← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
Rep. Himes shares shocking details from boat strikes briefing; disputes key points in reported story
00:42:06
Rep. Jim Himes, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee was one of only a few legislators in a classified briefing on the September 2nd bombing of a boat in the Caribbean Ocean. Himes was able to watch the full, unedited video of the attack and hear testimony from Admiral Frank M. Bradley, the Navy commander who oversaw the operation. Himes spoke with Jen Psaki about the shocking details of the video and what he learned that contradicts some of the key elements of the Trump administration's story about what happened.
Loading summary
Transcript114 lines
- [00:01]
A
Welcome to Walgreens. Looking for a holiday gift?
- [00:04]
B
Sort of.
- [00:05]
C
My cousin Freddie showed up to surprise us.
- [00:07]
D
Oh, sounds like a real nice surprise.
- [00:10]
C
Exactly. So now I have to get him a gift, but I haven't gotten my bonus yet. So if we can make it something really nice but also not break the bank, that'd be perfect.
- [00:18]
D
How about a keurig for 50% off.
- [00:21]
C
Bingo savings all season. The holiday road is long. We're with you all the way. Walgreens offer valid November 26 through December 27.
- [00:29]
A
Exclusions apply. Another negative pregnancy test. But this Black Friday, you can feel in control of your conception journey again and get pregnant 10 times faster. It's Mira's biggest sale, and it could help you to stop feeling lost. Even if your cycles are long and ovulation has felt impossible to find. Mira measures four key hormones with clinical accuracy so you can finally see what your body is doing and time things right to get pregnant. Get 30% off Mira for Black Friday. Check out MiraCare.com a ton, a ton of news. Get to tonight, a lot of it concerning embattled Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. And we're going to get into all of it in just a moment. I'm gonna play you an incredibly newsworthy and incredibly alarming interview I did today with Congressman Jim Himes. Jim Himes, of course, is the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who was one of the very few people in the room today during a classified briefing on the unfolding scandal that has absolutely engulfed the Trump administration. That is, of course, the September 2nd operation to take out a suspected Venezuelan drug boat and the decision to launch a second strike to kill its shipwreck survivors, an action that appears to almost exactly fit the textbook definition of a war crime. Now, Congressman Himes was one of, again, only a handful of lawmakers authorized to attend that meeting today. So only a few people have access to the information. He has access to where for the very first time, they were able to watch the full unedited video of that strike. And also, of course, question Admiral Frank Bradley, who's the Navy commander who oversaw that operation. Now, the headlines out of that meeting so far today have mostly covered the news that Bradley said he did not get a reported order from Secretary Hegseth to kill everyone on the boat and leave no survivors. And that is certainly significant news. And in my interview with Congressman Himes, you're going to hear what he says when, when I ask him more about that. But what took place in that closed door meeting wasn't exactly in any way reassuring to the lawmakers who were there. And frankly, I knew I had to talk to Congressman Himes after I saw him say this about what he saw and heard in that room today.
- [02:40]
E
What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service.
- [02:46]
You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion with a destroyed vessel who are killed by the United States.
- [03:00]
A
Now, I think I know why he had that reaction, because based on what Congressman Himes told me today, there's reason to doubt a number of things we've heard from Trump officials and anonymous administration sources that have been the basis of a number of stories out there about that strike. And I'll show you that interview in a second, I promise. Again, it's newsworthy. There's lots of details in there. He says things that have not been said publicly to this point. But first, I want to just give you some important context because there's a lot of details in this whole story to cover and follow. It was a big part of any possible justification for that second strike seems to hinge on this idea that the survivors clinging to the wreckage of that boat were communicating with their cohorts by radio in an effort to resume their alleged drug smuggling. Now, as the Wall Street Journal reported just last night, Admiral Bradley planned to tell lawmakers that he, quote, concluded the two survivors were attempting to continue their drug run and, quote, in making his decision, considered that survivors were believed to be communicating via radio with others in the drug smuggling network. That's a very key detail there, and that's according to two defense officials. Now, obviously, the reported use of a radio or a communications device and the potential to use it to communicate with anyone from a drug smuggling ring is pretty central to the Pentagon's attempt to defend the indefensible. And clearly some people at the Pentagon wanted that information out very, very badly because versions of that story have been reported now by multiple outlets. I mean, here's ABC News. The survivors were believed to be potentially in communication with other boats in the vicinity. And that was one reason why, quote, the two survivors were determined to be still in the fight and considered to be valid targets, all per source familiar with the incident. Likewise, here's the Washington Post. Quote, U.S. personnel believed the survivors possessed communications equipment and may have been capable of calling other drug smugglers, per someone familiar with what Admiral Bradley planned to tell lawmakers today. And here's the New York times, quote, the U.S. military intercepted radio communications from one of the survivors to what a US Official said were narco traffickers. And here's NBC News. Quote, the two survivors were in electronic communication with another ship suspected of being involved in narcotics trafficking. That's according to two people with knowledge of the matter. Now, point of all that is clearly someone at the Pentagon wanted this story about radio communications out there to justify this strike. But you're going to hear Jim Himes tell me in just a few seconds that today's briefing made clear that story is simply not true. And there are other parts of the official story that this meeting calls into question. I mean, from the outset, Pete Hegseth and other administration officials had done everything possible to place the ownership of the decision to launch that second strike on Admiral Bradley. On Monday, Hegseth posted that he stands by, quote, the combat decisions he has made from that September 2nd mission. Now note how he pins the decision to kill those survivors on Admiral Bradley there. That's been pretty consistent. Hegseth has also suggested he was not privy to the details of the operation as it unfolded in the time leading up to that second strike. After all, he had already left the room. That's what he said.
