← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
TRUMP HAS DESTROYED THE GOP: Former Georgia Republican switches parties
00:41:19
Geoff Duncan, former Republican lt. governor of Georgia, talks with Jen Psaki about how the Republican Party is unrecognizable to him now, having become a cult for Donald Trump, and explains why he has not only left the GOP but has switched to the Democratic Party.
Loading summary
Transcript60 lines
- [00:01]
John
When work gets crazy, I like to stop by the bar after have a few cold ones.
- [00:06]
Sarah
I don't drink at all until 4 o'.
- [00:08]
Michael
Clock.
- [00:09]
Emily
We limit ourselves to one bottle of wine a night.
- [00:12]
John
Excessive drinking has a way of sneaking up on us. A few drinks, a few nights a week, it can add up and suddenly.
- [00:19]
Jessica
We'Re at greater risk for long term.
- [00:21]
John
Problems like heart disease, cancer and depression. Reason enough to rethink to Drink more@rethinktodrink.com.
- [00:29]
Michael
No HA initiative some days call for sleek and straight, others for slouchy and relaxed. Whatever your vibe Old Navy has the denim fits to match from extra high rise to barrel. It's not just a mood, it's a whole style range. And with jeans Starting at just $22, you can collect them all. Snatched waist go extra high rise straight lived in staple vintage slim, low slung and laid back slouchy wide. You've got range. Your denim drawer should too. Premium fabric deluxe details your perfect pair or weights. Shop in store or online@oldnavy.com yesterday yesterday JD Vance called it fake news. He said the reporter who got the scoop needed to get better sources. They kind of love that explanation from the Trump administration, specifically in response to the reports that he, FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi were going to have dinner at the Vice President's residence to discuss strategy on Trump's Jeffrey Epstein problem. Specifically and quite definitively, I will say, vance said, quote, in the Oval Office. By the way, we're not meeting to talk about the Epstein situation now. I mean, CNN had four sources saying that the meeting had been moved or rescheduled. Reuters had a source saying the meeting had been canceled altogether. That is how aggressively Vance, Patel and Bondi and all their spokes folks tried to deny the reports that they were going to hold a highly inappropriate and frankly, pretty offensive meeting last night to discuss strategy between the White House and the supposedly independent Department of Justice on how to address the the Epstein fallout. It turns out it wasn't fake news at all. It wasn't rescheduled, it wasn't canceled. NBC News reports that that meeting did in fact happen last night at the White House. So yesterday, when Vance's spokesperson, which I noted last night, I would say was very carefully worded, he said this, quote, there was never a supposed meeting scheduled at the Vice President's residents who discuss Epstein's strategy. He really just meant it was in a different location because a person close to the White House tells NBC that Vance, Bondi and Patel all met last night for dinner at the White House. And they did, in fact, discuss Epstein. Now, it goes without saying the Attorney General in any administration is supposed to be removed from politics above because they're supposed to be removed from political considerations so that he or she can make decisions that are driven by the law, avoiding even the slightest tiniest hint of political favoritism. Of course, they're not supposed to coordinate with the White House on how to handle a matter that could further implicate the President himself. Of course they're not. Although we're really in this situation, Trump has really brought it to us. And in the past, though, even the illusion of coordination has made MAGA world go completely crazy. I mean, do you remember when Bill Clinton had an unplanned conversation with then Attorney General Loretta lynch on the airport tarmac in 2016? The mere appearance of possible impropriety back then, given that Hillary Clinton was under investigation at the time, ignited a firestorm that lasted not days, not weeks, but years. The collusion between Loretta lynch and Bill Clinton was on display for all to see in an astounding meeting on a tarmac in Phoenix.
- [03:47]
David
Explosive new revelations about the secret tarmac meeting.
- [03:49]
Michael
Loretta lynch going on the tarmac and.
- [03:52]
David
Meeting with Bill Clinton.
- [03:53]
Michael
Meeting on the tarmac, lynch said they only discussed their grandkids and Bill's golf game.
- [03:57]
Emily
Really?
- [03:58]
Michael
30, 40 minutes. How stupid do they think we are? Every major lawyer is saying the same thing. They can't believe it happened.
- [04:06]
Emily
This is what's wrong with the Clintons.
- [04:07]
David
They can't help themselves. They believe they're above the law.
- [04:10]
Emily
This is a disaster. But it's even a greater disaster if they get away with it. Why would she meet with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix?
- [04:17]
Michael
The Department of Justice should not be politicize.
- [04:20]
Sarah
How bad a judgment is it for him or for her to do this? I mean, who would do this?
