← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
Trump caves to pushback again; another humiliation in court
00:41:07
Jen Psaki points out that it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to hear the news that Trump suffered another "subpoena fail" and ask, which one? Most recently, Trump has tried to bully the New York Times after he was embarrassed by reports that his new Qatari jet was not properly outfitted. But as everyone by now has learned, pushback works, and the Times pushed back and Trump is left looking foolish again.
Loading summary
Transcript80 lines
- [00:00]
Commercial Narrator
Watch Disclosure Day at home now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you, would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg, from a screenplay by David Koepp, starring Emily Blunt, Josh o', Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson and Colman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required. Also in theaters.
- [00:31]
Angie Hicks
Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download today.
- [00:51]
Jen Psaki
Ok, I'm about to ask you a question that you probably think you know the answer to. Did you hear the story about how the Trump administration dropped its super controversial subpoena? How the Trump administration completely embarrassed itself in court and had to walk it all back? Now, if you've been following the news today, which you probably have, you might be tempted to answer that question with, yeah, Jen, I think I have heard that story. I know the one you're talking about. But don't be so sure you've heard it all. Because if someone asks you, did you hear about Donald Trump's embarrassing subpoena failed? The only correct response to that question is, which one? Which embarrassing subpoena fill are you talking about? Because somehow there are so many stories in the news recently that fit that very specific description. I mean, for instance, there was this headline today in the New York Times, quote, trump administration drops subpoena demanding list of Jews from Penn. Yeah, you heard that correctly. I'm literally reading from the headline in the New York Times. The Trump administration had to drop its subpoena for a list of Jews. Now, you see the backstory here is that last year when Donald Trump launched his campaign to target America's colleges and universities, Trump's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had the bright old idea of sending a subpoena to the University of Pennsylvania. And that subpoena demanded membership rosters of, quote, all clubs, groups, organizations and recreation groups that were related to the Jewish religion, faith, ancestry and national orig. Yep. Now the University of Pennsylvania rightfully fought back. They noted in their response that the Trump administration had entirely disregarded the frightening and well documented history of Governmental entities that undertook efforts to identify and assemble information regarding persons of Jewish ancestry. You don't say. And so today, the Trump administration, they quietly withdrew that subpoena. Maybe they realized it wasn't a great look to be issuing subpoenas that sound like they may have been drafted in Germany in the 1930. Maybe. They don't usually have that much moral clarity, though. So maybe they simply realized they were going to lose in court. Who knows? Now you might be thinking to yourself, okay, okay, you got me. I thought you were talking about the Trump administration's other subpoena fail, the one where they tried to subpoena journalists. But that still begs the question, which one? Because the Trump administration has had several recent embarrassing walkbacks that fit that even more specific description. Just last month, the New York Times reported that the Justice Department withdrew several subpoenas that would have forced reporters from the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post to testify before a federal grand jury. And people familiar with the matter told the Times that the Justice Department had sought information from three reporters at the Wall Street Journal about an article detailing how top officials warned Mr. Trump of the risks of a major military campaign against Iran. It also sought information from a reporter at the Washington Post about reporting related to U.S. military action in Venezuela. But the Justice Department, they backed down after the news organizations fought them in sealed filings. The Trump administration is waging a campaign targeting journalists and their sources in their hunt for leakers at the White House. But it's clear those efforts are failing as media organizations are starting to stand up more and more and more and push back more and more and more. Which brings me to the Trump administration's other big subpoena, the one you probably have heard about. Because today the Department of Justice withdrew its subpoenas to several New York Times journalists who reported on the security issues plaguing Trump's cuttery gift plane. You know that one, his favorite little toy. Those subpoenas were withdrawn after the Trump administration got a humiliating smackdown. I was just referencing with Chris from a federal judge, and I'm going to get to that part in a moment. But first, I think it's worth reflecting just briefly on how we got here. Because remember last year, Trump accepted a luxury jet from Qatar as a, quote, gift, a jet that his administration has refused to rule out letting him keep after he leaves office. He wanted to use that jet as his new Air Force One, which would have required significant security upgrades at taxpayers expense. Then earlier this month, Trump decided to take his new jet to the NATO summit in Turkey, surprising many security experts who were skeptical that the necessary upgrades would have been completed in time. Then, after reigniting his war with Iran, Trump announced abruptly that he'd be leaving Turkey aboard the original Air Force One, claiming at the time it was so US Service members could see his favorite new toy. And despite the fact that he also claimed it wasn't a security issue, most people suspected that the real reason was that the Qatari jet was not secure enough for presidential travel. And it wasn't long. Of course, it wasn't before the New York Times confirmed their reporting on what everyone had already suspected, that Trump's luxury gift fell short of the standards necessary to keep the President of the United States as safe as possible. Now, that was a legitimate scoop from those reporters at the New York Times, but it also wasn't exactly a big national security secret they were breaking. I mean, after all, as some experts pointed out, some of the security systems you need to protect Air Force One are actually quite visible on the exterior of the plane. And earlier this week, Trump himself almost appeared to confirm the Times reporting when he was asked why he wasn't using the new plane. President this plane does not have anti air.