- [06:15]
E
I didn't stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs.
- [06:21]
A
So I moved on to my next meeting.
- [06:23]
E
A couple of hours later, I learned that that commander had made the which.
- [06:26]
A
He had the complete authority to do.
- [06:29]
E
And by the way, Admiral Bradley made.
- [06:30]
C
The correct decision to ultimately sink the.
- [06:33]
A
Boat and eliminate the threat.
- [06:34]
C
He sunk the bo, sunk the boat and eliminated the threat.
- [06:40]
A
Again. See, he's pinning it on Admiral Bradley there, while Trump seems to be maybe catching some shut eye next to him. But that aside, Hickses said he only learned of the admiral's decision a couple hours after he left the room. Well, in the interview you're about to see, you're going to hear what Congressman Himes asked Admiral Bradley about Hegseth's involvement and awareness of that second strike. Which brings me to the very last bit of important context you need before I show you this interview. Because we've already seen how Secretary Hegseth has tried so hard to distance himself from this strike any way that he can. First by pinning sole responsibility for what happens on Admiral Bradley repeatedly, then by revealing he didn't stick around to see the rest of the mission, and then by offering this absurd defense when he was asked to confirm that he didn't see the shipwrecked survivors after the first strike.
- [07:29]
E
So you didn't see any survivors, to.
- [07:31]
B
Be clear, after that first strike.
- [07:34]
C
I did not personally see survivors, but.
- [07:36]
A
I stand because the thing was on fire.
- [07:39]
E
It was exploded, and fire, smoke, you can't see anything.
- [07:41]
C
You got digital. This is called the fog of war.
- [07:44]
A
This is what you and the press don't understand.
- [07:48]
I think a lot of people in the press do understand. I mean, the fog of war is a phrase that's commonly used to refer to the confusion caused by the chaos of a war or a battle. But it does sort of make you wonder if Secretary Hegseth thinks the phrase refers to literal fog. Well, whatever confusion Pete Hegseth may have been experiencing personally about that phrase, and seems like he had some. What Congressman Himes describes to me is considerably different from what you just heard Hegseth say there. Okay, buckle up, everyone. Here we go.
- [08:20]
Joining me now is Congressman Jim Himes. He's the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and he was inside that classified briefing today. Congressman, thank you so much for being here with me. You said earlier today that what you saw in that room was the most disturbing thing you've seen during your time in public service, which is quite a thing to say. I mean, that comment definitely sent a chill down my spine. I'm sure a lot of people who heard it tell us why you were so disturbed.
- [08:47]
E
Yeah, Jen. And I mean, I'll give you some context here. You know, in virtue of my role on the Intelligence Committee, these sorts of videos in other contexts are not foreign to me. So I'm not pearl clutching over something I haven't seen before, but what I saw in that video, and I'm hoping that the American people will have an opportunity to see it and judge for themselves, were two individuals whose boat had been incinerated and capsized, clinging for life without any visible means of survival or support.
- [09:19]
And then they were killed. And it raises profound moral and ethical issues that anybody who watches this video should have. But it also points to something that is super clear in the laws of armed conflict and in the Pentagon's regulations around that, which is that once an individual has been placed out of any ability to conduct hostilities to attack you, the technical phrase is hors de combat. Once an individual can't attack you.
- [09:52]
B
You.
- [09:53]
E
Can'T kill that individual. And there's a complicated argument made that, you know, well, this individual might have been picked up by his buddies, and maybe they would have saved some cocaine, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe no evidence that that would have happened, and it certainly wasn't happening. So there's just no way to get away from the fact that the United States killed two individuals who were shipwrecked and in massive distress. And I will leave it to the lawyers to determine the precise elements of the legality of that. But anybody who sees that video would have real questions about whether the United States is abiding by the values of that distinguish us around the world.