- [04:26]
Michael
Who would do this? I mean, well, Donald Trump, your entire team would do this. I mean, just. They just made that chance encounter that everybody was flipping out about look pretty anodyne. And your people don't even seem to recognize what's wrong here. I mean, I'm not holding my breath. No one should that. Over at Fox News, they are currently reporting on how inappropriate this meeting is, which is far worse than that tarmac interaction. Now, Bill Clinton and Loretta lynch definitely had a lapse of optics, judgment, there's no question about that, when they allowed that now infamous tarmac encounter to happen in 2016. But since then, both of them publicly expressed regret about having done so saying they did not realize how even an innocuous conversation would come across and that they wish they had the foresight to have not had the conversation at all. Yeah, and there's been no real reporting whatsoever to suggest their innocuous conversation was anything but that. Now compare that to last night's meeting. The public learned about the plan for this meeting before the meeting even actually happened. The public and the press laid out clear as day just how improper and unethical this meeting would be. Trump, Vance, and a slew of others all led the media and everyone to believe this meeting wasn't actually happening. And then they met anyway. They knew how bad this was and just did it anyway. The way NBC reports it tonight, again based on a person close to the White House, is that Vance, Patel and Bondi did not meet to just discuss Epstein because that, of course, would be incredibly unethical. NBC source says they also met to discuss two fired FBI agents with ties to the Mar? A Lago classified documents investigation. So don't worry, everyone. They weren't just having an unethical meeting between the executive branch and the Department of Justice on one topic. They were having a highly unethical meeting on two topics, if that makes you feel any better. Doesn't make me feel any better. Now, we don't know if any decisions were made in that meeting on either front, but today's news certainly makes it seem like it, because today five FBI agents were suddenly and dramatically fired. Now, again, we can't definitively say why any of those agents were suddenly fired today, but check this out. This is Brian Driscoll. You might remember him because earlier this year, the White House mixed him up with another agent and accidentally appointed him to be the acting director of the entire agency. Which is emblematic of a lot of things. But it turned out the rank and file members of the FBI seemed to really like him. He was one of the agents fired today. And while NBC has obtained a message that Agent Driscoll sent to his colleagues today saying that no cause was articulated for his firing, a current FBI official and a former FBI official told NBC News Today that at least part of the reason that Agent Driscoll was pushed out was his refusal to fire another agent who'd worked on the Mar? A Lago classified documents case, the case that, again, NBC reports, Vance Patel and Bondi discussed during a dinner at the White House last night. The FBI also fired a senior agent who helped oversee the agency's response to January 6th and an agent who had worked on several other Trump related investigations certainly sounds to me like they are systematically getting rid of people who were doing their jobs investigating crimes simply because their actions weren't convenient for Trump personally. But I'm not an FBI agent. Lucky for us, the FBI Agents association put out their thoughts on this matter and here's what they had to say. Quote, the FBI Agents association is deeply concerned by reports that FBI special agents, case agents and senior leaders alike are going to be summarily fired without due process for doing their jobs investigating potential federal crimes. There is a review process when employment actions are taken against agents. The process was established so that the FBI agencies could remain independent and apolitical. FBI leadership committed that they would abide by that process. We urge them to honor that commitment and follow the law. And if these agents are fired without due process, it makes the American people less safe. Agents need to be focused on their work and not on potentially being illegally fired based on their assignments. No kidding. I mean, that is all true. The FBI is our law enforcement agency of the land in all of everybody's communities. So just to sum that all up, last night Vance, Patel and Bondi met and discussed FBI agents who had worked on the Mar? A Lago classified documents case. Then this morning we learned that multiple agents who worked on other Trump cases and that case specifically were given the act suddenly without stated cause and contrary to the FBI standard review process I just highlighted for you. That certainly sounds like someone left that meeting last night with a list of action items and spent this morning kind of crossing them all off. At least it does for that part of their conversation. As for what Vance, Patel and Bondi discussed about Epstein and if they came up with any plan of action on what they will do next, that is unclear. And we know that one of the thoughts floated before this meeting was having Trump's former personal lawyer turned Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche go on Joe Rogan's podcast. Here we are in 2025 when Rogan has soured on Trump's Epstein spin and winning him back along with his audience would be huge. Blanche, of course, just spent nine hours meeting with Epstein co conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell last month, a meeting that was quickly followed by Maxwell being moved into a minimum security prison with no explanation. Now, we also know that another idea floated before last night's meeting was for either transcript or audio recordings of Blanche's meeting with Maxwell to be released to the public. We have no idea what that will look like, but the idea that the administration is having a strategy meeting that might include the discussion of how to spin what came out of the interview Todd Blanche had with a convicted sexual predator be with the vice president and the attorney general and the FBI director is disgusting on its face. So did they decide to release the transcript of that interview? Is Blanche going to go on Rogan? We don't know. And regardless of what plan was concocted last night, what does it mean for the Justice Department and the White House to be in cahoots with each other like this? Is there any way to stop it? MSNBC Justice Department correspondent Kendallanean, who got a lot of today's scoops and many scoops, always joins me next, as well as former FBI general counsel Andrew Weissman. They're both standing by and they're going to join me in 90 seconds.
