← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
Trump sinks to new levels of petty to rewrite history of his disgrace
00:41:04
Jen Psaki shares reporting on the suspension of two federal prosecutors after they submitted a sentencing recommendation for January 6 rioter Taylor Taranto after his conviction on charges unrelated to the insurrection. The recommendation was refiled with alterations made in the references to January 6 and Donald Trump.
Loading summary
Transcript80 lines
- [00:01]
Nicole Wallace
It's Cybersecurity awareness month and LifeLock is here with tips to help protect your identity. Use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication and report phishing scams. And for comprehensive identity protection, LifeLock is your best choice. LifeLock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected with a 30 day free trial at lifelock.com Special Special offer terms apply Cash.
- [00:31]
OnDeck Advertiser
Flow crunch OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 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. Ondac does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amount subject to lender.
- [01:00]
Jen Psaki
Approv we have a lot of news to get to tonight. Veteran White House correspondent Jonathan Karl, who never holds back. He's written a lot of books and is here to talk about his new book, Retribution. As the title suggests, this book is in part about how Retribution became a central driver of Trump's return to power. We all know that. But it also includes a number of new behind the scenes details about some of the most enraging moments of his second term, as well as a lot of insight into who Trump actually listens to and what motivates him in this moment. And that's important for us to all understand too. There's also quite a moment on the Senate floor today when Senator Ben Ray Lujan pressed for a vote on SNAP funding, which is set to expire on November 1st. Senate Majority Leader John Thune was angrier than I think I have ever seen him, but just this afternoon he also announced plans to meet with Democrats for the first time. We don't have an exact date, but the intention to saying it for the first time since since the shutdown began just 29 days ago. So we're gonna talk with Senator Ben Ray Lujan about all of that a little bit later as well. First, I wanna start with an incident from two years ago that has kind of thrust itself back into the news today. It was this moment back in 2023 when an armed and dangerous man showed up outside the home of a former president. There's new information on the January 6th defendant arrested near the home of former President Barack Obama here in D.C. after federal agents and Chase Taylor Toronto outside the D.C. home of former President Obama.
- [02:32]
Nicole Wallace
They say they found these guns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and a machete in Toronto's van parked nearby.
- [02:40]
Jen Psaki
The feds had already been trying to arrest Toronto for allegedly being part of the mob that attacked the Capitol Jan. 6, for which he faces four misdemeanor charges. Late today, federal prosecutors told a judge.
- [02:52]
Nicole Wallace
Toronto could have learned Obama's address from.
- [02:54]
Jen Psaki
A social media post by former President Trump. They allege Trump posted what he claimed was Obama's address on his Truth social platform the same day Toronto was arrested near the home. So that's a news reporting. This is all about a former January 6 rioter who showed up armed at the home of President Barack Obama right after Donald Trump had publicly posted Barack Obama's address online. It's sort of astounding to think about how stories like that barely broke through when Trump was mounting his second bid for the White House. Former president possibly doxxing another former president posting his home address online and then watching as one of his criminal supporters showed up at that address with a car full of weapons. That was scary and jarring and maddening and it really, it should have been a major scandal at the time. But of course, despite that incident and so, so much else, Trump was elected to a second term. And on his first day in office, he pardoned or commuted the sentences of every single one of the January 6 rioters, including the man just mentioned in that news reporting, Taylor Toronto. The man who showed up outside Barack Obama's home with a car full of guns and explosives. But even though Trump pardoned all those rioters for their January 6 related crimes, he did not pardon them for the other crimes they committed. And so even as Trump began firing DOJ officials and appointing his own loyalists to lead the agencies, prosecutors continue to pursue the case against Toronto related to his visit to former President Obama's home. And just this May, he was convicted on charges stemming from that incident that took place outside former President Obama's home. And believe it or not, his conviction was celebrated by none other than Trump's own hand picked U.S. attorney Jeanine Pirro in one of her very first press releases on the job. You can see it there on the screen. So everyone was basically in agreement. It seemed that way. Even though Trump had pardoned this guy for what he did on January 6, he was still criminally responsible for that second incident, making bomb threats and bringing firearms and explosives to the home of President Obama. Then prosecutors did what prosecutors are supposed to do. They drafted a sentencing memo explaining to the judge why Toronto should spend at least 27 months behind bars. And in that memo, they included these two short sentences about the man's criminal history. On January 6, 2021, thousands of people comprising a mob of rioters attacked the US Capitol while a joint session of Congress met to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. Toronto was accused of participating in the riot in Washington, D.C. by entering the U.S. capitol building. That was it. Just two short sentences that acknowledged the riot at the Capitol happened, that it was carried out by a mob of angry rioters, and that Toronto was. Was one of them. All factual details. There it is. By any objective standard, pretty relevant information for a criminal sentencing memo. But apparently, something about that memo set off officials in the Trump White House, because just hours after filing that sentencing memo today, the two prosecutors who wrote it were abruptly put on leave. The Trump administration then withdrew that sentencing memo, and they refiled a new one that not only removed all references to Trump posting Barack Obama's address online, a pretty pivotal key piece here, but also removed all the references to January 6th as well. So the circumstances here pretty clearly suggest that those two prosecutors are not only being punished for mentioning Trump's role in this case, they're being punished for accurately describing what happened on January 6th, which, of course, is absurd, given what we witnessed with our own eyes that day. I mean, if anything, describing the attackers as a mob of rioters is kind of an understatement. I mean, just a few years ago, members of Trump's very own party described the people who attacked the Capitol in much harsher terms. The first thing that stands out to me is how embarrassed and disgusted I am that the United States Capitol could be taken over by domestic terrorists.