- [10:35]
A
It's no question about it. And it's so important that the United States abides by those values. There's been so much public reporting that has been conflicting. One of the reasons it's so helpful to talk to you is to help maybe provide some clarity to the degree you can. Secretary Hedseth said this week he didn't personally see the survivors in the video. He said the boat exploded in fire and smoke and that you really couldn't see anything. He said it's called the fog of what? It doesn't sound like that's what you described, but what do you make of that characterization now that you've seen the video?
- [11:08]
E
Yeah, well, again, a little bit of context here. You know, about a week after this strike, the Congress was briefed on this strike and the question was raised, why did you go after the survivors? Why was there more strikes taken? And the answer was, because we wanted to clear the sea for safety of navigation. I asked the admiral why the story was totally different now, and he had no answer. And by the way, I don't blame the admiral for not having that answer because, you know, clearly this is a Pentagon in utter disarray. What Pete Hegseth said with respect to the fog of war is simply inaccurate. And by the way, Pete Hegseth, of course, given the report that came out today, is hardly a credible source. But I watched the video and yes, of course, clouds went by, but this went on for a period of many hours.
- [11:55]
And we were therefore able to very closely observe these individuals for a lengthy period of time. And so, no, this was not a fog of war issue. Again, the argument is made, and the argument was made that would not stand up to the machine gunning of US sailors by Japanese naval forces in World War II, which is, my gosh, they might have actually been able someday to complete their mission. They might have called for help and gotten picked up.
- [12:23]
This feels to me like an analogous case. And just because they're bad guys, and I suspect they probably were, although I suspect they were probably out of work fishermen who took 400 bucks to run a boat up to Trinidad just because they were bad guys, just because they might have gone back into the fight, none of that gives you defense against the legal obligation in the laws of war not to attack them. And in fact, under maritime law, to render assistance under maritime law, a vessel in the area must render assistance to distressed mariners. Instead, we killed them.
- [12:55]
A
These are literally definitions in the playbook to your point, and all of the rules of engagement that the military is supposed to abide by. The other piece that's been a little bit confusing out there is that Secretary Hegseth also said this week that he was in the room for the second strike on the survivors. I'm not suggesting you saw that in the video or not, but is that something you saw, spoke with Admiral Bradley about, or did he say anything about that?
- [13:21]
E
I did. And the answer I got first, and we should be clear on this, the secretary apparently, according to the Admiral, gave no kill them all order and that there was no order given to do what apparently we did, which was to give no quarter.
- [13:38]
Secondly, the Admiral told me that the Secretary was not in the room when the Admiral gave the order. I then asked whether he was aware or party to the conversations, because I think there was a lot of consultation over a lengthy period of time about next steps. And he said he did not know the answer to that question.
- [13:57]
A
So he was not in the room. It sounds like, according to the admiral. I know you said earlier today, and you just again reiterated, of course, that Admiral Bradley told you that there had not been a kill them all order that obviously contradicts the original Washington Post reporting about what Hegseth ordered, and there's contradictory reporting out there. How should we understandtel me a little bit more about this? How should we understand what that means about who ordered what and when and kind of what the remaining questions you have about that are?
- [14:24]
E
Yeah, so I mean, the reason that's important is because any order that said kill them all, or in the parlance of the military to deny quarter would, which basically means that if somebody is not in the fight, you capture them, you don't kill them.
- [14:40]
Had that order been given, that would have very clearly been an illegal order. And according to the admiral, that order was not given. So if you want to get into precisely who was in command, when and who had weapons release authority and all of these rather esoteric elements which we should get into, that would be a lengthy conversation. But the important thing here is that the military has a long tradition, and anybody who has been in the military will confirm this, that responsibility cannot be delegated by senior leaders. That you can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility. So when we see Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump doing a little soft shoe about how we stand with the admiral. It was the admiral's decision. You see something happening which is completely inconsistent with the military culture that would have the Secretary of Defense man up and say, in the tradition of the United States Navy and the United States Armed Forces, I take responsibility for these actions. That's the way the military has always operated. And that is not what you saw the other day.
- [15:43]
A
It is. I worked for two presidents with two national security teams. I've never seen anything quite like this. And of course, you've though, been in the briefing in the room. I want to ask you about something you also just, just talked about. The Wall Street Journal, because the Wall Street Journal reported last night that Admiral Bradley concluded the two survivors were attempting to continue their drug run and that those survivors were believed to be communicating via radio with others in the drug smuggling ecosystem. It sounds like you're a bit skeptical of that, but I want you to speak to it. Is that something you discussed? It sounds like you discussed it today, but how did you discuss it? Is there evidence they were radioing or is that, is the radio something you're trying to get access to?
- [16:24]
E
Well, I don't want to get specific here, but there was no radio. There were two individuals clinging to flotsam. That's what there was. There wasn't weaponry of any kind. There wasn't a radio. There was no means for them to communicate other than the fact that the fire and the smoke was fairly well visible for a long distance around, but there was no radio.