- [06:20]
Andrew Weissman
Well, it has. It has a lot, and you know, it has a lot of capability. But as I understand it, in about a month or so, they're going to send it to have it be maxed out. So they're going to be sending it and they'll have it be maxed out. It'll take about a month.
- [06:37]
Jen Psaki
There you go. Of course, none of that stopped the Trump administration from taking the drastic action of subpoenaing the journalists who embarrassed the president by pointing out the deficiencies of his shiny new toy. Now, subpoenaing a reporter or news media organization about their sources is a very serious thing, because the First Amendment usually protects reporters and their right to keep sources confidential. Which is why the Justice Department is supposed to exercise extreme caution. Any time an investigation zeroes in on members of the press, they know they have to meet a very high bar. But Trump's DOJ appears to have thrown caution to the wind in their wild goose chase to find the leakers who bruised Trump's fragile ego. And they screwed this up in so many different ways. In fact, some of those subpoenas were so reckless and so broad that they sought records not just from the journalists themselves, but those journalists family members as well. So when a federal judge grilled them today, and the federal judge did grill them, the DOJ's lawyers had to admit over the and over again in open court that their subpoenas had some obvious flaws, flaws they repeatedly tried to characterize as, quote, inadvertent errors, oversights and mistakes. That's how they described them. And given their many admitted errors, the judge repeatedly asked the DOJ lawyers if they wanted to withdraw their subpoena or suffer the embarrassment of having him quash them himself. Now, the DOJ lawyers eventually took the judge up on his offer and withdrew the subpoenas. Honestly, hard to overstate what a huge embarrassment this was for the doj. And they made no secret of the fact that they were waging an uphill battle, given how little due diligence they had actually done before resorting to the subpoenas against journalists. But then, immediately after the hearing was over, the Justice Department released a statement blasting the judge and claiming his conduct overrides clear, long standing principles and common sense, which is quite rich given just how many times DOJ lawyers admitted in court that they themselves screwed up the subpoenas. Now, we also learned from this hearing that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche himself signed off on these subpoenas, which is embarrassing for Todd Blanche, the guy who's waiting to see if there are the votes to be the Attorney general, given how sloppy they were, these subpoenas, but also a clear indication of just how important this witch hunt was to the Trump administration and probably to Donald Trump himself. Now, it should come as no surprise that Trump and his administration were willing to trample over the principle of press freedom in their effort to placate the president. But what might be a surprise is just how quickly those efforts fall apart when news organizations stand up and push back. Remember that Trump has been targeting media organizations since day one of this administration. And early on, we saw several major media outlets effectively surrender in advance. None of that appeased Donald Trump. Of course it didn't. He kept pushing the boundaries and abusing power to curtail the free press. But now more major media organizations are standing up to him and learning that when they fight back, they actually usually win. Joining me now is the former executive editor of the Washington Post, Marty Baron. Thank you for being here, Marty. I just did my best to kind of summarize this wild day and really wild journey of a story, but wild day in court today that ended with the Trump Justice Department withdrawing those subpoenas. Let me just start by getting your top line reaction to what happened today.
- [09:53]
Marty Baron
Well, I think you had a great summary. I think it's just another example of sloppy, reckless, abusive, and really fundamentally lawless behavior by this administration's Department of Justice. And so they got the result that they did with a judge saying either withdraw these subpoenas or have them quashed. Now, it's still possible that they'll come back again with new subpoenas. And I suspect that in the future, they'll subpoena journalists, telephone calls, their emails, their taps. They'll subpoena them, seeking to compel testimony before grand juries in future instances, because their intent here is to harass and really try to intimidate journalists.
- [10:32]
Jen Psaki
I think to that point, I think most people who were aware of this news were pretty shocked that we learned, when we learned that family members of some of these reporters had also gotten subpoenas. Today, a Justice Department lawyer said this was actually a mistake. Sometimes we lose sight of what's normal and what's not. I mean, you are no stranger, as a former editor of a major newspaper, of what subpoenas look like to newspapers. What did you make of that?