- [07:07]
Vaughn Hilliard
I had a lot of anger as.
- [07:09]
Jonathan Karl
So many of my colleagues that the Capitol got overrun and these were anarchists and terrorists.
- [07:14]
Nicole Wallace
We are approaching a solemn anniversary this.
- [07:16]
Jonathan Karl
Week, and it is an anniversary of.
- [07:20]
Vaughn Hilliard
A violent terrorist attack on the Capitol.
- [07:24]
Jen Psaki
A violent terrorist attack. I mean, that was a year after January 6th. That was Ted Cruz. Of course, those were the words of Trump's allies. Maybe Trump is going to try to put those guys out of a job next. Once he realizes all of that, who knows? Because now even calling January 6th a riot appears to be enough to get career prosecutors placed on extended leave from their jobs. Look, all we know that Donald Trump would. We all knew, of course, that Donald Trump would be fixated on seeking revenge against any and all government officials who he deemed to be his enemies. Typically when people talk about Trump's retribution campaign, though, they talk about his pressure to bring criminal charges against people like Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey. People who are well known, who are in public roles or have been in the past. They talk about Jack Smith, who Trump said today should be investigated and put in prison. And those are definitely glaring examples, big ones of Trump's revenge tour. But Trump's retribution campaign goes far beyond just trying to get current and former public officials thrown in jail. I mean, Trump is deploying federal troops to the streets of Democratic led cities in what appears to be an attempt to punish voters in places where he got the least support. Just this week, he threatened to send troops into even more cities. And just tonight, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Pentagon is establishing a quick reaction force inside the National Guard so that Trump can deploy troops to any city he wants at any time. That is chilling. Trump has also used the shutdown fight to cancel infrastructure projects in Democratic congressional districts in order to punish even more people who didn't vote for him. Just last week, Trump approved disaster aid for three states he won in the last election, while denying disaster aid to three states he lost. Trump is engaging in a whole of government retribution campaign, basically using every lever of the federal government to target anyone in this country who he thinks is insufficiently loyal to him. That has been his goal ever since his first term in office, when he tried to do the same thing over and over, only to be stopped by some of the people around him. So Trump knew the only way he could carry out that campaign of retribution in his second term was by making sure that this time there was no one around to stand in his way. As Trump told Jonathan Karl for his new book, Retribution, quote, the difference between now and before is I know everybody now. And when I first came, I knew nobody. We had a lot of great people, but I didn't know people had to rely on recommendations. Now I know people. So it's good. There's a lot of meaning in that. We're going to talk about it. There are reasons that there is typically a lengthy vetting process for every person nominated to be in a president's cabinet or frankly to serve in senior White House roles. The first is of course, to make sure that there are no surprises during the confirmation process. But the more important process is determining whether they are up for doing the job. Trump ignored both of those criteria in favor of his own preferred test. Who was most likely to be loyal to him, who would be so indebted to him for nominating them that they would carry out virtually any order he gave. And that led to Trump assembling the most incompetent cabinet of sycophants in modern American history. Jonathan Karl's new book offers us a new window into how the heck this clown car of people ended up in Trump's cabinet. I mean, take for instance, Trump's appointment of Kristi Noem to be the head of Homeland Security. Carl writes, quote, noem had not been on the transition team's list of possible candidates and had not gone through vetting for the job. When a surprised Trump advisor asked the President Elect why he had decided to nominate Noem to be Secretary of Homeland Security, he had a simple answer. I did it for Corey, he said. It's the only thing Cory asked me for. Now, the Cory in that anecdote is almost certainly Corey Lewandowski, Trump's loyal first campaign manager, who is now best known, let's say, for his close relationship with Kristi Noem. I mean, the decision to nominate a completely unqualified loyalist like Noem was such a surprise that it even caught Trump's other former campaign manager off guard. Here's another part from Jonathan Karl's book. Quote, we still got the global war on terror. An exasperated Steve Bannon told me two days after Trump made the announcement. She runs the whole thing. She runs the effing Secret Service. It's all of it. It's the global war on terror. It's all that. What are you talking about? She's never been in law enforcement. I mean, all fact checked true by Steve Bannon there. And Noble's not the only appointment that caught people in Trump's orbit by surprise. I mean, here's another excerpt from Carl's book about the efforts to staff Trump's cabinet during the transition. Quote, A Cabinet finalist had been sitting in the Mar a Lago living room downstairs near a Fox News weekend anchor whom he assumed was in town conduct a television interview with Trump. Like the rest of the world, he was stunned to hear later that night that the President Elect would be nominating that Fox News weekend anchor Pete Hegseth to serve as Secretary of Defense. It's the same story with Trump's Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy. Here's what the book also says. Quote, Duffy had a colorful biography. In addition to his experience as a Fox News host, he had been a reality TV he had been on reality TV star on MTV's Real World, served four terms in the House of Representatives, won three Lumberjack World Championships and worked as a local prosecutor in Wisconsin and a lobbyist in Washington. But he had no relevant experience for the job. When Trump asked a friend of Duffy's if he knew anything about transportation, the friend answered, of course he does. He has nine kids. Moving a family that large around the friend joke requires at least some transportation expertise. There we go.