- [16:49]
A
That's a pretty important detail that there was no radio given. That seems to be an implication in some of the reporting about the justification. Let me ask you, there seems to be more questions, I think. More questions. You have more questions people out there have. Do you think Pete Hegseth needs to testify publicly about this? Would you like to see that happen?
- [17:10]
E
I think it's really important. Most importantly, people need to see the video because, you know, I live in a political world, and a lot of folks, if you just tell them, you know, the President is killing narco terrorists in the Caribbean, you know, reasonably enough, they'll say, you know, a lot of Americans die because of overdoses. And, you know, they might say, they might say, okay, I'm supportive of that. Right? But what you need to do is you need to see two terrified men clinging to the wreckage of a ship. And these men are not, this is not Pablo Escobar out there on a, on a boat. You know, these are guys that probably didn't have a lot of economic opportunity, made a terrible decision to participate in the drug trade. America needs to see two clearly distressed shipwrecked individuals, probably fearing that they will be dead very soon and in fact becoming dead very soon because the United States looked at those two and said, we are going to use the full force of the United States military to end these two lives rather than rendering assistance, rather than capturing them. America needs to see what it means to be doing what we're doing in the Caribbean. So I hope that that video is made public to people and yes, I do hope that the secretary of defense will explain not just this incident, but why shifting, because this is what we're doing, right? Shifting cocaine routes from the maritime routes of the Caribbean to air routes and to terrestrial routes through Central America should occupy some massive percentage of American naval combat power and result in, in the deaths of dozens and dozens of people.
- [18:42]
A
I certainly hope, I know you're going to keep pressing. Others will keep pressing for that video. It sounds like something the American public absolutely should be able to see. Congressman Jim Himes, thank you so much for making the time today.
- [18:52]
E
Thank you, Jim.
- [18:55]
A
Coming up, there was another massive embarrassment for the Trump Justice Department today, believe it or not, as they tried again and failed again to indict New York attorney Letitia James. I'm just, I'm going to get Congressman Dan Goldman's reaction to that in just a few minutes. But first, no amount of press restrictions and this is a good thing from Pete Hegseth could stop the signal gate scandal from exploding into public view. And today we learned even more. Barbara Starr is a legendary former Pentagon correspondent. Marty Barron is the legendary former executive editor of the Washington Post. I have a million questions for both of them and they're going to join me here next.
- [19:34]
C
TikTok for Business is helping owners like you reach new customers every day.
- [19:38]
A
We saw up to a 10x return on our TikTok shop ads a few years ago. I started sharing my love for fashion on social media and Willow Boutique was born. We're not just a place to shop. We've really become a community. TikTok allows us to find more people to have that great experience. I cannot imagine my business without TikTok. It's completely changed my life and I could not be happier.
- [19:59]
C
Head over to get started.TikTok.com TikTokapps Bubba Wallace here with Tyler Reddick. You know what's more nerve wracking than waiting for qualifying results?
- [20:09]
B
Waiting for the green flag to drop.
- [20:11]
C
Instead of pacing, you rev up with.
- [20:13]
A
Chumba Casino's weekly new releases. It's like a fresh set of tires for your brain.
- [20:18]
C
Play for free@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba. No purchase necessary VGW Group voidwear Prohibited.
- [20:25]
A
By law, CTC's 21+ sponsored by Jumba Casino Holiday PSA from DSW. This is your reminder that shoes are a gift. Literally. So unwrap something good, like boots that inspire your next big adventure. Or cozy slippers that give you an excuse to stay in. Or sneakers that feel like pure joy. Because shoes aren't just shoes. They're exactly what you wanted. Let us surprise you so you can surprise them. Find shoes that get you and everyone on your list at prices that get your budget at DSW stores or dsw.com.
- [21:08]
In what was a very, very busy news day today, the public finally got to see the Pentagon Inspector General's report on the scandal known as Signal Gate. But despite how damning the report actually was for Trump's Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, here's how the Pentagon described it to its new pro Trump pro Hegseth press corps in the building.
- [21:29]
C
The Secretary of War is completely exonerated.
- [21:32]
A
From every allegation that was put out there from the mainstream media on the garbage of Signalgate.
- [21:38]
C
We'll see if the news media acknowledges that, I suspect that, that they, like we've seen just in recent days, there is an incentive on their part to stir up controversy.