- [10:41]
Kelly
Hey there, it's Kelly Ripa, and if you've been listening to my podcast, we are knee deep in Season three, and if you haven't heard it, it's time to get on board. After years of interviewing celebs on camera, I finally get to bring you the real conversations that take place when the cameras aren't rolling. Where else are you going to hear Michelle Obama talk about keeping her girls out of Page Six? Hilaria Baldwin's hilarious reaction to Alec running for office, or Jeremy Renner's lucid hallucinations about Jamie Foxx? Nowhere else. It's raw, it's honest, and best of all, it's off camera. And believe me, that's where you get the good stuff. So download. Let's talk off Camera with Kelly Ripa now. Wherever you get your podcasts, Cash Flow.
- [11:25]
John
Crunch on Deck's Small Business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $100,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today@ondeck.com funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank On Deck does not lend to North Dakota, all loans and amounts subject to lender approval. Summer's heating up, and so is the action with chumba casino and 2311 racing. Whether you're trackside with Bubba, Riley and Tyler or cooling off at home, the fun never stops at Chumba Casino, the online social casino packed with free to play games like slots, blackjack and more. Jump into summer@chumbacasino.com and score your free welcome bonus 2 million free gold coins and 2 free sweeps coins. No purchase necessary. VGW Group Void where prohibited by law. CTNC is 21+, sponsored by Chumba Casin.
- [12:33]
Michael
Joining me now is Andrew Weissman, the former FBI general counsel and a former senior member of Robert Mulro's special counsel and one of everybody's favorites legal eagle experts, and Ken Delaney, an MSNBC justice and intelligence correspondent. There's been so much reporting around all of this. Ken, let me start with you, because you've done a ton of reporting. You've broken a lot of these stories. What did I miss there? And is there anything about this meeting or what was discussed or those FBI firings that you found out in the last couple of hours?
- [13:03]
David
Well, Jen, we've been reporting, you know, for some weeks now that there's been an ongoing purge within the top ranks of the FBI. I just had a story last week that noted that 18 of 53 special agents in charge have been removed from their job. And of that, half of them were women and minorities. So those firings were disproportionately affecting women and people of color. But this was a new kind of an exclamation point on what's been happening, because the people fired this week are some famous folks within the bureau, particularly Brian Driscoll, who was the acting director and became, as you said, something of a folk hero when he stood up to the Trump administration's plan to potentially fire hundreds, if not thousands of FBI agents who worked on January 6th cases. And his continued presence in the bureau was a sign of hope that amid all the other bad things that are happening, perhaps it's still possible to dissent from the Trump administration in some small fashion and retain your job. Well, that lesson was learned today pretty firmly that that's not the case. And there was something in particular that precipitated his firing, as you mentioned, which was his unwillingness to fire another special agent who had become a pilot, flying Kash Patel around in the FBI jet, but had previously worked on the Mar A Lago case investigating Donald Trump over the classified documents matter. And so he'd become the target of far right activists online. They were calling for his ouster. Apparently, people decided that he should go. And Driscoll, who was his nominal boss, was unwilling to fire him. Also removed Steve Jensen, who has been the target, again a far right activist, for his involvement in January 6th cases. Nonetheless, he was made the head of the Washington field office. And again, that gave some people some hope that all was not lost, that it was possible to have some dissenting views within the FBI and still function. The message sent today is that that is no longer possible. And morale, I gotta tell you, from speaking to people all day today, could not be lower. People are really greeting this with alarm and concern for what it says about where the Trump administration is taking the nation's premier law enforcement agency.
- [15:15]
Michael
John, I mean, Andrew, you spend, of course, a lot of time there as the general counsel. I first want to ask you, I mean, I gave this example last night and I tried to articulate how inappropriate a meeting like the one that happened last night is where we know that the FBI and personnel was discussed. I mean, the example I gave was, imagine if Vice President Harris held a meeting with Attorney General Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, to discuss a political problem that Joe Biden was having. I mean, that is crazy sounding. But help us understand, having spent time in law enforcement and in the legal community, why is that meeting so inappropriate? How is it so inappropriate? And. And also tell us a little bit more about what you're hearing about people's morale within the FBI.