- [13:14]
Captain Dylan Blaha
Everyone.
- [13:14]
Jen Psaki
In other words, everyone knew at the time that Trump's Cabinet picks were not qualified for the jobs they had been given because they weren't chosen for their qualifications. They were chosen because they would be loyal foot soldiers in Trump's retribution campaign. Trump didn't want Cabinet secretaries. He wanted people who would always defer to him. Trump knew he could rely on Pete Hegseth to defend sending troops into Democratic led cities. He knew he could rely on Kristi Noem to defend deploying ice to those same cities and withholding disaster aid from blue states. He knew he could rely on Sean Duffy to defend canceling important infrastructure projects in Democratic congressional districts. And he knew he could rely on all of them to go out on television and defend any myriad of the crazy decisions he planned to make. And now Trump is using that unqualified Cabinet to carry out the campaign of vengeance that has motivated him since day one. So where does that retribution campaign go now? What grudges still motivate Trump? Who else will he target? And who is he listening to the most these days? It's always kind of rotating. I have just the person to ask. Jonathan Karl is one of the best reporters I know. He's the author of the new book Retribution, and he joins me in just 90 seconds.
- [14:27]
OnDeck Advertiser
Need to restock inventory, cover seasonal dips, or manage payroll. Ondeck's small business line of credit provides immediate access to funds up to $200,000 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 Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. At Maurices, we're all about great jeans. You know, the ones that fit you just right. The ones that go from work days to weekends and everywhere in between. The ones that simply make you feel good. Because you don't just wear jeans, you live in them. With 25 sizes, five lengths and six denim brands, you've got options and fit experts in every store to make Jean shopping easier, find great jeans starting at $29.90 in stores and at MAR.
- [15:28]
Jen Psaki
The connection between the guests on the show is the show. All that we do is put together people who are smart, people who are brave, people who are honest, and lots of times people who've never met each other to have a conversation that has never happened before. But on that day deepens everyone's understanding about the moment in which we gather.
- [15:50]
Nicole Wallace
Deadline White HOUSE with Nicole Wallace, weekdays from 4 to 6pm Eastern on MSNBC.
- [16:05]
Jen Psaki
As promised. Joining me now is Jonathan Karl. He's the chief Washington correspondent for ABC News and author of the new book Retribution, which is out now. I read quite a few of the different excerpts in there. We have a couple of more. But I just wanted to start by with some of the news today because a lot of it does feel like it's very much in this theme of retribution. I mean, something kind of happens every day that feels relevant to your book title. Actually today. And I just walked through this a little bit. We learned that two DOJ prosecutors were put on leave essentially for just accurately describing or that's what the reporting suggests, January 6th in a sentencing memo. And that the memo was then reissued tonight just in the last hour or two. And it took out reference to January 6th, took out reference to Trump posting Barack Obama's home address. One of the things I've been curious about, and you've been covering Trump so long you've written multiple books about him, is if you're in the White House right now, all these loyalists, these sycophants, are you waiting for his direction? Is this coming from his direction or is this, they are just, they know what he wants and so they're implementing it.
- [17:11]
Jonathan Karl
You have a push and pull of both of that. I mean, you clearly have people at the Justice Department, at the White House who are pushing this even in directions that Trump is not directing, you know, not directly.
- [17:23]
Jen Psaki
They're thinking he would like this decision line.
