, ships were passing freely through the international waters in that passage so here we are, worse off than we were before. And we're going to have to hope that those negotiations in Pakistan can really produce something. I really do hope, because this is a very dangerous moment.
- [26:49]
B
In addition to, of course, the Iranians and negotiating with them and all of your experience there, you've probably sat across the table from Prime Minister Netanyahu more than any, almost anyone else out there. And he and Israel are, of course, big factors here. There's been recent reporting, you probably saw in the New York Times, that Netanyahu was taken into the situation where he basically pitched Trump on attacking Iran. Were you ever a part of any conversations like that? I know he's made that pitches to past administrations. Were you ever a part of that? And were you surprised that he was able to convince Trump to do this?
- [27:28]
A
Well, I was part of any number of conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, conversations
- [27:33]
B
with him pitching the US to strike Iran.
- [27:36]
A
Yes, he wanted us to strike. He came to President Obama, he made a presentation that asked to strike. President Obama refused. President Biden refused, President Bush refused. The only president who has agreed to this, obviously, is President Trump. And it's really interesting. I read that article. There's a very good one. It seemed like good reporting. And they said that he went around the room and asked everybody their opinions. Obviously, Prime Minister Netanyahu made a basically four point pitch saying that, you know, they could kill the, they could kill the leadership, they could incite a change of regime, et cetera. They would destroy the military, et cetera. Well, they've obviously hurt the military enormously. They have probably sunk. I mean, most of the Navy is gone. Yeah, our guys are good. And let me be clear about this. You know, those of us who are opposed to this war starting the way that it did and starting at all don't have a doubt about the strength of the American military and our capacity to be able to do absolutely remarkable things. And I am in awe of them. But the fact is that there was no imminent threat. There just wasn't an imminent threat. And even the administration spent months telling us they have obliterated the entire program. So on the one hand they obliterate the program, on the next hand, they're telling you one day on a Saturday, oh, by the way, there's an imminent nuclear threat. I think everybody can understand. The meeting was quite remarkable. They went around the table, the Prime Minister made his offerings about what would happen, and the President said, sounds good to me. Sounds good to me.
- [29:22]
B
Why do you think it worked with him? Why do you think it worked with Trump now, especially, he's been talking about wanting to strike Iran for a long time.
- [29:30]
A
I really can't speculate. I'm not going to. You know, I mean, a lot of odd things have happened over a period of time. President Trump went to Russia, had a long meeting with President Putin and came out and came out of that meeting and said, russia says it didn't do it, and literally stepped on the entire intelligence community of the United States. That's a first for any President of the United States.
- [29:53]
B
Incredibly striking comments from the former Secretary of State. And stay right where we are, because part two of my conversation with Secretary Kerry is coming up next. And you're about to hear his reaction to Donald Trump's threat this week to wipe out Iran's entire civilization. We'll be right back. I am Michelle and I am Craig. Craig here is my big brother. We are so excited for you to listen to our brand new podcast. It's called IMO with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson. Together, Craig and I are gonna take your questions about the challenges you're grappling with in life. So get in touch, send us your
- [30:32]
A
questions and join us on IMO with
- [30:35]
B
Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson. Subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Okay, here is part two of my conversation with former Secretary of State John Kerry. Let me ask you about one other language question, because again, this is where I have been reflecting quite a bit, given the specificity during negotiations about how language is used by the Secretary of State, by the Secretary of Defense, typically the president, even the spokespeople. Today, Trump was asked about Israel, Israel's continued attack on Lebanon. As you know, there's been kind of this dispute as to whether or not Lebanon was included in the ceasefire or not. And he said, I spoke with Bibi and he's going to low key it. I just think we have to be sort of a little more low key. And I just wondered what you thought of that, given how specific. And I remember every T was crossed, every word was very specific in all of the negotiations that you were involved in as Secretary of State.
- [31:38]
A
Well, I think it's not unusual for a president in one conflict or another to have direct communication with the leader of another country. It is pretty strange, however, that they just calibrate this according to whatever's happening with public opinion. That doesn't seem to me to be a mission that is tied to a very specific goal on a timetable. And I think many, many people have very serious questions about what Prime Minister Netanyahu's ultimate goals are here? Is he simply going to continue war on an ongoing basis? Because that's to his advantage. Are there very clear goals the goal was set out to be, do you know, completely annihilate Hamas? That hasn't happened yet. So if you set goals that are not reachable, things that you don't want to have happen can go on for a lot longer than they should.