- [21:48]
A
That's like another planet of analysis there. Now the Pentagon claimed the report totally exonerated him. You just heard that. And the new pro Trump, pro Hegseth, Pentagon press court bought that claim without any scrutiny. And I use the word claim intentionally here because if any of the new members of the Pentagon press corps actually read the Inspector General's report themselves, which I did this morning and is available for literally anyone in the public to read, you can Google it and find it. They would know that not only did this report confirm that Pete Hegseth did in fact send sensitive non public information about an upcoming military strike to a Signal Group chat from his personal cell phone, but in doing so, Hegseth quote, created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed US Mission objectives and potential harm to US Pilots. I personally would not call that, I don't know who would a complete exoneration for Secretary Hegseth. But beyond the damning top lines in this report, some of the details struck me as particularly controversial. Number one, Hegseth got the classified information about the strike in a Temporary skiff at his residence on a military base alongside multiple aides. He was in his home. Basically, that means that Hegseth had plenty of secure communications options he could have used to communicate with whomever he wanted through aids, through a secure phone, through a secure computer system, but instead. And he got some of the information that way. But he chose to use his personal phone and group chat that, unbeknownst to him, had a journalist in it, seemingly from his own home. Now, number two, Hexseth never actually let the inspector General's office look at his personal phone. And the data from the group chat Hexthe's office did provide to the Inspector general was incomplete because the group chat was set to auto delete, which I should note is illegal for a member of the executive branch. But what that really, really underscores is the importance of real journalism, because the only actual content from that group chat that the Inspector General's team was able to get their hands on was what the Atlantic published back in March. I mean, the whole report. The only reason the public knows that the Secretary of Defense put U.S. service members at risk by sharing operational details about military operations is because of the free press. So how should we move forward in an environment like that with the current Pentagon press corps who are in the building now? I mean, now just kind of a Kabuki theater version of a real free press. Joining me now are two legendary journalists with long histories of holding government officials and people in power to account, former Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr and former Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron. Thank you so much both for being here. Barbara, let me start with you. I'm certain you read this report. I read it this morning. I just want to ask you about one of the pieces, the pieces of the Pentagon spin, I'm going to call it, on this signal gate report, they're claiming essentially that as Secretary of Defense, Higgs has had the power to declassify the secret information sort of with his mind. Now, Secretaries of Defense do have declassification power. There are officials in government who do. But they're claiming he kind of did it just by putting it in this signal chat. Once he decided to text it to this group, that it was no longer classified. You're very familiar with how these processes work. You've covered the Pentagon. You covered the Pentagon for many years. What did you make of that line of logic of people understand about how this typically works?
- [25:10]
F
Well, what they talked about from hexa point of view, Jen, seemed to be rather convenient. Did it? It was sort of after the Fact. Oh, yeah, it's declassified. But you're right. I mean, there are very specific procedures. The information has to be scrubbed and it's relabeled and it's redistributed, and it's potentially moved off a classified computer system. But still, within a computer system doesn't necessarily mean you get to put it on your own phone and just email it around to all your friends. And I think what's really the bottom line about what's going on with the signal gate and how Hegseth and his colleagues, if you will, at the Pentagon are treating it, it's the latest example of how fearful he is of being caught out in public doing something wrong, doing something inappropriate. As Secretary of Defense, he's a person who seems to be very afraid and very emotional about all these things. That's how we see him in public, you know, yelling, waving his hands around. And so they have decided on this new line. Nothing to see here except there's plenty to see.
- [26:23]
A
And there's plenty of reporters and journalists you all have known for decades who are digging into details about all of this. Let me ask you, Marty. I mean, today, the New York Times sued the Pentagon over the new set of restrictions it's put on journalists, saying that the restrictions violate the constitutional rights of due process, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. What do you make of the lawsuit? Do you think it could work, help everybody understand the justification for that? I think there's plenty. But you would know, as a former.
- [26:50]
B
Editor, well, I'm delighted that the New York Times has brought this lawsuit, and I think the entire journalism profession is pleased with this. I think the Pentagon absolutely needed to be challenged on this outrageous policy. Essentially, they were saying that journalists couldn't practice their craft. They can't ask questions about any subject that the Pentagon doesn't want to officially release. They can't report on anything that the Pentagon doesn't want to officially release. They can't even have a tip line that invites anybody to provide a tip to the, to the press. All of that would be disqualifying. They could lose their Pentagon access because of that, and they would be labeled a safety and security risk as a result of that. And I think all of that is, as the New York Times said in its lawsuit, a an infringement on freedom of the press. It violates the First Amendment, as they said, because it's an effort to suppress free expression and free speech and news gathering as it's normally practiced based on the viewpoint that people have. What they're reporting. And instead they've invited in a bunch of I mean, really what they want to have is what they've invited in is a bunch of stenographers and propagandists, people who will be a mouthpiece for the administration.
- [28:07]
A
I can't imagine what went through both of your minds when you saw there wasn't any real news coming out of the briefing that Secretary Hegseth did yesterday with the, quote, Pentagon press corps, when there are so many questions to be asked. Barbara another obviously huge story I just started the show talking with Congressman Himes about this right now is the range of reporting around the September 2 operation to take out a suspected Venezuelan drug boat. I'm sure you've both been paying very close attention to this. There was, of course, an important briefing today on the Hill. There's a lot of conflicting information out there. There's a lot of question you have covered military operations for so many years. What are the biggest questions that you have that you hope lots of journalists out there are looking into and digging into right now?