- [17:25]
Jonathan Karl
And then you have a situation like with the prosecution of Comey and Tish James, where he went beyond where his loyalists at the Department of Justice wanted to go. He went beyond even where Pam Bondi wanted to go. So you have, you have a little bit of each. But look, this is entirely different. When he came in the first time around, I'm glad you pointed out that quote, where he said, I didn't know anybody. He felt he needed people that had credentials, four star Marine general to be the secretary of health of Homeland Security. You know, John Kelly, four star retired Marine general to be at the Pentagon. Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of Exxon Mobil, to run the State Department. All of those people, in one way or the other, Trump felt betrayed him or didn't do what he wanted to be done. So those people are gone. Loyalty. It's loyalty is the number one, two and three criteria of what he's looking for.
- [18:19]
Jen Psaki
I was, you know, I oversaw the Cap war room with the confirmations team for Biden and Harris. It looks very quaint now. I mean, we were up till 1 and 2 in the morning going through hundreds of pages of vetting documents. There were hours of meetings and discussions. They all had to go through the wringer. And in your reporting, in your book, you talk about how the vetting process seemed to involve a couple of bullets on a screen and some photos to see if they sort of met the character description Trump was looking for. Was it more than that?
- [18:48]
Jonathan Karl
I mean, you know, they didn't have access to FBI background checks until late into December by their choosing. Own choosing. Absolutely. So they did have a team of lawyers that they hired to go through and do background checks and some pretty thorough background checks. The problem was that in many cases, the people that they were checking out were not the ones that Trump was choosing. So I really tried to burrow in. You know, I spent a lot of time. I was covering it in real time, but then I went back to try to talk to everybody I possibly could about what was really happening at Mar A Lago and how this process was unfolding. So I talked to people that were candidates, you know, for cabinet offices, to people that were involved in the vetting, to people that were close to Trump. And it is a wild scene. On the outside, it seemed much less drama than 2016. They were putting out nominees on a really regular basis, but inside, it was really Trump kind of going by his gut.
- [19:44]
Jen Psaki
We just read the excerpt from the book where Steve Bannon is reacting to Christine. No, I mean, there are a few people who are more loyal than Steve Bannon, and he's like, wait a second, it's global war on terror. Like, this person is not qualified.
- [19:54]
Jonathan Karl
The wild thing about that is Bannon doesn't blame Trump at all. He blames Cory. How could Cory do that? Why did Cory voice this on Trump? He doesn't blame. But of course, I mean, Trump's the one that did it.
- [20:03]
Jen Psaki
Let me ask you about Steve Bannon. He was one of the people you spoke with a lot for this book. It seems like he's been in and out of the orbit. He's clearly back in the orbit now. I mean, one of the stories you tell in this book is about his role leading up to that meeting that was crazy that we all watched of President Zelensky being dressed down in the Oval Office. Talk about that a little bit more and kind of what we don't understand, maybe, and what you've learned more about. About Bannon's role and things that maybe we didn't all suspect.
- [20:33]
Jonathan Karl
Yeah. So. And I went through and did a minute by minute accounting of this. But in short, fascinating scene. Days before Zelenskyy comes to town, Trump is meeting with the French Prime Minister, French President Macron, and he's got his national security team together after that meeting to talk about Zelenskyy coming later in the week. And they want him to sign this deal for. For Ukraine's minerals as a way to, like, pay back all the US they.
- [20:59]
Jen Psaki
Previewed it over the press.
- [21:01]
Jonathan Karl
Yeah, it was all ready to be signed, but Trump didn't like it. So he asks his national security adviser to get Bannon on the phone. And Mike Waltz calls Bannon. Bannon's in the middle of his show. You know, he's on television podcasts four hours a day. He's on air. So he puts it to voicemail. And then Trump says, no, no, and he calls him on his phone. So Trump calls him. Bannon has to take the call. And for the next half hour, Bannon, who Trump knew didn't like this securities deal at all, didn't want anything to do with supporting Ukraine in any way, is now lecturing the entire national security team, referring to Zelenskyy as that punk, saying, you cannot trust that punk. And if you give him. If you have a deal for his natural resources, they're gonna want security guarantees, and you can't do that. And it led to. I mean, it. You know, I mean, Bannon wasn't the sole driving force there, but he certainly set the tone for the meeting that happened in the Oval Office, which I.
- [21:56]
Jen Psaki
Still remember Marco Rubio looking like he was gonna sink into the couch. I don't know what was going through his mind with Bannon being more influential figure than I thought he was perhaps in this moment. I mean, he last week kind of mused about Trump continuing to serve another term. And there's all sorts of, obviously, constitutional limitations on that. Trump has sort of referenced that lightly himself. How seriously do you take that? I mean, you're a journalist, you host a Sunday program, you do a lot of reporting. How Are you seeing those comments, knowing his relationship?