- [10:59]
Marty Baron
Well, I'd never seen that before. So that was really. That was really extraordinary and certainly uncalled for. I don't think it was a mistake on their part. I think it was entirely deliberate. All of these things are really deliberate. In fact, they were subpoenaing telephone calls that went back to the beginning of the year, well before the New York Times actually published this story that's at issue here. So clearly it was a broad subpoena, really an effort to try to fish for the sources of the, of the New York Times reporters, and beyond that, to really try to intimidate the press. And, and so, you know, it's just part of a campaign that's been going on for a long period of time. Even in the first term, even in Trump's first term. Toward the end of it, they sought texts and emails of Washington Post reporters, New York Times reporters, cnn, and they were very aggressive. And they're even more aggressive now during the second term.
- [11:54]
Jen Psaki
Yeah, as you mentioned, I mean, they went back before the timeline of the reporting on the Qatari jet, back to January, which as you just said. But I just would love for you to elaborate this on more so people understand it. That seems to be to try to get more access, greater access to their sources in the administration, in the White House, potentially even outside of the scope of what this would have been about. Is that right? Or can you expand on that a little bit more?
- [12:16]
Marty Baron
Well, I think that's exactly what they were trying to do, is that they were trying to find out who these reporters sources are. They were trying to find not only the identities of their sources, but trying to intimidate their sources and to intimidate journalists overall. And frankly, you know, to be quite direct about it, I think they're real. You know, they said all along that the target was not. Were not the journalists, were not the targets. But I believe that the journalists are their targets. The effort here is to intimidate them, to harass them, to abuse them, to force media companies to incur enormous legal, legal costs. And I believe that this administration really does want to put journalists in jail. And here's why I say that. Because going back to 2022, Trump talked at at least a couple of rallies about his desire to put journalists in prison for revealing what he deems to be national security secrets. And he said that when they were in prison, as he put it, they would meet their bride, which meant that they would be subjected to rape, prison rape, and that at that point, they would reveal their sources. And he said that to his. At his rallies, where it was received with laughter, applause, cheers, all that sort of thing. And I believe that he clearly does want to put journalists in jail because they know that if they seek to compel testimony before a grand jury, no journalist for a reputable news organization will reveal those sources, and then the Justice Department will seek to have them held in contempt of court. And when the journalists continue to refuse to reveal their sources, there's always the possibility that a jud will put them in prison.
- [13:48]
Jen Psaki
It is really. I mean, you know, I think sometimes we optimistically like to think that they may be deterred, but it sounds like you're saying you don't think that's where this is headed at all.
- [13:59]
Marty Baron
I don't think this administration is going to be deterred. They will continue to seek testimony, grand jury testimony. I suspect in future cases, maybe they'll come back even on this case again and try again. They will seek to obtain the sources of these journalists through getting their texts, through their phone calls, through emails. Now, most journalists who are dealing in national security matters and in other matters these days are taking additional measures to protect their sources, as they should. Even so, this Justice Department is going to use everything within its power to put pressure on journalists. And notwithstanding what they say, that journalists are not the targets. Journalists really are their targets.
- [14:45]
Jen Psaki
Let me ask you about, because I think what's so important right now is for people to really understand what's fact and fiction here. And you hear the administration hang a lot on national security concerns, as they call it. It seems to be Their explanation for why they're not sharing more on the Iran war. Also, it's their explanation for the Qatari jet and sort of their justification in this case, too. I have been a part of phone call where administrations are making the case for why something should not be reported. It's obviously always up to the media organization. Typically, it's about a situation where an American citizen is being held overseas and there's an operation, maybe the identity of a covert operative. There are other cases help people understand what is the bar for what is an actual national security concern, where an editor might say, we can't publish this. And where do you see this as overly sweeping in terms of how the administration is using that justification?
- [15:41]
Marty Baron
Well, I think there are various issues here. I mean, certainly you don't want to put troops at risk, you don't want to put intelligence agents at risk, facilities at risk for. For intelligence purposes, things of that sort. But in this instance, of course, as you noted, you have a plane where people had already observed that this new Air Force One that was gifted to Trump by the Qataris, that it did not have the defensive features that the other Air Force One, the older Air Force One, had. And look, I mean, the real risk to national security was committed by the President of the United States that he actually used a plane that did not have these defensive features. That was the risk to national security. And obviously the press ought to be reporting on that sort of reckless, even, I think, childish behavior by the President of the United States because he was trying to show off his new toy to the world, and that was the purpose of it, even when it put he himself, the President of the United States, at risk.