- [15:59]
Sarah
Sure. I just think it's so great that you are focusing on this because you have been in the White House. I have been at the FBI, been at the department. I want to make sure everyone understands this does not happen under any normal administration, Republican or Democratic. I remember working a million years ago on the Enron case that was under a Republican administration, and there were all sorts of concerns that people in the press had about whether Dick Cheney was going to sort of weigh in because of some purported friendship with Ken Lay, the chairman of Enron. And I can tell you it was a third rail. The White House would not and did not become involved in that case. The then acting Attorney General, Larry Thompson, would never in a million years engage in that conduct, precisely because in the post Watergate era, you want law enforcement to decide things based on the facts and based on the law. And the one sort of, sort of slight amendment I would make to Ken's point is it's not just the question of deception dissenting. It's that these are people who are actually talking about facts. Facts matter. And the dissent is because they're actually standing up and speaking facts. Let's just broaden that out. We have the President getting rid of the person who decided that the labor statistics are going to be presented accurately. They're gotten rid of. You have Robert Kennedy Jr. Getting rid of people at the CDC and the FDA because he doesn't like what they have to say about the efficacy, the scientific efficacy of Vaccines. This is no different in a law enforcement context, which is people who are governed by facts and law are being removed. And you have to ask yourself for all of those things is to look at it as a piece in terms of what the administration is doing to be able to tell a story that will not go challenged by actual facts.
- [18:11]
Michael
One of the things, and thank you for really putting a fine point on that. I mean, when the Attorney General walked through the White House, I would kind of move in the other direction. You know, I mean, if the director of the FBI, you never even wanted to appear like there was a discussion that was inappropriate. And I'm sure that was the case in many, many prior administrations, not just Democratic ones. Ken, let me ask you, because you touched on this about the morale and Andrew did too. And I think that's so important for people to understand because the FBI agents, many are in Washington, but many are across and bureaus across the country, they are investigating all sorts of crimes, crime waves, white collar crime, all sorts of things. The FBI Agents Association, I just read their statement in the lead into this and it basically alluded to them agents need to be focused on their work and not on potentially being legally fired based on their assignments. And when you talk to people about the morale issue, how is that impacting their ability to do their work? Are there people who are questioning whether they can see. Stay there. What are you hearing from these agents you're talking to?
- [19:16]
David
Oh, yeah, absolutely. Because in addition to this wave of firings, a lot of people, good people, have left voluntarily. Decades of experience in counterterrorism, counterintelligence, white collar crime has walked out of that building and also the Justice Department because they just don't want to work in this environment. Because as Andrew described, it is about, it is about sort of the reality based community versus this fantastical web of conspiracy theories that is being woven. And let's not forget the FBI, as Andrew can attest, was generally a small c conservative Republican leaning organization, especially the special agent community. These are law enforcement agents and they tend to be right of center in their politics. But yet for some of these people, that isn't enough to keep them in good stead with the Trump administration and with the men, Cash Patel and Dan Bondino, who are now leading the FBI. I spoke to a source the other day who mentioned that a new special agent in charge had come into their field office. This is not in Washington, as you said, this is out in the country. And this person had a good reputation as a solid agent. But the source said that this person, every other sentence was praising Dan Bongino and Cash Patel. He said it felt like North Korea. It was like he said he felt sorry for this person. He couldn't believe that he was having to debase himself in that way. That's the kind of culture that we are seeing now in parts of the FBI. And a lot of people just don't have. They're just not there for that and they are trying to leave.
- [20:47]
Michael
Andrew, let me ask you, I mean, it feels pretty unbelievable, the connection between the meeting last night, the firings today, as Ken has been reporting, there have been other firings. There have been FBI agents who didn't feel comfortable staying. This feels like it should be an issue that there's bipartisan concern about. I'm not naive. What questions should Congress, should members of Congress who are concerned about our law enforcement agency being gutted by people leaving, by people firing, who are just doing their jobs, what should they be asking? What do you wish they were asking?
- [21:17]
Sarah
Well, you know, Kamala Harris had a very famous sort of cross examination of Attorney General Bill Barr where she sort of famously asked, did you have conversations with the president where he told you and directed you in terms, in terms of what you should be doing? And it seems, that seems so quaint now. And so the halcyon days of Trump 1.0, because this is all, as you've noted, out in the open. And so I really don't think there are questions to ask. I think there's actions to take. And, you know, this is one where it's not a sort of like, gee, I wonder what the administration's doing. It's clear from Donald Trump and from Cash Patel and Pam Bondi that the sort of post Watergate norm is gone. And it's sort of backed by the Supreme Court in having that sort of view. And, you know, from sort of an American point of view, the end of civil service, the end of career, people making decisions based on not politics, but on facts and law is really just you have to ask yourself, is that a world you want to live in? And, you know, I think, you know, I know the answer that I have, but I think this is one where you mentioned that Democrats are now sort of, you know, getting their dander up and doing something about it. But I think this is such an important issue because if you put together this string of events that are happening not just at the FBI, but in terms of the president and the sort of elimination of truth, the elimination of actual hard data, you really can see where this is going to lead where you don't actually have a fact based world that you live in.
- [23:17]
Michael
Kendallane and Andrew Weissman, I hope, I hope more people get their dander up. Did you say dander up? I'm going to use that about this. It is incredibly important. Thank you for your reporting, Andrew. Thank you for your expertise. Really appreciate you both being here with me tonight. We're going to take a quick break and after that, California officials question whether federal immigration agents are defying a court order against profiling suspected undocumented immigrants. I'm going to talk about that more coming up next.