- [22:28]
Jonathan Karl
Look, I don't think that the President is planning to run for a third term. You don't? I think he has the hats and he shows them off. Cuz he's trying to like, freak people out. He's trying to make Democrats troll Democrats. But the more it's talked about, the more it can gain traction. And I think that Bannon, by the way, is primarily doing it because he doesn't particularly like J.D. vance or Marco Rubio. And this freezes the field. If there's a possibility that Trump may try to run again, can either of those two come out and say, I'm starting an exploratory committee to run for president? So I think that Bannon is in part kind of like trying to freeze those guys out. But look, how does Trump leave office? How does he leave the spotlight to Republican candidates for president? How does he acknowledge the lame duckness of being the president while there's a primary going away? You remember the end of Barack Obama's term. I mean, the White House was a pretty deserted place in terms of media coverage. I mean, obviously there was a lot of work going on, but the attention was all on Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton and the primary campaign. I can't imagine Trump allowing that to happen.
- [23:40]
Jen Psaki
So you think overblown? Overblown.
- [23:42]
Jonathan Karl
He's not planning to do it. But I can't tell you when he finally says, okay, JD And Marco, have at it, we'll see.
- [23:50]
Jen Psaki
He clearly, I mean, Bannon clearly doesn't think highly of JD Vance, otherwise he would be talking about him and touting him. This has been my view all along.
- [23:59]
Jonathan Karl
And every time it comes up, he mentions Rubio's name first, by the way. You know, Trump always mentions Rubio's names first, by the way. I should say that. I'm told that Trump has said to friends of his close confidants, look, I'm not staying, I'm not staying. And he'll quiz them. Who do you think it should be? Should it be JD Or Marco? But you know, these things have a way to maybe get some momentum of their own. So I would watch it.
- [24:24]
Jen Psaki
If I'm asked, I may serve. You don't know Jonathan. Carl, it's a great book. It has so many stories in there, we scratched the surface. Thank you so much for being here.
- [24:32]
Jonathan Karl
Thank you for having me.
- [24:33]
Jen Psaki
Okay, we've got to take a very quick break, but coming up next, Senator Ben Ray Lujan was right in the middle of that today, and he joins me here. I'm going to play this clip. Go ahead.
- [24:41]
Jonathan Karl
13 times you voted no, 13 times you all just figured out 29 days.
- [24:49]
Jen Psaki
In that, oh, there might be some.
- [24:50]
Nicole Wallace
Consequences when you have to negotiate, when you hold power, when you're in the majority, you meet people. Maybe they've got an office around here to sit some people. And there's a White House. It's easy to get in. There's a big hole in it.
- [25:04]
Jen Psaki
That was something. Senator Van Ray Lujan. That was today. He joins me right here at the table. Coming up next.
- [25:14]
OnDeck Advertiser
OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, On Deck's loans up to $250,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star trustpilot reviews, On Deck deliver covers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes@ondeck.com depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by On Deck or Celtic Bank. On Deck does not lend to North Dakota. All loans and amount subject to lender approval. At Maurices, we're all about great jeans. You know, the ones that fit you just right, the ones that go from work days to weekends and everywhere in between. The ones that simply make you feel good because you don't just wear jeans, you live in them. With 25 sizes, five lengths and six, six denim brands, you've got options and fit experts in every store to make jean shopping easier. Find great jeans starting at $29.90 in stores and at Marisa's.com a big change.
- [26:13]
Jen Psaki
Is coming to this network. Not in the kinds of stories we tell or in our values. The only change is our name. Same mission, new name.
- [26:22]
Nicole Wallace
MSNBC becomes Ms. Now. November 15th.
- [26:32]
Jen Psaki
So we are on day 29 of the government shutdown, and essential government workers, from air traffic controllers to members of the military are not getting paid. And in less than 72 hours, more than 40 million Americans may go hungry because they're going to lose access to SNAP benefits. So there's plenty of urgency here. But negotiations on Capitol Hill remain at a standstill. So today, Senate Democrats, led by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, introduced a bill to ensure that SNAP benefits keep flowing throughout the shutdown by using a prepaid contingency fund that Trump is refusing to tap. But the Republican majority leader, John Thune, the guy who has the ability to determine what bills go to the floor, would not even entertain that idea. Instead, he did this.
- [27:16]
Jonathan Karl
Let me just point out, if I.
- [27:17]
Jen Psaki
Might that we are 29 days into a Democrat shutdown. And the senator from New Mexico was absolutely right. SNAP recipients shouldn't go without food.
- [27:32]
Jonathan Karl
People should be getting paid in this country.
- [27:35]
Jen Psaki
And we tried to do that 13 times. And you voted no. 13 times. This isn't a political game.
- [27:45]
Jonathan Karl
These are real people's lives that we're talking about. And you all have just figured out.
- [27:51]
Jen Psaki
29 days in that, oh, there might be some consequences.
- [27:54]
Jonathan Karl
13 times people over here voted to fund SNAP. 13 times they voted to fund WIC.