- [16:42]
Jen Psaki
It really does seem like, and not to be overly Pollyanna ish here, but it does seem like every time a media organization has punched back at the administration over an intimidation tactic like this, the administration loses in court. They back down. I hope that continues to be the case. We'll see. I know you've been observing all of this from the outside, and you've been pretty clear about what you think could still happen here. But what do you think the lesson is here for people running media organizations at this point about what they need to be prepared for and what they should be prepared to do in terms of fighting back in their ability to do their jobs?
- [17:16]
Marty Baron
Well, I think this was all highly anticipated. I believe the New York Times set aside money for its own defense that knew that it was going to have to face these kinds of attacks on its independence, on its work. And so it was prepared for it. Smaller news organizations would have a more difficult time. One person operations would have a more difficult time. But I do think that the lesson is that we should fight back. And it's not just journalists who should be fighting back. Everybody should be defending their rights. The right to free expression of all types, but all of their rights. And when you push back, there is a good chance you're going to win. It doesn't mean that you will always win. And I'm not entirely confident that the press will always win in these instances. But it's very important for us to stand up for our rights because if we don't, and if we don't exercise these rights, then these rights are deprived of meaning. If we don't defend these rights, then we will lose them.
- [18:12]
Jen Psaki
Marty Barron, can't thank you enough for being here. Thank you again.
- [18:16]
Marty Baron
Thank you.
- [18:18]
Jen Psaki
Coming up, oil prices are soaring, as I'm sure you've all noticed. Gas prices are ticking back up and Donald Trump's war with Iran seems to once again be spiraling out of control. We'll talk about that with someone who knows more about oil markets and gas prices than I want anyone else. We'll be right back.
- [18:38]
Commercial Narrator
Watch Disclosure Day at home now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you, would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Koepp starring Emily Blunt, Josh o', Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson and Colman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required. Also in theaters.
- [19:09]
Simplisafe/Angie Hicks Ad Voice
Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of Angie from roof repair to emergency plumbing and more. When you use Angie for your home projects, you know all your jobs will be done well. Angie the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find a pro for your project@angie.com in
- [19:24]
Jen Psaki
the US there's a break in every 26 seconds. But when intruders step near Simplisafe home security steps up.
- [19:31]
Marty Baron
Stop.
- [19:31]
Jen Psaki
This is Simplisafe.
- [19:32]
Angie Hicks
Police are on the way.
- [19:34]
Jen Psaki
Using AI alerts US Based live agents help deter break ins. Simplisafe no long term contracts. Save 50% on your new system with professional monitoring at SimpliSafe.com sxm or with promo code sxm outdoor deterrence requires a
- [19:47]
Angie Hicks
Simplisafe active guard Outdoor protection plan starting at $49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com licenses for alarm license information. Tennessee 20.
- [20:04]
Jen Psaki
Today, Brent crude oil, which helps determine the price of globally traded oil, closed at more than $100 a barrel for the first time since May, thanks to a war that is not only escalating but widening. Take a look at the map you can see on your screen. This is published by the New York Times today which shows how Iran is continuing to target US Military sites in the region and how it's really exposed expanded over the last several weeks. Also today, Iranian backed Houthi rebels attacked two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea and threatened to shut down that key waterway, a move that would cause prices to skyrocket even higher. And consider already, even before that, where gas prices already are. Just take a look at some headlines from across the country. Here's one. Average gas price returns to $4 a gallon. Here's another one from Arizona, gas prices jumped 37 cents in a week. And in Arkansas, gas prices jumped 24 cents in a week. North Carolina, gas prices climbed. Drivers say they feel the pinch. Michigan, gas prices up again as well as in Texas and Ohio. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Colorado, on and on and on and probably wherever you are living as well. And right now, there are no signs that this war is going to end anytime soon. In fact, most of the signs we're seeing point to the opposite. Trump told Axios today that he is close to a decision on launching another massive attack on Iran. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that accelerating this war could send energy prices even higher than they already are. But exactly how bad can they get? And what would it take to see some relief? I think this is probably something you are all wondering. Thankfully, my next guest is a perfect person to ask about all of this. Joining me now is Amos Hochstein, one of the world's leading experts on energy, security and diplomacy who served in both the Biden and Obama administrations. It's good to see you. Thank you for being here.
- [21:51]
Angie Hicks
Good to be back.
