← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
TRUMP'S GRIP SLIPS: Signs Republicans are finding less value in siding with Trump over constituents
00:41:01
Jen Psaki points to the rare sight of Republicans daring to defy Donald Trump. And while it's only a few, that defiance is exposing the weakness behind Trump's bluster and threatens to spread at Trump's popularity with voters continues to fall.
Loading summary
Transcript45 lines
- [00:01]
Nicole Wallace
MSNBC presents the chart topping original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week she sits down with political commentator Tim Miller.
- [00:11]
Tim Miller
Another way of saying I care about you is by saying like I'm gonna fight the things that are preventing you from living the kind of life that.
- [00:17]
Nicole Wallace
You wish the best. People with Nicole Wallace. Listen now. For early access, ad free listening and bonus content, subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Why is this happening? Name, justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddows original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [01:01]
Jen Psaki
So it's no secret that Donald Trump loves aligning himself with other aspiring dictators around the world. He loves these guys. It's kind of his favorite people. And one of his favorite buddies has always been this guy, former Brazilian President Bolsonaro. You see him? They're right there. Trump and Bolsonaro share similar bombastic styles. They both love to attack the media and they both seem to respond the same way when they lose legitimate democratic elections. I mean, when Bolsonaro lost his bid for reelection in Brazil, his far right supporters stormed Brazil's Congress trying to overturn the results of that election. Fortunately, sounds familiar, of course, because Trump's failed coup happened on January 6, 2021. Now Bolsonaro's happened on January 8, just two years later. But unlike our country, Brazil actually managed to put their strongman ex president on trial for his failed coup attempt. And Trump has been particularly irked by that. Very irked to see one of his BFFs face consequences for his actions. So today, Trump signed an order imposing steep new 50% tariffs on the nation of Brazil as retribution for what he calls the witch hunt trial of his friend Bolsonaro. He loves the term witch hunt. He's demanded that Brazil's justice system drop its case against Bolsonaro. And today, the current leader of Brazil, President Silva, responded to Trump in an interview with the New York Times. And he made it quite clear that he would not be backing down. Here's part of what he said. Quote, maybe Trump doesn't know that here in Brazil, the judiciary is independent. The democratic state of law for us is a sacred thing because we have already lived through dictatorships and we don't want Any more. Tell us how you really feel now. Over the last six months, though, this is the point. We've seen countless countries and institutions and media organizations bow down to Trump in the face of pressure. This happens more often than what President Da Silva just did. And that has been frustrating, maddening, disheartening, all of the things to watch. But more and more, we're also seeing people realize what Brazil's president has long seemed to understand. Donald Trump is kind of a paper tiger. He's not as powerful as he thinks he is. And we're even starting to see some members of Trump's own party come around to this reality. Now, to be clear, I'm not about to give any elected Republican a Profile in Courage award, nor do I think that Trump has completely lost his hold on the Republican Party. Not at all. I mean, just yesterday, Senate Republicans voted to give Trump's former personal attorney, that guy Emil Bovey, a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. But for a long time, Republicans in Congress have operated under the assumption that they would pay a big political price for opposing Trump on anything, any tiny thing at all. Oppose Trump and his voters will oppose you. That's been the logic. But now it seems like some Republicans are starting to think that the wrath they will face for opposing Trump really isn't that bad. Or maybe, and this is part of their calculation, it's just not as bad as supporting or opposing the thing he wants them to support or oppose. Consider what happened today in the United States Senate. Right now, Democrats are pushing to ban federal elected officials from buying and trading stocks while in office. It's exactly the kind of anti corruption legislation that Trump and his allies really hate for all of the reasons. You know, we're going to talk with Senator Elizabeth Warren about this effort later this hour. She's been a big advocate about this for a long time now. Trump allies like Florida Senator Rick Scott, though, have worked hard to kill the legislation. He's not even the only one. But today, in a committee meeting on this measure, Republican Senator Josh Hawley made clear that maybe it wasn't in his interest to just go along entirely with what the Trump team wanted this time.
- [04:46]
Elizabeth Warren
When I got elected, I sold all of my trusts and estates. I don't have a blind trust. I don't have. I practice what I preach. I don't have individual stocks. I don't trade in stocks. I'm not a billionaire. Unlike others on this committee, you made.