- [28:04]
Jen Psaki
My Akin back quite the performance there. I mean, remember, a big issue here is his refusal, Trump's refusal, Mike Johnson's refusal to extend health care subsidies to the that health care costs won't skyrocket for millions of Americans. But what Thune also failed to mention there, though, is the fact that Republicans are currently in the majority. And as the majority, it is incumbent upon them to lead and to lead negotiations. So in direct response to Thune's outburst, Democratic Senator Loujan did his best to remind Republicans of that responsibility.
- [28:38]
Nicole Wallace
When you have to negotiate, when you hold power, when you're the majority, you meet people. Maybe they've got an office around here to sit some people, and there's a White House. It's easy to get in. There's a big hole in it. President Trump said not long ago that if there's a shutdown, it's up to presidents to bring people together to prevent it. And if there's a shutdown, it does not bode well for the President of the United States of America. He's absolutely right.
- [29:05]
Jen Psaki
Joining me now is Democratic Senator Ben Ray Lujan, who you just saw there in that clip. Let me just start. I tried to explain it to everybody. Tell us what the heck happened on the Senate floor today.
- [29:15]
Nicole Wallace
Well, Jen, we were simply going down to the floor to offer the legislation and say, hey, we're going to ask for something called unanimous consent, which means if no one objects to whatever the bill is, it just comes straight to the floor. So I went down to have this conversation with a Republican colleague. I didn't know which one it was going to be. And then it was Leader Thune that took the mic there. And I've not seen this kind of energy at this level, I don't think ever. And we saw what happened. But look, in the end, that kind of energy is what's needed to actually solve the problem. So maybe it can be directed in a good way. And while I authored this piece of legislation to say we're going to pay this program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which has never lapsed in the history of the United States. President Trump found the money during his first term from the same contingency fund that Secretary Rollins is now saying she's not going to tax. And by the way, the United States Department of Agriculture actually pulled down the document that said that we would pay this. It's not just my bill. A Republican colleague from Missouri has authored the same bill and he has himself and 10 other Republicans that are co sponsors already allowed this bill to come to the floor. And by the way, Mr. President, if you don't want this bill, if Leader Thune doesn't want this bill, all the president has to do is tap into the contingency fund and make sure that people can easily not in the United States of America, should people go hungry. I mean, it's just absolutely disgusting what's happening right now.
- [30:43]
Jen Psaki
It is disgusting. And you were telling me, I know you brought this up at a committee hearing on the Agriculture Committee, that it's not just the contingency fund. There's other funding that they could tap into and they are refusing to tap into to solve this problem.
- [30:56]
Nicole Wallace
So, Jen, I was part of a news conference earlier in the day as well, and one of the journalists suggested, well, 5 billion is not enough to pay for the program. She's correct. 5 billion is not enough. It's going to cost more. Well, it turns out there's another $23 billion program that is from tariffs, chapter 32. Section 32 is what was jumping out at me right now. But those funds can be transferred into the food programs. It's already allowed. There's statute that allows it. And by the way, that document that I shared earlier that was taken down from the USDA website just a couple weeks ago, justified how to do this. And now they're hiding it and lying to the American people saying they can't. And they're even pulling Speaker Johnson into this, who's sharing the same lies to the American people that they can't do it. They absolutely can, full stop. That's factual. No one can refute that.
- [31:47]
Jen Psaki
They could also do negotiations. I mean, and I don't want to be too Pollyannaish about this, but I wanted to ask you, I mean, Thune also told Politico that he expects to meet pretty soon. Now, we don't know when that is. It hasn't been scheduled with a group of rank and file Senate Democrats. Have you heard anything about that? Are you part of that? Nothing been scheduled.
- [32:05]
Nicole Wallace
Scheduled. I've not heard about it. There's a couple rumors that we're hearing from some journalists that have been asking questions, but I've not heard about it. As a matter of fact, during my little conversation on the floor, that we can call it that, Leader Thune suggested that there was going to be some meetings soon. But I'm not one of the folks that have heard about it, and I'm willing to work with anyone when it comes to making a difference in the lives of people across New Mexico. My door is open. But if you want to mess with my constituents, you want to be a bully, we're going to square off.
- [32:36]
Jen Psaki
I love to hear that. If there is something to be a bully about, it's people going hungry in this country. So thank you for doing what you did today. Powerful to watch. I have not seen Senator Thune that mad, and it was mad for the wrong reasons. I'll just note. Senator Ben Ray Lujan, thank you so much for being here.
- [32:49]
Nicole Wallace
Thanks for having me. Thanks for talking about this.