- [28:49]
F
Well, you know, this story is so interesting because it's the best example of what Pentagon journalists are always so cautious about in combat, in military operations. The first reports are never really that you get are never fully accurate because they're first reports and you talk to various sources and they give you their best information about what they know, but they only only know what they know, and they may not have that wider view. So it takes some time to assemble an entire picture. And you have to be able to talk to sources from all walks, from all involvements in a news story. And that's why it's so important to have access to military officials, to civilian DoD officials on a story like this. I think that there's a long way to go on finding out exactly what happened. I think it's going to be absolutely vital to see the video. And let me just make a very quick point. Why is this so important? Because if you have US Troops out there in the field, somewhere in the world in combat, and they get into trouble and they're shot up and they're looking to be rescued, you don't want some adversary force coming along and saying, well, we'll just treat those US Troops the same way they treated the Venezuelans, we'll just kill them. That seems to be acceptable under.
- [30:12]
You don't want to have that. You want U.S. troops in combat zones to be treated appropriately. And already we are seeing Britain and France being very cautious about sharing intelligence information with the US on all of this, because nobody knows where this is going. Nobody knows where Trump is really taking all of this.
- [30:31]
A
And some of our closest allies, fifi's partners, are scared about trusting the United States with intelligence that we really have relied on for decades.
- [30:39]
F
Decades.
- [30:39]
A
Marty, it was only earlier this fall, and this is, of course, all wrapped up in this lawsuit and the concerns that the New York Times and many outlets have. But it was only this fall, a couple months ago, when an overwhelming majority of major outlets in the Pentagon refused to sign a pledge that would have prevented them from reporting information, doing their jobs, as you said. Since then, we've been talking about this a fair amount. I mean, major outlets, including the Washington Post, including the Wall Street Journal, including NBC News, who didn't sign that pledge, have had major scoops. They've still done tons of reporting because they pick up the phone, because they have sources. And that's an incredibly important thing for people to understand. But there are still challenges, and there's still challenges to the public not getting information from reporters, being able to walk around the hallway. Explain to us what the impact is on public information of not having these reporters in the building, even though they're reporting scoops, and having a different press corps that's made up of Matt Gaetz and Laura Loomer and others like that.
- [31:34]
B
Right. Well, I wouldn't call that crowd a press corps, by the way.
- [31:36]
A
Fair enough. We need a new name.
- [31:38]
B
I don't think they're practicing journalism.
- [31:42]
So, look, I mean, I think it's an important point that the press continues to do its work. It does its work, a lot of its work outside of that building, not within that building. And the people who are covering the Pentagon, they've covered it for a very long time. They do have sources. They do have expertise, in contrast to the people who, who the Pentagon has now allowed into the building. But, you know, you need to be able to ask the principals in that building the questions they should be able to answer, questions they should be encouraged to. You know, it was George Orwell said that if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. But it also means the right to ask our government questions that they may not want to hear and they may not want to answer. We need to see how they answer these questions.
- [32:27]
And by excluding the press, they're prohibiting these questions from being asked directly to them. And they're basically inviting only people who will be basically be their mouthpiece to ask these softball questions, which are hardly questions at all. And so it's important to have an independent press ask pertinent questions of the principles within the Pentagon.
- [32:55]
A
Believe me, having spent years as the State Department spokesperson and at the White House, some days you just know you're going to get brutal questions. And that's part of what the press corps does. They push the government. They push and ask and try to get more information. It's an important part of our democracy. Barbara Starr, Marty Barron, thank you as always. Thank you so much for being here with me tonight.
- [33:13]
B
Thank you.
- [33:14]
F
Thank you.
- [33:15]
A
Okay, coming up, another swing and another miss as Donald Trump's Justice Department tries and fails again to take down one of his enemies, New York Attorney General Letitia James. Much more on that just ahead.
- [33:30]
If you're looking for new ways to get ahead, then you're our kind of person. We're Udemy and we help learners like you upskill in AI productivity, leadership and management and more. Learn at your own pace from real world experts. You can also prep for certifications that show employers what, you know, upskill for the career you want@udemy.com.
- [33:57]
Now back to your regularly scheduled listening.
- [34:00]
C
Bubba Wallace here with Tyler Reddick. You know what's more nerve wracking than.
- [34:03]
A
Waiting for qualifying results?
- [34:05]
B
Waiting for the green flag to drop?
- [34:07]
C
Instead of pacing, you rev up with.
- [34:08]
A
Chumba Casino's weekly new releases. It's like a fresh set of tires for your brain.