- [21:52]
Jen Psaki
Okay. Back in March, you were here. We were not even one month into the war. And I asked, I spoke with you, we talked about the impact on oil and gas prices and you said at the time we were experiencing the worst energy crisis the world has ever seen. How would you describe it now?
- [22:08]
Angie Hicks
Getting worse. So look, I think that a large reason why we ended up in this bizarre mou between Trump administration and Iran was because he finally realized what I was saying on TV and others were telling him, look, if we continue the war at a steady pace, he was weeks away from getting to what's called tank bottoms. Where you can't get more oil out or more gasoline out, and we're going to go towards crisis. He had weeks away from that catastrophic event. So he decided to do the MoU in a very hurried way, which you can tell by reading the mou. It's a page and a half to end a war. And the problems that we're having right now in the war are resulting from how quickly that was drafted, because it has ambiguous language that the Iranians read one way, the US Reads a different way, and that's why we're back in this conflict now. But something even worse happened just in the last few weeks. Over the last several months, Ukrainians have been successfully attacking the Russian oil infrastructure, their refineries. So now we have two wars that are colliding and coalescing in the worst way possible for oil markets, for gasoline, for diesel, for jet fuel. Russia was 11% of the diesel export market. They're at zero now. All of their refineries are basically up in flames. Today, just today, a few hours ago, Kazakhstan announced so much damage, they're stopping their exports through Russia. So it just gets compounded. And everything you've said, the Houthis have now come in. So in so March, April, May, we have a war that we have tools to answer now we're going back to war. Those tools, some of them still exist, Some of them are gone. They don't exist anymore. And the ones that we have are diminishing. And we have another war that is combining with the Iran war.
- [24:03]
Jen Psaki
And it's all about availability out there in the oil markets, as I've learned from you and many others from working together before. I think people watching have probably seen also. And you just referenced the Houthis. I talked about it earlier as well. I mean, and I referenced how the Houthis attacked some Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea today. There's also been this threat of traffic being cut off, not just in the Strait of Hormuz, of course, but also in a place in the Red Sea where ships also go through. What would the impact of that be if that is really brought to a halt?
- [24:35]
Angie Hicks
So that is really bad, because what happens when we shut down the straits? The Saudis and the UAE are the only ones that have infrastructure to go around the uae Sorry, around Iran or the Strait of Hormuz to the Red Sea. If you suddenly attack the Saudi ships, where they did in what's called the Bab El Mandab Crossing, and Yanbu, which is the area in Saudi Arabia where they load the ships, then you've taken the alternatives. So now you've taken millions of barrels that have been able to make themselves onto the market, are now gone because that route and two ships turned around, made a U turn, turned around. And now even if they do go through, the risk premiums are high. So the insurance rates go up. If we're going to go 10 ships a day, we're now down to two because everybody's a little bit sluggish. Who pays the price for all of these things? Ultimately, the consumer, because we can't get oil out, we can't get gasoline out or diesel. That's why we're already at $4.10 on average in the country. It's going up from here and probably significantly. Some states had suspended their gas taxes, gasoline taxes, but they're supposed to come back now. So all the prices are now going back and into this environment. The President has just said, we're going to go to a bigger war, a more expansive war. And the Houthis are saying, well, we're activated. So now we have the Houthis in the Red Sea, we have the Iranians on the Strait of Hormuz and the Ukrainians attacking the Russian infrastructure. This is too much pressure for any of our tools to really work anymore. So consumers need to know, if you see a headline that Trump says we're going back to war or they see a headline we're striking again, Go fill up your car. It's going to get much more expensive.
- [26:22]
Jen Psaki
I'm going to speak for everybody watching right now who's hearing you say that. How high could it go? You referenced it kind of hitting a bottom. Are we close to that? What does that look like and how high? If this continues another month, another two months, as you're projecting out, what does that look like in terms of gas prices?
- [26:39]
Angie Hicks
It can continue for another two months. Because if you continue in this rate the way we are right now, for two months, our economy can't. The structures of our economy will fall apart because the SPR is not endless where Strategic Patrol Reserve, it's going to go below 300 probably next week. 300 million barrels. It hasn't been that low in 40 years. We also took a lot out during the Russia, Ukraine, but never this low. Once it goes below 300, towards 250, the structure itself start. The integrity of the structure starts getting questioned and how much you can take out gets lower. So it can continue. Prices will go up. We're probably on the march to $4.50. We're now at 410. If we keep going into war, we'll be at $5. And from there it goes up and it getspeople will have to stop living their lives the way they were. Because remember, gasoline is important when we fill up our cars. But diesel is like the lubricant of the American economy. The food in your supermarket comes to the supermarket on a truck that's hauling it for a long time. All the products, all those Amazon delivery trucks that are arriving at your house, all that's on trucks, all that goes on diesel. When diesel prices go this high, it gets very expensive. And here's the other thing that happens. The treasury notes, how we borrow money in the United States are also climbing very fast over the last week or two. We're at really high levels. That means that the inflation rates go up, that means interest rates go up. Everybody's costs are going to go up, not just at your gas station, but in your supermarket. And all the products that you're just before you think about going back to school, all the products you're gonna buy, they're all gonna cost more.