- [32:35]
B
How concerned are you about the difference in goals that Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu seem to have in comparison with, to the degree we even have knowledge of what the goals are from the United States, what the United States may be trying to achieve here, and how this war might end?
- [32:54]
A
Well, I think unfortunately, Jen, and I really mean unfortunately, there seems to be a war plan that's unfolding on an ongoing basis, and it's very, very hard to say where the goal is and where the endpoint is. I think nearly impossible to say that, particularly if the things that they want to do are not threatening necessarily to the rest of the world. And that negotiation is going to be much tougher. Now, believe me, it was tough when we began it, when there was great enmity between the sides. Now that there's been this massive bombing and destruction and challenge to their leadership, with everybody there in government knowing someone who's been killed in the course of the last weeks and months, that's going to be harder for them to come back and say, well, we're willing to be charitable with respect to any measure. And so this is going to be a very serious and, I think, difficult negotiation to have. Now. We have to have it and we have to find a way forward. And by the way, when you say trust, our motto was not trust but verify. Our motto was don't trust and verify. And that's the way I think our agreement came out. You didn't rely on trust. You relied on our eyes on the prize, our eyes on the uranium, our eyes on the centrifuges and daily inspections and the International Atomic Energy Agency certifying to all countries what was happening. It's a very strong agreement, sadly walked away from, not for substantive reasons, but because President Obama did it.
- [34:36]
B
No doubt about it. That's why he walked away from it. Before the ceasefire was announced this week, Donald Trump said, I know you saw this. A whole civilization will die tonight. It is language I don't think anyone has ever heard from a US President publicly, privately, anyone in any position of power. It's a pretty hard bell to unring, given all of the roles you've played. What did you think when you saw that?
- [35:03]
A
I was as shocked as I've been by anything that I've seen or read by this administration. In the first administration and now in the second, for a Christian so called to step up on Easter Sunday and use language like that, which kids are going to hear and people all around the world will see as a reflection of our presidency, it's just utterly stunning. And to be talking about, you know, we're the city that hosts the Holocaust Museum. We're the place that works so hard to liberate Europe or free Europe from fascism and so many other contributions we've made around the world. And you step up and not only use language like that, but say a whole civilization is going to die. That sounds to me like it's the prelude to becoming one of the greatest war criminals in history. When you kill a civilization, you are doing something precisely against all of the international norms, standards, values, and hopes and aspirations. So, you know, I think it's important when life and death is involved and war is involved. And it's certainly a lesson I learned in the context of the 1960s. You know, you really need to tell the truth. Public people, if they're going to urge the American people to put their sons and daughters on the line to defend our security interests, define those interests properly and make sure you are defending them within the proper parameters of how we behave as a nation. And that's how you strengthen not just the United States, that's how you strengthen the world.
- [36:44]
B
Given your history, you have so many aspects of your history of fighting in the Vietnam War coming back, speaking out against it in that moment in front of Congress, how do you think about the role that the men and women serving the 50,000 troops who are sitting there not knowing what this war is about are being put in right now?
- [37:06]
A
Well, God bless them, they're warriors first, and they follow lawful orders, and they help stand up to make us who we are. And I really am in awe of the abilities that were evidenced in the Venezuela operation and now in these operations. They're quite extraordinary. But they expect their leaders to tell them the truth. They expect their leaders to have the wisdom to not put them into harm's way unless it is a legitimate threat to the United States, one that rises. I mean, they're all sort of layers of threat. You can have a threat, you can have a serious threat, you can have a, you know, existential threat. I mean, there are different layers of threats, but no matter what those layers are, people who serve want to know that the mission is clear, that the country is behind them, that they have everything they need to be able to get the job done.
- [38:07]
B
Secretary John Kerry, I am so grateful that you gave us the time today. It was so interesting talking to you about all of this. Thank you again.
- [38:15]
A
Thank you. My pleasure. Thanks for having me.