- [32:51]
Jen Psaki
Of course. Coming up, we're going to turn back to some alarming breaking news. The Pentagon has ordered that National Guard to create quick reaction forces in every single state by January. And after the break, I'm going to talk to a National Guardsman in Illinois who has said he will refuse orders to deploy to Chicago. It's very powerful. We'll be right back. So today we got two huge pieces of news about how Trump, Trump is planning to use the National Guard. Tonight, multiple outlets broke the news that the Pentagon has ordered the National Guard to establish, quote, quick reaction forces to respond to riots and civil unrest. This is completely a crazy thing that they're doing. I'll just note, according to internal Defense Department memos, the plan is for as many as 500 troops in every state or territory to be trained and ready to deploy inside the US on short notice. Now, all across the country, you've already seen Trump send the National Guard, often against the will of state and local, local leadership into American cities. Again and again, we've seen the Trump administration claim that these forces are responding to riots or crime or civil unrest, while local leadership and reporters on the ground deny those claims. This new order, which set the stage for Trump to be able to call for that kind of a military force on any American street in any part of the country at any time, that's what this does, effectively giving Trump his own domestic military police force, which sounds like it's kind of the point. And that news comes the same day that we got news out of the Supreme Court, which is deciding whether or not a federal court in Chicago can bar Trump from deploying the National Guard in Illinois. Today, the Supreme Court punted on that decision, saying they need more time and more information before they can decide. For the moment, that means the National Guard is still barred from deploying in Illinois. But this case has implications far beyond just Chicago, though. It's going to set a precedent as to whether or not federal courts anywhere can stop Trump from unilaterally federalizing and deploying National Guard troops in any state. A precedent that these new quick reaction forces would make all the more important. My next guest, Captain Dylan Blaha, is a National Guard member from Illinois who has come out and said publicly that he will not deploy to the streets of Chicago even if the courts rule. Trump can order him to, saying, quote, I did not raise my right hand to be used as a pawn and activated against my community. Incredibly powerful. But not only is Captain Plaha saying he would refuse orders to deploy, which could result in being court martialed, imprisoned, or given a felony level discharge from the military, he's also running for Congress, trying to win elected office and use it to fight back. Joining me now is Illinois Army National Guard Captain Dylan Blaha. He is also a Democratic candidate running for Congress in Illinois's 13th district. This is incredibly powerful and I just want to note, not an easy thing to do, what you're doing on all levels. So let me just start by getting your reaction, which I tried to outline there, to this breaking news we've been following about the Pentagon ordering the National Guard to create quick reaction forces in every state. By January, it's going to be 500 soldiers in each, every state. That's what the reporting suggests. Assigned to deploy on short notice to respond to civil unrest. What do you make of that news? What do you think the goal of that is, Jan?
- [36:15]
Captain Dylan Blaha
I, I think it's hard because ultimately we're seeing an increased militarization of our American cities in a time when we don't need it. People are, people are struggling economically and what they need is, is relief from that. And crime is down in a lot of these major cities. D.C. is at a 30 year low. Chicago is at a 5 year low. And, and this is ultimately just a power grab, which is the reason why I spoke up in the first place.
- [36:49]
Jen Psaki
You told CBS News this week you would refuse orders to deploy to Chicago as part of their immigration enforcement there. Tell me more about how you arrived at that decision and what made you decide to speak out at this moment.
- [37:02]
Captain Dylan Blaha
Yeah. So When Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles in June, that was later deemed unlawful. And so it, it felt wrong even when it happened. But that was even more validation that this is not okay. And courts have ruled that it is illegal. It violates the Post Accommodatus act to use the National Guard as a law enforcement force when they're federalized under Title 10. And so ultimately, it's just, it's something we don't need in our communities. And, and like I said, said in previous articles, I will not be activated to go against my community.
- [37:39]
Jen Psaki
One other thing you've given voice to which I think there's not enough attention paid to, is the impact on National Guard members of the National Guard. You said that Guard members currently mobilized in Illinois don't want to be there and that they are scared. This is not what they're trained for. They obviously feel they have to follow orders, the overwhelming majority of them. But. But tell us more about what you've heard from Guard members and why they may be afraid.
- [38:04]
Captain Dylan Blaha
Yeah, so I've had a lot of members reach out to me in private, especially I had a couple of viral videos where I also asked members to disobey any future unlawful orders under Article 92 of UCMJ. And they're scared. They have messaged me asking me for advice on what to do if their call called to deploy. And I always tell them, don't go against the American people and don't do anything that you know for certain is unlawful. But it is hard because the illegality is always determined after the fact by a court of law.
- [38:44]
Jen Psaki
What you're doing, as I already noted, is not easy. It's not without risk. I mean, your security clearance has been pulled following a video you put out urging service members to not follow illegal orders. If you were to be called up as a member of the National Guard and then refused orders, you could possibly face court martial, imprisonment, or felony level discharge. I mean, are you scared? Are you worried about further retaliation personally from this administration?