- [23:48]
Kelly
Hey there, it's Kelly Ripa. And if you've been listening to my podcast, we are knee deep in season three and if you haven't heard it, it's time to get on board. After years of interviewing celebs on camera, I finally get to bring you the real conversations that take place when the cameras aren't rolling. Where else are you going to hear Michelle Obama talk about keeping her girls out of Page Six? Hilaria Baldwin's hilarious reaction to Alec running for office, or Jeremy Renner's lucid hallucinations about Jamie Foxx? Nowhere else. It's raw, it's honest, and best of all, it's off camera. And believe me, that's where you get the good stuff. So download. Let's talk off camera with Kelly Raba now. Wherever you get your podcast.
- [24:31]
Michael
Need to.
- [24:32]
John
Restock inventory, cover seasonal dips, or manage payroll? OnDeck's small business line of credit provides immediate access to funds up to $100,000 exactly when your business needs it. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and full control over repayment, you can tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. Apply today@ondeck.com and funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondac or Celtic Bank. ONDAC does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.
- [25:02]
Sarah
Riley Herbs from 2311 Racing checking in. Got a break in between team meetings. Sounds like the perfect time for some.
- [25:08]
Michael
Fast paced fun at Chumba Casino.
- [25:11]
Sarah
No waiting, just instant action to keep you going. So next time you need a pick.
- [25:15]
John
Me up, fire it up and take a spin.
- [25:17]
Sarah
Play now@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba.
- [25:21]
John
No purchase necessary. VGW Group Voidware prohibited by law. CTNC's 21+ sponsored by Jumbo Casino.
- [25:33]
Michael
Here's a headline you may not have expected from the LA Times. Here it is. Quote ice arrests in LA plummeted in July, new data show. Over the past month, immigration arrests in the seven counties around LA have fallen to about half what they were the previous month. And experts say there's a simple reason for that. Because last month, the federal judge ordered the Trump administration to stop arresting suspected undocumented immigrants just based on their race, ethnicity, language and the type of work they do, otherwise known as racial profiling. That meant the Trump administration had to stop randomly showing up at work sites and arresting people with no criminal history, which they seem to really be fans of doing. But then yesterday, something changed. This was the scene in the in MacArthur park area of Los Angeles just yesterday. You can see federal agents loading themselves into a rented moving van. And according to the LA Times, that truck drove to a Home Depot in pulled up to laborers who had gathered in the parking lot. The driver told them in Spanish he was looking for workers. That's when federal agents spilled out and started chasing after those workers, ultimately arresting 16 people. According to the LA Times, one of the people detained in the raid was a woman wearing an apron and selling food and drinks from a folding table. The Department of Homeland Security suggested that this raid was targeting Ms. 13 gang members in the area. But as the LA Times notes, agents appeared to arrest only day laborers and street vendors, who are often extorted by gangs. And local officials in LA say this looks a lot like the kind of racial profiling raid that the courts explicitly told ICE they could no longer conduct in Southern California. I mean, just listen to how LA Mayor Karen Bass responded when asked about the claim that the immigrants targeted by this raid were gang members. So these agents were claiming that they.
- [27:22]
John
Were targeting gang members?
- [27:24]
Michael
Ms. 13 yeah, yeah. And you can see that when somebody is sitting in a Home Depot day labor is saying, you can tell that they're gang members. You know, where are the names? Where is the evidence? Where's the warrant? You know, to me, that's the essence of racial profiling. The essence of racial profiling, it certainly is. I mean, yesterday Mayor Abbas ordered city officials to investigate whether those agents violated that court order barring them from racial profiling. So awaiting information about that, which we don't have yet. But meanwhile today, the Trump administration has decided to take a new approach. In a new court filing tonight, they asked the Supreme Court to overturn that judge's order and let them please go back to profiling as many brown Spanish speaking day laborers as they want. Here's part of what the government's filing said. No one thinks that speaking Spanish or working in construction always creates reasonable suspicion. Nor does anyone suggest those are the only factors federal agents ever consider. But in many situations, such factors alone or in combination can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States. Just leave that up there for a second. That is a pretty unbelievable statement. They are saying they should be able to consider speaking Spanish or working in construction alone when determining whether to arrest someone on suspicion of being undocumented. To sum this all up, Trump's immigration officers engaged in a widespread racial profiling to sweep up immigrants throughout the Los Angeles area. Court ordered them to stop. Then federal agents appeared to just start doing it again, arresting day laborers and street vendors in what officials said looks like racial profiling. And now the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to make it all okay, to justify it. Did anyone really vote for this, I wonder. Coming up next, Texas officials are probing Beto o' Rourke's political organization over its support of Democrats who fled the state to block Republican gerrymandering. He joins me with his response after a quick break. Today, Donald Trump once again attempted to live out his fantasy of being all powerful and announced online that he has, quote, instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate census based on modern day facts and figures, and importantly, using the results and information gained from the presidential election of 2024. People who are in our country illegally will not be counted in the census. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Exclamation point. Now, it's completely unclear how that will happen, given that the U.S. constitution explicitly requires a count of the whole number of persons in each state every 10 years. The census determines how much federal money is distributed to each state as well. And this is maybe key here, how many electoral college votes and congressional seats each state gets. So the issue of allocating congressional seats is one we're already seeing play out in Texas, where Trump has effectively ordered the governor, Greg Abbott, to jam through a gerrymandered set of new congressional maps that aim to give Republicans a leg up in the next midterms. It's why dozens of Texas Democrats, a few who have appeared on this very program in recent days, have fled the state to prevent a vote on those Republican maps. And why it appears they may blow through a deadline tomorrow to return to the state Capitol, even as the FBI has apparently granted a request by Texas GOP Senator John Cornyn to help find the absent Democrats, despite the very dubious legal authority the FBI has to do so, as in, no legal authority. Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is investigating whether Beto o' Rourke's political group broke any laws by funding or helping support Democrats out of state travel. Which is rich considering Paxton spent 2.3 million of his campaign dollars that he raised on legal fees during his bribery impeachment trial. There we go. Very hypocritical. Joining me now is former congressman and founder of the group Powered by People, Beto o'. Rourke. He just wrapped a big rally in New Orleans. That's why you see all these people behind him right now. It's great to see you and I wanna talk about that. But let's just talk about Ken Paxton first. I mean, his efforts to go after you are pretty rich considering his own background, which I just touched on. But he is accusing your organization of paying for the travel expenses of legislators who left the state. First of all, I mean, has your organization actually paid for anything at this point? And even if you did, is there any actual legal issue with that?
- [31:57]
Jessica
There's no legal issue. Tens of thousands of Americans have pitched in to support them. They're texting the word fight to 20377 and they're supporting these legislators to ensure that they have the resources for their lodging, their food, their flights. And Jen, now they're legal bills because, as you know, Governor Greg Abbott has threatened to charge them with second degree felonies. He's filed with the Texas Supreme Court to vacate their seats to remove them from office. So these 54 state legislators who have left the state quorum to deny Abbott and Trump the ability to redraw these five congressional districts, they're doing this at great, extraordinary personal cost and risk to themselves. And I just want them to know that every single American, including these great people behind me here in New Orleans, we have their backs and we're going to stay with them for as long as it takes to win this fight. Because if we don't, Donald Trump will be able to steal the 2026 election in the summer of 2025. And we are not about to let that happen.
- [32:57]
Michael
One of the things I really appreciate about talking with a lot of legislators, and you as well, is that everybody's backs or spines are pretty stiff around this. Nobody seems to be backing down. Let me ask you about one more Ken Paxton thing because he said he has taken legal action to domesticate the warrants in Illinois, which would allow the Democrats hiding there to be arrested and brought back to Texas. Now, I've seen Governor Pritzker respond to this. He has no plans to cooperate. I don't understand what the legal justification is there. Is this all just kind of of bark and no bite because he's in a Senate primary or what do you make of all of this in terms of what could actually happen?
- [33:32]
Jessica
I actually think it goes beyond that. I think they are in full panic mode right now. Here's why Trump gets that. His policies, cutting people off of Medicaid, transferring nearly a trillion dollars of working Americans wealth to the richest 1%, these Gestapo tactics that are terrorizing hardworking Americans across the country. This stuff's not popular. He'll be unable to retain control of the House unless he can rig the game. That's what he's trying to Texas and you mentioned by trying to take a new census count, which we hope the courts will not allow him to do. He cannot stay in power without this. If we can stop him, it means that there will be a check on his lawlessness, accountability for his corruption and crimes, and the prospect of free and fair elections going forward. If we fail, if we don't have the backs of these Texas Democrats, then we will lose. I think the last best hope of this country of preventing the consolidation of authoritarian power in this guy's hands. If we fail, that means more mass plainclothes agents sweeping our fellow Americans off the streets. It means more of his political opponents targeted for vengeance and persecution and, yes, even violence. And I can almost guarantee you that a Republican majority Congress will roll out the royal red carpet for a third Trump term. So these 54 are all that stand between us and that future. So we've got to have their backs for as long as it takes. That's why you see John Cornyn, Ken Paxton, Greg Abbott and Donald Trump freaking out because these underdogs might very well win. Win the fight and allow us to retain or regain control of the House of Representatives. That's what we need right now.