- [28:22]
Jen Psaki
Amos, I don't know if you've calmed anyone, but you've certainly. Well, that wasn't the goal. I think you've given people a really clear picture of what to expect and what they should prepare for as this work continues. Thank you so much for being here.
- [28:32]
Angie Hicks
Or we don't go back to war.
- [28:33]
Jen Psaki
Well, that's the hope, but we don't know how this is ending. And that's the big question. Thank you again.
- [28:38]
Marty Baron
Of course.
- [28:38]
Jen Psaki
Okay, up next, Trump's allies tried to smear another one of his perceived enemies in the court of public opinion. The great and fan favorite Andrew Weissman is standing by and he joins us to talk about it next.
- [28:54]
Simplisafe/Angie Hicks Ad Voice
Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of angie From Roof repair to Emergency plumbing and more. When you use Angie for your home projects, you know all your jobs will be done well, Angie, the one you trust to find the ones you trust, find a pro for your project@angie.com traditional
- [29:11]
Jen Psaki
home security only alerts you after a break in. And that's too late. Simplisafe is changing that.
- [29:16]
Marty Baron
Stop.
- [29:17]
Andrew Weissman
This is Simplisafe.
- [29:18]
Jen Psaki
Police are on the way. We don't just alert, we stop crime before it starts. Simplisafe plans starting around a dollar a day, save 50% on your new system with professional monitoring at SimpliSafe.com sxm or with promo code sxm.
- [29:32]
Angie Hicks
Outdoor deterrence requires a SimpliSafe Active Guard outdoor protection plan starting at $49.99 a month. Visit SimpliSafe.com licenses for alarm license information.
- [29:38]
Jen Psaki
Tennessee 2012 this is a Monday.com ad the same Monday.com designed for every team. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The samemonday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Nearly a year ago, my colleague Andrew Weissman sat down for an extended interview with former special counsel Jack Smith. And that interview happened to fall on the day that former FBI Director James Comey was arraigned. Comey had been indicted on allegations that he'd lied to Congress, allegations that seemed plainly politically motivated, as we all know. And now today, Jack Smith himself is facing similar allegations, allegations that, again, seem plainly politically motivated. Last night, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee and this of course, broke during our show last night, criminally referred Smith to the Justice Department, alleging that he too had lied to Congress. And just like in Comey's case, the allegations do not come anywhere close to passing the smell test. But because Comey was indicted, he was given the opportunity to formally defend himself. What makes this new referral from Republicans against Jack Smith different is that at least for now, there's no court involved. Not that they want a court involved. And if these allegations ever made it into a court, they would likely be laughed out of that court. But right now, these allegations only really exist in the court of public opinion. That's the point. It's a PR game. Smith hasn't actually been charged with anything. He has no court dates. He has no formal opportunity to defend himself. But the goal is clearly to silence him. And this all made me think of the interview my colleague Nicole Wallace did with Jack Smith just a few weeks ago, and a question she asked then that feels all the more pertinent today.
- [31:25]
Commercial Narrator
Are you afraid to be speaking out?
- [31:28]
Angie Hicks
No, not at all.
- [31:29]
Raul Torres
I am not going to be intimidated.
- [31:32]
Angie Hicks
And there's no way in the world,
- [31:33]
Raul Torres
if the thought was to go after
- [31:35]
Angie Hicks
me so that I wouldn't speak up
- [31:38]
Raul Torres
about the corruption that's happening or speak
- [31:40]
Angie Hicks
up to defend these agents and prosecutors, that is a grave miscalculation. There is no way I'm going to be intimidated.
- [31:47]
Jen Psaki
Joining me now is Andrew Weissman, former FBI general counsel and msnow legal analyst, someone who has spoken extensively with Jack Smith. First off, I know you've talked about this, but just to be clear as day about this, just tell us what you make of the allegations Republicans are Making in this referral.