- [34:13]
C
Play for free@chumbacasino.com let's chumba. No purchase necessary vgw group void we're prohibited by law. CTNC's 21+ sponsored by Jumbo Casino. Looking for a new way to grow your business? With TikTok for business, anything is possible. If you've ever thought about advertising on TikTok, now's the time to do it. You can drive more customers to your website, sell products right in the app, and you can even use TikTok creative tools to easily make content and find creators to help sell your products for you. Find new customers today. Just open your browser, type in getstarted.TikTok.com tiktokads and grow your business fast.
- [34:59]
A
So it was only 10 days ago that a federal judge threw out the criminal cases against two of Trump's perceived enemies in his mind, James Comey and Letitia James, on the basis that Trump's interim U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed. It was a gigantic embarrassment for the Trump administration. But somehow they promised to bounce back. And yesterday msnow reported that a new prosecutor was expected to re indict attorney General James. And today we learn that he failed too. According to two law enforcement sources briefed on the case, a federal grand jury rejected the DOJ's latest bid to indict Tish James on charges of mortgage fraud. Just keeps getting more embarrassing. Joining me now is Ms. Now senior legal reporter and one of my favorite people, Lisa Rubin. It is so great to see you. So many questions about this and a crazy news day. It seems insane that they would try to indict and do this a third time. But they can do that, right?
- [35:57]
D
They absolutely can. And indications so far are indeed, Jen, that they will. And we've seen this movie in a way before. If you think about the D.C. protest activity over the summer, think about the much discussed case of Sandwich Guy, for example. He is one of just many examples of people where the grand jury refused to return an indictment. And then a few days later they got up and tried again. I think about Sidney Reed, who is a protester in D.C. there, the prosecutors tried four times before they ultimately got an indictment to stick. And of course, when she went to trial, she was acquitted. So this is not necessarily a home run for Tish James. But I want to point out that this sort of has some interplay with one of the arguments that she's been making about her case over the long term, which is about how vindictive the strategy is on behalf of the administration toward her. If at first you don't succeed, you try two more times. That sort of underscores the argument she's been making all along, which is that, but you're not treating me the same way you would treat other criminal defendants in my situation. In fact, you're going after me with a political motivation. You're weaponizing the Department of Justice against me. Oh, and by the way, here's my 200 page exhibit with the 360 plus statements the President has made talking about how he is going to do exactly this when he has the opportunity.
- [37:23]
A
They're creepily obsessed with her, which is not the only person they're creepily obsessed with. Is there anything we will learn? Will there be a hearing or document or anything that explains publicly why the grand jury declined to indict here?
- [37:36]
D
Probably not.
- [37:38]
A
Okay, okay.
- [37:39]
D
So in many cases, if somebody is already in custody or they've been the subject of what's called a criminal complaint, the pipe, the alleged pipe bomber today, the charging document against him wasn't an indictment. It's something called a criminal complaint. If you're in that situation and a grand jury doesn't return what's called a true bill, then you at least have to go to open court with the jury, with the grand jury foreperson and explain that you didn't get votes necessary to return an indictment. And you also have to provide the court with a written record of what happened. But absent that. And Tish James doesn't have either of those factors here.
- [38:16]
F
Right.
- [38:16]
D
She's not in federal custody and she hasn't already been charged with a criminal complaint. It's not clear that they have to do anything. It may be that at a later point in time, if they succeed in indicting her, a federal judge will call them on the carpet about it by not being fully honest about how many times they've tried or what the vote was. But officially, they may not have to provide any explanation at all.
- [38:39]
F
Oof.
- [38:39]
A
Lisa Rubin, I'm so grateful we get to rely on your legal expertise all day long. People should know all day long. We do. But thank you so much for being here.
- [38:46]
D
Thank you for having me.
- [38:47]
A
All right, up next, it felt like a good day for Trump's FBI, kind of relatively so until Trump's FBI director opened his mouth. And Congressman Dan Goldman is going to join me to talk about that coming up next.
- [39:10]
Today, the Justice Department announced a major breakthrough in one of the largest outstanding mysteries surrounding January 6th. Trump's Attorney General and FBI director said they arrested the man they believe placed the two pipe bombs outside of the RNC and DNC headquarters the night before January 6th. Now, immediately following that, presser, Kash Patel decided he should appear on a right wing podcast hosted by the president's son. Quite a choice. And during that interview, he nodded along as Donald Trump Jr. Speculated that the pipe bomb was a, quote, setup operation. Patel also made a bold prediction in that same interview, one that was proven wrong in record time.
- [39:52]
E
And yes, we did indict folks like James Comey and Letitia James. And I know they're going through the legal challenges, but notice one thing that's.
- [39:58]
A
Happening in those cases.