- [38:20]
B
Coming up, new reporting that Donald Trump is using foreign steel for the White House ballroom. You cannot make it up sometimes. The story definitely involves incredible hypocrisy, and it might involve incredible corruption. We'll be right back and I'll explain all of it. America first. Very familiar phrase, isn't it? I mean, it's been the rallying cry behind Donald Trump's entire appeal as a politician. One of the main reasons he has stuck around as a fixture of American political life for over a decade. And an essential part of the fairy tale he tells over and over and over again, that only he can make America great again, because only he will always put America first. It's supposedly the basis of his entire policy platform, to the degree he even has one, including what has been a main priority of his second term, implementing his sweeping and shambolic tariff plan. According to Trump, his tariffs are supposed to protect and boost US Manufacturing. In fact, one American industry he has long claimed is near and dear to his heart.
- [39:33]
A
A Trump administration will also ensure that we start using American steel for American infrastructure. It will be American steel that sends our skyscrapers soaring, soaring into the sky. Beautiful sight. More beautiful with American steel. I said, nope. Comes from the United States. Oh, we're not building it. American steel, the best and strongest steel on earth will forever be made in America. Our nation requires steel and aluminum to be made in America, not in foreign lands.
- [40:10]
B
American steel, over and over. America first. The promise to his bases not only helped him get back in the White House, but a year back in power. It has helped him maintain the support of many of his fanatical supporters, even as he does one unprecedented and crazy thing after another. Like, say, tearing down and destroying the entire historic East Wing of the White House just so he can try to build the giant, gilded, gaudy ballroom of his dreams. Despite everything that America has been facing since the start of Trump 2.0, the ballroom is one of those topics that Trump just cannot help but bring up at every possible opportunity. And now we're learning to the extent that Trump's beloved ballroom is on a collision course with his promises to put America first. Here was Trump last October, announcing a curious donation to his ballroom construction project.
- [41:01]
A
A steel company. A great steel company. A great Man. Actually, he said, sir, I'd like to donate the steel for your ballroom. I said, well, that's nice. And I found out how much is the steel. I called the contractor, searched down for 37 million. I said, this is a nice donation, right? He wants to steal, and he wants to make it great steal as opposed to garbage steal, because they dump a lot of garbage around, you know, it's
- [41:30]
B
great steel, not garbage steel. So one would think that means the America first president is most definitely using American steel for his big, beautiful ballroom, right? The New York Times headlined, though White House secures foreign steel for a ballroom project. And according to the Times, the White House secured tens of millions of dollars worth of donated foreign steel for Mr. Trump's $400 million ballroom project. A Luxembourg based firm is providing steel for the structure of the ballroom project. The steel was produced in Europe, so definitely not America first steal. Trump's White House didn't even bother trying to deny the story. They told the Times that Trump was, quote, making the White House beautiful, giving it the glory it deserves, at no cost to the taxpayer. Something everyone should celebrate. They went on to say, only people with a severe case of Trump derangement syndrome would find a problem with that. I don't know. I would imagine that if America first truly is your thing, as it is for many supporters of the President and his policies, they would absolutely find a problem with that. Like this executive vice president of a trade group representing North American steelmakers who told the Times that the domestic steel industry could supply whatever steel the president would need for his projects. The story by itself blows a hole through the fantasy that Trump prioritizes America's interests first. Then you add things like the foreign war Trump decided to start, which is driving up gas prices by the day, the taxpayer dollars he wants to use to build his gigantic vanity arch in Washington, D.C. and the fact that he and his family members have gotten billions of dollars richer as costs have gone up for everyday Americans. And it becomes clear Donald Trump is not prioritizing putting America First. It's always been about putting Donald Trump first. We have to take a quick break, but Lawrence says. Ro Khanna standing by. We'll be right back. That does it for me tonight. You can catch the show Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern on Ms. Now. And don't forget to follow the show on Blue sky, Instagram and TikTok.
- [43:38]
A
Subscribe to MSNow Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNOW's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace, why is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite Ms. Now shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series including Rachel Maddow Presents Burn Order. Subscribe to Ms. Now Premium on Apple Podcasts.