- [32:06]
Andrew Weissman
Sure. Because this is one of these instances where I know that usually we're very careful to say, you know, it seems like or it appears, but this is one where there's just no two ways about it, that this is preposterous. And the easiest way to do that is to just tell you what is alleged. What is alleged is that Jack Smith lied. In response to the following question, he was asked, did you get the content of text messages from members of Congress through a search warrant? Did you get the content of text messages of members of Congress through a search warrant? To which he said, no, I didn't. I only got telephone records through this other process that is 100% truthful. The fact that Jack Smith also got documents from the National Archives was not asked in any way, shape or form. So this story is not just about the sort of retribution that we've seen from the Department of Justice. To me, this is the complicity of, in this case, Jim Jordan, who is the signatory of the letter with doing the referral on its face. It is not perjury, period. I'd love to. I usually am more careful to say, you know, it seems like, or we don't know everything they have. You cannot read this letter and in any way view this as perjury.
- [33:47]
Jen Psaki
They're talking about comments he made publicly and he also even requested, when he requested the archives, the documents from the archives, they were about White House records. He just. Anyway, it was all. We did a whole rundown of this last night. But just to echo everything you said, and you're the legal expert here, I mentioned earlier, and I know people watching watch this, that you interviewed Jack Smith. It was last October. I think, if I'm getting my dates correctly, it was the day that Jim Comey was, which was quite a day to be talking to Jack Smith. I played a clip of his conversation with Nicole Wallace as well. But for people watching out there, they haven't heard a lot from him. He's been pretty quiet. He's been very selective. What do you think they should know about these type of threats, how Jack Smith might be thinking about this right now?
- [34:37]
Andrew Weissman
So I think he's been very, very direct about the fact that he is a career guy. I think it is terrific that he is speaking out, not just in academic settings. I mean, I'm a professor. I think it's wonderful to speak in academic settings, but I think it's useful that he is on shows like with Nicole Wallace. You know, you don't get better than that, no offense, she's just wonderful. But I think it is wonderful for people to be able to make up their own mind about him because I watched every minute of that show. And that is Jack Smith. You know, whatever you make of him, I mean, I think he's terrific. But, you know, people can actually see him for who he is. And I think that is the beauty of speaking out and having that model of people being able to judge the man himself rather than the caricatures of him by people who wanted to tear him down.
- [35:43]
Jen Psaki
Yeah. No question about it. Andrew Weissman, thank you as always. Great to see you.
- [35:49]
Andrew Weissman
Nice to see you.
- [35:50]
Jen Psaki
Coming up, for months now, officials in New Mexico have been trying to get access to unredacted versions of materials in the Epstein files to investigate crimes that may have been committed at Epstein Zorro Ranch. But they say Trump's Justice Department department has not been cooperative. Surprise, surprise, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torres is at the center of this fight. And he joins me next. In 2019, around the time Jeffrey Epstein was arrested in New York State and charged with two federal crimes, the former attorney general of New Mexico publicly stated that he was also in the process of investigating Epstein for any potential crimes committed at the state level, saying that his office had been interviewing alleged victims who reported being sexually exploited at Epstein's property called Zorro Ranch. And his office also said that given the federal indictment, they planned to turn over information they had already gathered to the feds to help in their investigation. No state level charges were ever filed in New Mexico, and Epstein died in his jail cell that summer. Fast forward, though, to this year when among the millions of files, pages of files released by the Justice Department under the Epstein Files Transparency act were thousands of references to Zorro Ranch. And the current attorney general of New Mexico decided to reopen the office's dormant criminal investigation. So that was back in February. New Mexico's attorney general says he has now tried for months to get the federal government to give them unredacted information from their files and that would help in the state investigation. They are asking for names of survivors, witnesses, co conspirators and other individuals whose identities are essential to their investigation. But after months of back and forth with the Justice Department, they say all they have gotten is 31 pages of documents, most of which had already been made public and were full of redactions and none of which would be useful to a criminal investigation. They have given the Justice Department until the end of this month to cough up the material. And joining me now is the man at the center of that, Raul Torres, New Mexico's Attorney General. Thank you for being here. Let me just start by asking you, for people who are not lawyers or not attorney generals, how unusual is it for federal prosecutors to make you have to work this hard to get this type of unredacted material?
- [38:14]
Raul Torres
Well, it's extraordinarily unusual. I'm a former federal prosecutor myself. We used to work routinely with state law enforcement, sharing information, identifying leads, possible suspects, identifying witnesses. We usually have pretty collaborative relationships when it comes to this kind of information sharing, especially as in this case, when the state has already initiated its own criminal investigation. And we did, as my predecessor did, we stood down that investigation at the explicit request of the Southern District of New York. And so. So to have them fail to honor their agreement and then not give us access to this file is extremely unusual. And it's complicating our ability to advance this criminal investigation here in New Mexico.