- [35:07]
Michael
Let me ask you about the census news, which I poured a little cold water on the reality of the possibility of that happening. But I mean, Texas is only second to California for the largest undocumented immigrant population in the United States. There's an estimated, as you know this well, but for our audience, 1.6 million undocumented people in the Lone Star State. If Trump is, if he's successful, even if he were to be successful and sidestepping the Constitution and those residents are not counted in the next census. Do you think it could hurt Texas more than it could help Republicans? Do you think it'll hurt Republicans more than it could help them?
- [35:40]
Jessica
Yeah. I mean, we would literally lose congressional seats in the state of Texas, we would literally lose electoral college votes in the state of Texas. So for those Republicans who think they can be cute in trying to do this and proposing it, they may end up being the dog that caught the car. Very similar, Jen, to this whole idea of redistricting in the first place. In order to create competitive districts to try to steal these seats from Democrats, they have to let go of Republican voters in what are to believe, what are now believed to be safe red districts. Those districts may be competitive as well. This may turn into what some are calling a dummy mander instead of a gerrymander where the party overreaches and ends up paying the price in 2026. So whatever it looks like, whether it's that, whether it's these Democrats, these 54 being successful, or Democratic governors seizing the initiative and redrawing their districts to Democratic congressional advantage, whatever it takes, we have to take the fight to them. No more reacting. No more responding. No more resistance, no more awaiting the punch to be thrown by these would be fascists. We throw our punch first and we throw it harder.
- [36:43]
Michael
Beto o', Rourke, I see people nodding behind you. I hope you'll come back and talk to me about all of the events you're doing. Thank you so much for joining me tonight. I really appreciate it. Okay. When we come back, the Democratic Party's newest member is the former Republican lieutenant governor of Georgia. That's a lot to digest. He's going to join me to talk about it live after the break. You may remember Jeff Duncan, Brian Kemp's Republican lieutenant governor of Georgia. He ran in 2018 with Marco Rubio's endorsement as a business friendly promoter of conservative value. But in the years that followed, Georgia became a flashpoint for national politics. In the 2020 election cycle, President Trump tried to pressure Republicans in the state to quote, fine votes for him so he could win the state. He lost. Jeff Duncan had enough. He called out Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani for spreading doubt about the state's election in 2024. Duncan even endorsed Kamala Harris speaking at the Democratic National Convention. And after trying, in his words, to save his party from Donald Trump, Duncan announced this week that he's joining the Democratic Party. And there is a lot of speculation that he may try to run for office in the state again, but not as a Republican, as a Democrat. In an op ed for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, he laid out his support for expanding health care access and his opposition to Trump actions like immigration raids and cuts to food assistance. My decision was centered around my daily struggle to love my neighbor as a Republican, Duncan wrote, the list of reasons why I'm now a Democrat continues to grow. Most importantly, my decision puts me in the best possible position each day to love my neighbor. And joining me now is one of Georgia's newest Democrats, former Lt. Gov. Jeff Duncan. So let me start by just asking you, this is a big switch for anyone. I mentioned some of the issues you talked about in your op ed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. How did you make the decision and when did you make the decision? Why did you decide it was the right choice for you?
- [38:42]
Emily
Yeah, Jen, you know, this, this has been going on for years for me. I think most folks that have been around me, operated around me in politics and in the legislature saw this evolution happening. And it was twofold. One is the Republican Party has just turned into something I don't recognize, don't respect. But also, you know, I always wanted to be in the solution business. I got into politics 10 years ago because I wanted to, you know, come up with creative solutions to real people's problems. And Republicans have just created a brick wall around so many of these solutions. And so I wake up today refreshed that I can be back in the idea business. And Georgians and Americans in general have real problems. As I mentioned in the piece, over 1.2 million Georgians wake up every day without health insurance. And Republicans have said that the answer to that is a job. The reality is 85% of those people wake up in a working household, so they have a job. They just don't have the right job. So we've got to figure out creative solutions around that and other things like gun control. Over 90% of Americans want to have serious action taken on gun control, yet Republicans won't let it across the finish line because they're scared of their own shadow on the issue. And the list goes on and on. I'm excited to be back in the idea business.
- [39:53]
Michael
You also talked in your piece about immigration and some of the immigration actions we've seen recently, people being terrorized on the streets. Those are my words, not yours. But you talked about that in your piece. There are other issues Democrats care about. What did you not have space to write about? Abortion, access? What are other things people should understand you're aligned with them as now a member of the Democratic Party.
- [40:15]
Emily
On well, I think it's in a general sense, poverty in general. There's so many different facets of poverty that in my opinion, there's been too much demonization of people that are in poverty. I think about leveraging a $17 billion rainy day fund that we have in Georgia, some sort of jump start for those folks that are one prescription away from being able to carry a full time job or one roof over their head, away from being able to get their family back together or one skill set away from being able to launch a career. There's opportunities for us to leverage, but we have to be creative. We have to think outside the box. And for me, that is part of this platform that I'm now a part of in the Democratic Party. Georgia is a unique place. You know, as lieutenant governor, I got to serve as the president of the Senate. And one of the most rewarding aspects of that was working across the aisle day in and day out, sitting in a Democratic caucus meeting as a Republican lieutenant governor at the time, sitting there, asking them their opinion and seeing the value of the work put in in a bipartisan way. There's a better way to do this than what we're watching play out on our TV screens every day.