- [39:59]
E
Nobody in there is challenging the substance of the work. They're trying to throw it out on some procedural error. And I don't believe they're going to be successful. We're not done with those cases.
- [40:10]
A
Ooh. That did not age well. Joining me now to talk about all of this is Democratic Congressman and member of the House Judiciary Committee, Dan Goldman. Okay, so much legal news, so much national security news. Let's just start with this grand jury declining to re indict New York Attorney General Letitia James. It is rare We've talked about this. To fail once, it seems crazy to fail twice. But you're a former prosecutor. What do you make of all of this? And what do you think happens next here?
- [40:38]
C
We can't normalize the notion that a grand jury may or may not indict a defendant. It almost never happens because, remember, a grand jury only hears evidence from the prosecution, no defense, and the standard is probable cause. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt. And, but the notion that a grand jury would not indict someone, especially in a fraud case, Right, where you either show the misrepresentation or you don't, there's not a lot of wiggle room there, is truly remarkable. And it just goes to show how vindictive. I mean, Tish James, the attorney general in my home state of New York, who's doing such an outstanding job, how vindictive it is that Donald Trump is insisting, insisting on continuing to try to charge her on a case that is so clearly meritless. And maybe they'll find a grand jury the third, the fourth, the fifth time that will indict her, but you can be sure that she will be acquitted at trial. And it's just a waste of resources trying to show fealty to Donald Trump's political partisan instincts. But it is destroying, it is absolutely destroying the Department of Justice.
- [41:56]
A
Absolutely. It also seems like it makes it clear it's quite vindictive, as Lisa Rubin was just saying. Let me ask you about the arrest of the pipe bomb suspect. I mean, this was, of course, big news today. Pambani and Kash Patel, though, also say that the evidence used to arrest the alleged pipe bomber was, quote, collecting dust under the Biden doj. You have a role in oversight of the Justice Department. Do you have any belief or view that there was anything mishandled by the Biden administration while they were, while this investigation was ongoing?
- [42:30]
C
I don't even think their allegations are anything was mishandled. It's just the unfortunate reality is that this Department of Justice cannot help but make everything political. It's terrific if they got the pipe bomber, excellent investigative work. They should be proud of that. But why does it have anything to do with Joe Biden? Why is everything chest thumping and this and that and that? Just do your job. Do your job. But the problem is that in pretty much every other case, Cash Patel is not doing his job, which is why morale in the FBI is unbelievably low, why people are miserable there and why they are doing such a poor job because they're so focused on the politics of everything. They're not focused on the safety and security of the American. And that is what is missing. That's what we're losing through this dreadful FBI.
- [43:28]
A
No question about it. You can't. Resources are not unlimited. And if they take their eyes off of other things to put them on things they shouldn't be focused on, that's a huge problem. One of the other things that struck me, and I'm interested in your thoughts on it, is Bondi ignored a reporter's question about whether this pipe bomb case should be considered, considered differently from the January six cases that received a presidential pardon. Now, we, of course, I was. You were very critical of those pardons for good reason. What do you make about how they've talked about this and her, I guess, refusal to answer that question?
- [44:02]
C
Well, it doesn't surprise me. I don't think that, you know, I don't think she's calling the shots there. But what does surprise me is the degree to which Kash Patel is thumping his chest about defending law enforcement and defending, you know, the Capitol. Give me a break. You pardoned hundreds of people who violently assaulted law enforcement on January 6th. Don't now try to turn around and say you're some hero, that you're defending law enforcement. You literally left let hundreds of people who assaulted law enforcement out on the streets. You pardoned them. And I was in a hearing yesterday in the Homeland Security Security Committee with Daniel Hodges, who is one of those people beaten on January 6th. The Republicans will not even put a plaque up thanking the Capitol Police in the Metropolitan Police Department who defended the Capitol on January 6th. They're so petty that they will not even honor them. And yet they then turn around and say they're all about defending law enforcement. It's such bogus. And I don't know why Kash Patel thinks that anyone would believe him.
- [45:15]
A
Him very focused on his outfits. Congressman Dan Goldman, thank you as always. We'll be right back.
- [45:23]
Okay. One last thing before we go Today I had the pleasure of stopping by the Late show with the great Stephen Colbert and you can check out our conversation later tonight at 11:35 Eastern Time on CBS or catch the clips, of course, on YouTube tomorrow. We talked Pete Hegseth a lot about Pete Hegseth. We talked signal gate, we talked little Mike Johnson and we talked about all of the exciting things happening here at msnow. 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 Bluesky, Instagram and TikTok. If you're looking for new ways to get ahead, then you're our kind of person. We're Udemy and we help learners like you upskill in AI productivity, leadership and management and more. Learn at your own pace from real world experts. You can also prep for certifications that show employers what you know upskill for the career you want@udemy.com.
- [46:22]
Now back to your regularly scheduled listening.