- [39:02]
Jen Psaki
I bet it is. I mean, you reopened this back in February. It's been months. This dispute has come up in, of all places, the confirmation hearing for Jay Clayton, President Trump's nominee to be the Director of National Intelligence. I just want to play an exchange with New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich that. That explains why.
- [39:22]
Marty Baron
I understand that as U.S. attorney for
- [39:24]
Jen Psaki
the Southern District of New York, you
- [39:26]
Marty Baron
led the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
- [39:29]
Angie Hicks
Can you commit to providing any relevant information to the New Mexico Attorney General? And the documents, unredacted documents that he has requested?
- [39:40]
Raul Torres
Yeah, I spoke to my team about this last night. That that request is for unredacted documents. Those documents are subject to several protections for those redactions, including a protective order of the court. My folks, I think, as we speak, are seeking dialogue with the Attorney General to see if we can reach an accommodation that is consistent with those protective orders.
- [40:06]
Jen Psaki
He sounded pretty definitive in his answer there. That hearing was over a week ago, I should note. Has he made good on that? Are they seeking dialogue with you or with your office?
- [40:17]
Raul Torres
No, we haven't had any further communication with the Southern District of New York. And actually, at the time this issue of protective orders came up, we actually proposed jointly moving to have those protective orders modified or lifted to gain the access that we need. That's actually also standard practice when state and federal prosecutors are working on an investigation. Even if there's a protective order in place, one of the common things that we undertake, either jointly or, frankly, at the direction of the U.S. attorney, is a request to the court itself asking for modifications of those orders. He could do that without any attempt at dialoguing with this office. The simple fact is either he, or more importantly, Todd Blanche could simply choose to cooperate, move for modifications of protective orders and give us the access to these files. Because as you mentioned, Zorro Ranch is referenced over 13,000 times in the Epstein files. And yet most of those references are obscure, either partially or wholly because of the redactions that they've imposed.
- [41:24]
Jen Psaki
It's so interesting to hear. I mean, they could do this. It wouldn't require the time of Jay Clayton, it wouldn't require some expansive multi hour meeting. They could do this quite easily. I hate that we're in a world we have to do this, but I gotta ask you about what someone else said and he just referenced him, Todd Blanche, Because Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was also asked about this in his confirmation hearing and he said, we're continuing to work with the New Mexico doj. Is that true? I mean, is that happening?
- [41:53]
Andrew Weissman
No.
- [41:54]
Raul Torres
The only document disclosure that we received nearly 150 days after the initial request, was a disclosure of 31 pages, which you referenced earlier, that consisted mostly of news clippings of previously reported investigations that are several years old or documents that are already publicly available or heavily redacted. The fact of the matter is, when we know that Zorro Ranch is referenced thousands of times in the files, Todd Blanche has the authority right now, with the stroke of a pen to grant us this access to let us, our investigators and prosecutors, come and take a look at the files, identify co conspirators, witnesses corroborating evidence, identify new potential leads. And every day that goes by that that doesn't happen is another day that we've delayed delivering justice for the survivors in this case.
- [42:45]
Jen Psaki
Why do you think he won't? I mean, I have my own views on this, but you're very deep in here. Why do you think he won't?
- [42:51]
Raul Torres
Well, it appears that the administration has been really focused on the management of communications around the Epstein case, rather than acting in a way that demonstrates a commitment to getting to the truth and getting to accountability. And so I think if they focused more on the delivery of justice and less on spin and comms and trying to withhold this information, that we would be in a place that we could actually advance our criminal investigation and give people, not only in this state, but across the country, some sense that we are taking this and dealing with it in a way that is consistent with established professional practices and the established sort of way of doing business in law enforcement.
- [43:41]
Jen Psaki
And it would be so powerful to all of the survivors who have been asking and begging for this information and looking for people like you advocating on their behalf as well. Raul Torres, attorney general of the state of New Mexico, thank you so much for being here.
- [43:56]
Raul Torres
Thank you, Jen.
- [43:58]
Jen Psaki
We have to take a quick break, but the Last Word has Senator Chris Coons 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.
- [44:15]
Simplisafe/Angie Hicks Ad Voice
Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of Angie. One thing I've learned is that you buy a house, but you make it a home. For decades, Angie's helped millions of homeowners hire skilled pros for the projects that matter. Angie, the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find a pro for your project at angie. Combination.