- [39:12]
Captain Dylan Blaha
I think right now I'm just focused on the importance of speaking up and being an example for others. I raised my right hand to defend the Constitution and the American people. And so right now I feel like speaking out is the right thing to do, especially with the rising authoritarianism in our country.
- [39:32]
Jen Psaki
It's incredibly powerful. Everybody can use their voice, some at greater risk than others. But I appreciate you using yours and being here with us tonight. Captain Dylan Blaha, thank you again for joining us.
- [39:43]
Captain Dylan Blaha
Thanks, Jen.
- [39:45]
Jen Psaki
Coming up, Donald Trump is about to meet with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and he decided to use that moment to announce the US Will begin immediately testing nuclear weapons. So we'll get a live report from South Korea next. In just a few minutes, Donald Trump will meet with Chinese leader Xi Jinping and South Korea to try to once again put out a fire that he himself started. It's always how it goes. Remember, Trump has spent months plunging this country into a trade war with China. He has sent prices sky high. With inflation now at its highest mark since January, soybean farmers have taken a major hit as China stopped buying from the US in response to Trump's tariffs. And while the White House announced it's agreed to the framework of a deal with China to avoid more tariffs, it doesn't do much more than basically bring back the status quo from before Trump took office. Congratulations on that. Donald Trump, of course, decided to use this moment, why not to announce to the world that the US Will immediately begin testing nuclear weapons. Vaughn Hilliard is live for us on the ground in Busan, South Korea, where the meeting is about to take place. Okay, Vaughn, you wrote a great piece today about all of this. There's a meeting with the Chinese leader. There's some crazy economic attempts at coercion going on, an announcement about nuclear weapons testing. What the heck is going on in South Korea right now?
- [41:14]
Vaughn Hilliard
Right. We actually saw just President Trump a few moments ago enter the Busan International Airport, where he is set to meet with President Xi, whose aircraft just arrived on the tarmac here. The stakes of this meeting are incredibly high, in large part Due to, in 2025, President Trump's ardent refusal to back away from the escalatory measures that he has taken repeatedly since coming back here into office. You know, if you look at the trading partners that President Trump has put, slapped massive tariffs on, just take South Korea, for example. Over the summer, he put a 25% tariff on our sixth largest trading partner in South Korea and an important geopolitical ally. In exchange for lowering that tariff to 15% over the weekend, South Korea committed $200 billion in cash, cash to the United States to get IT down to 15% tariff rate. But what you are now looking at here is President Trump, who back in February increased tariffs on China, and that led to China in turn putting restrictions on critical and rare earth minerals that are used in key technologies like clean vehicles, computers, cell phones, jets. This was a decision by China in response to the increased tariff tariffs by the Trump administration. And in response to that, the president then increased tariffs up to 145% on China. But that did not cause China to fold. Instead, they placed 125% tariffs in retaliatory nature on the United States products. And I think that this is really where we fast forward to this moment. We have not seen China effectively fold or make any concessions to the Trump administration since the beginning of this Trump 2.0 trade war. And it calls into question exactly what the president intends to get out of this meeting here with President Xi. He suggested that it could take three to four hours. We know that the President has a 55% current tariff rate. He suggested he may take that down to anywhere to 45%. That is still very high. He's looking for China to commit to buying US agricultural products. It had been doing that prior to 2025. 5 But he also has suggested that there is a potential tick tock finalization deal in the line that needs the approval of President Xi effectively to hand over TikTok to a majority of American investors and give the China backed company ByteDance at just a 20% equity share in the new US venture. And when you look at the situation of Taiwan, the Chinese embassy, an official telling us that President Xi does intend to ask President Trump about his position on Taiwan. Taiwan. He has not explicitly said that he would stand by the independence of Taiwan if there were to be an incursion by the Chinese. And so I think there's a lot of questions here that we are looking at. But exactly what kind of concessions is the American president going to get? It's not clear because again, when you go back to those rare earth minerals, Jen, it was the Trump administration's initial tariffs that led to greater export controls being placed on those products. Of course, just more than 90% of rare earth minerals are produced and bind in China here. So I think that there is a lot of questions about the deliverables here coming out of this meeting.
- [44:23]
Jen Psaki
A lot of questions may go back to the status quo, I suggest. I suspect that's probably why he put out this crazy statement about testing nuclear weapons. Vaughn Hilliard, thank you so much. We've got to sneak in a quick break. We'll be right back. 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.
- [44:49]
Nicole Wallace
MSNBC presents the chart topping original podcast the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Each week Nicole speaks with some of the people who inspire her the most. This week she sits down with Illinois Governor J.B. pritzker.
- [45:03]
Jonathan Karl
People need to step up, speak up, speak out. Grab a megaphone, a microphone, you know, soapbox and get to the ballot.
- [45:10]
Nicole Wallace
The best people with Nicole Wallace, listen now, wherever you get your podcast.