- [41:22]
Michael
You were, you said it's been an evolution for you over the course of years. You were registered Republican not that long ago. Where do you disagree with the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party platform?
- [41:33]
Emily
Well, it will certainly be time for me to be indoctrinated to all the deep corners of the Democratic Party. You know, I don't agree with everything that's in the Republican Party and never have, and I'm certain I'll probably not agree with everything in the Democratic Party. But I think the most, the most important asset for the Democrats to have in the near future is to agree to disagree on certain issues and what those issues are. Time will tell, but I think it's important for us to really lock in as Democrats, be able to be the party of ideas, be able to get big ideas across the finish line and really meet people where they're at, whether they need a job, whether they need health care, whether they need a safer neighborhood, whether they need somebody to just stand up for them or their neighbors like I talk about in the piece. I think it's important. And this is the opportunity for Democrats, if Democrats can come together and grow the size of the tent and allow them to be able to put their best foot forward in state after state after state. I think with this chaos comes opportunity for the Democratic Party and I'm excited to be a part of that.
- [42:31]
Michael
We only have about a minute left, but you're a professional. So let me ask you, I mean, you said that as a Republican, you were trying to save the party from Donald Trump. Do you think still think that is possible for the party to be saved from Trump?
- [42:43]
Emily
No, it's not. It's not possible. I mean, I've watched firsthand the Republican Party has been absolutely decimated and destroyed. I don't think there's anything coming back, at least for the foreseeable future. For years, if not decades, Donald Trump has destroyed it and created a cult type atmosphere around it. And this is the opportunity for Democrats around the country to stand up and to do the right thing. As I mentioned at the Democratic National Convention when I spoke there, our family motto is doing the right thing will never be the wrong thing. This is the right thing for Jeff Duncan to do. I think this is the right thing for Democrats to do is to look for ways to love our neighbor.
- [43:21]
Michael
Jeff Duncan, thank you for joining me. I look forward to seeing what you do next. There's lots of politics ahead in Georgia. When we come back, I'm going to introduce you to a fresh new Republican face, someone who is running for office for the first time and running right into a classic political buzzsaw of our own making. More on that right after a break. You may have heard of a far right congressman from Arizona named Andy Biggs, a Trump loyalist who worked as hard as he could to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Now, you may be less familiar, however, with the congressman's daughter, Miley Biggs. Now, don't feel bad. There's not too much to know. She just graduated from college last year and since then has been working for a conservative lobbying group. Last August, she was campaigning for Donald Trump when she got a guest spot on a podcast. And boy, did she have some interesting things to say. There's one topic in particular that this daughter of an elected official seemed especially passionate, women running for public office. Honestly, I don't know if I would vote for any female.
- [44:27]
Emily
I don't know if female should be in office.
- [44:29]
Michael
Men, men in office is where I'm sitting. That's where I'm at because I want to be at home. Now, you heard that, right? That she definitely wouldn't vote for a woman, that she doesn't even think women should run for office in the first place? She says elsewhere in the interview, I don't think women should hold office in general. Women should run the home. Now, beyond the hard to watch internalized sexism going on there, I guess people are entitled to their personal opinions, except it's just a little awkward because as it turns out, she's running for office. The same person running for office for an Arizona state Senate seat. Hey, maybe she's grown a lot in the last year, gotten pretty woke. Gotten woke enough to believe women should be allowed to run for office after all. Or the more likely answer is that she is yet another example of MAGA Republicans weaponizing prejudice when it's to their political advantage, only to backtrack when it no longer serves them. Either way, Biggs has reportedly yet to raise any money since announcing her campaign and has already fallen behind unnecessary paperwork. So maybe she's right about one thing. Not every woman is built for the job. We'll see. That does it for me today. You can catch the show Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC. And don't forget to follow the show on Blue sky, Instagram and TikTok.
- [45:43]
Kelly
Hey there, it's Kelly Ripa, and have you been listening to my podcast? We are knee deep in Season three, and if you haven't heard it, it's time to get on board. After years of interviewing celebs on camera, I finally get to bring you the real conversations that take place when the cameras aren't rolling. Where else are you going to hear Michelle Obama talk about keeping her girls out of Page Six? Hilaria Baldwin's hilarious reaction to Alec running for office, or Jeremy Renner's lucid hallucinations about Jamie Foxx? Nowhere else. It's raw, it's honest, and best of all, it's off camera. And believe me, that's where you get the good stuff. So download. Let's talk Off Camera with Kelly Ripa now. Wherever you get your podcasts.