- [05:00]
Jen Psaki
A reference to billionaires. Okay. I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money. But somehow if you've made monies, you're supposedly, I think Senator Hawley suggests you shouldn't be serving anybody. Want to be poor, I don't. This is an attack against the President. Attack against the Vice President, that's what this is. I mean, did you notice the body language in there? Very chilly in there among those Republican senators. I would just note here, cuz it's worth knowing and you may already know this, Senator Rick Scott is one of the richest members of Congress in part after making an absolute fortune as the CEO of a health care company that was accused of getting defrauding Medicare and fined over a billion dollars. What was at the time the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history. That's that guy. That might help explain why he's so adamantly against this anti corruption bill. This might help explain it. But all of Rick Scott's protestations and invocations of the President did not work to sway his colleague. At the end of the meeting, Senator Hawley voted with Democrats to advance that ban on stock trading. And I'm not saying any of this to praise Senator Hawley, Lord knows, believe me. But it's very clear that on this issue he's making a calculation that it's in his interest to distance himself from the corrupt billionaires in his party instead of going along with them. Now, shortly after that, Donald Trump responded to Josh Hawley's apostasy exactly how you would expect. He wrote an angry post on his social media site saying, quote, I don't think real Republicans want to see their president who has had unprecedented success targeted because, because of the whims of a second tier senator named Josh Hawley, exclamation point, of course. Now this post, I will admit I'm not a big defender of Josh Hawley. It did weaken his spine quite a bit when he was asked about it. He basically bent himself into a pretzel saying he had not spoken with Trump and he was willing to make changes to the bill in order to gain Trump's support. So there's that. But the point is this, at least for now, he still voted with Democrats in favor of this bill. And it's not like Trump's online bullying campaign is particularly well thought out at all. I mean, in fact, his social media temper tantrums have become so erratic that even the senators who do go along with his agenda are still waking up to all cap screeds from the leader of their party. I mean, take poor Senator Chuck Grassley. He learned that lesson the hard way this morning. For years he has been cultivating a reputation as a senator who really cares about whistleblowers, which is becoming kind of awkward for him. We talked about this last night, but last night he ignored not one, not two, but three credible whistleblowers in order to jam through the nomination of Trump's former personal attorney for a lifetime position as a federal appeals judge. Now, today, and I love this detail, also happens to be National Whistleblower Day. Of course it is. And when Senator Grassley, after ignoring the whistleblowers last night, decided it was wise to try to mark the equation the occasion of National Whistleblower Day with a tweet, he was immediately met. Of course, he was with a barrage of criticism calling out his hypocrisy. But here's the thing. Chuck Grassley throwing away his reputation as a defender of whistleblowers wasn't enough to make Trump happy. And by this morning, Trump was already attacking Grassley for not supporting him on yet another issue before the Senate. The lesson here is that no amount of fealty will ever be enough for Trump. No amount. At some point, it is in the Republicans best interest to just ignore him and listen to their voters. That basic political truth has eluded them for years and is still eluding most of them. But some of them are starting to reckon with it. And the issue that seems to have brought them to this point is, of all things, Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, for weeks, Republicans have been caught between Trump's desire to make the Epstein story go away and their own voters demanding that more information be brought to light. It was just last week that three die hard MAGA Republicans broke with Trump and voted to subpoena the Epstein files. Right now, the Trump, loyal chair of the House Oversight Committee, still has not signed that subpoena and will not say why. But the momentum around this issue is not slowing down. Today, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he would be invoking an obscure Senate rule to try and force the Justice Department to release the Epstein files.
- [09:34]
Nicole Wallace
Today, Senate Democrats took action. We're invoking federal law and using our authority as a check on the executive to compel transparency. It's not a stunt, it's not symbolic. It's a formal exercise of congressional power under federal law. And we expect an answer from DOJ by August 15th.
- [09:55]
Jen Psaki
Now, it's not entirely clear, we don't know what will happen, that this latest tactic will be the thing that finally forces the release of the Epstein files to the. But what is clear is that these efforts are not slowing down. Each of these measures is a new test for Republicans. They may not be on the verge of abandoning their president. Most of them will probably never even criticize him publicly. But some of them are starting to test what it means to defy him, to take votes that he doesn't like, demand documents he doesn't want them to have. And whether they realize it or not, that nascent defiance is showing just how much of a paper tiger Trump is really is. Senator Gary Peters is at the helm of this latest effort to obtain the Epstein files, and he joins me here in just 90 seconds.
- [10:42]
Nicole Wallace
Saturday, October 11th. From New York City, it's MSNBC Live 25. Join your favorite MSNBC hosts, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Nicole Wallace, Ari Melber, Alicia Menendez, Simone Sanders Townsend, Michael Steele, Chris Haynes, jen Psaki, Lawrence O', Donnell, Stephanie Rule, and more. Visit msnbc.comlive25 to buy your tickets today.
- [11:20]
Jen Psaki
Joining us now is Michigan Democratic Senator Gary Peters. He's the top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and he, along with every other Democrat on that committee, signed a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi demanding the Justice Department release all documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. Thank you for joining me. I know there's some votes happening tonight as well, so we really appreciate you taking the time. Okay. So this is not just a letter. I highlighted it and everything as well, but it's not just a letter. You're invoking a little used federal law in an effort to get access to the Epstein files. And tell us more about how you can use that law. And what are you specifically asking for, which is outlined in here, but so people watching understand.
- [12:00]
Tim Miller
I'd be happy to, Jen, thanks for having me on.
- [12:03]
Elizabeth Warren
Yeah.
- [12:03]
Tim Miller
We're using a law that was actually put on the books back in 1928, and it gave just one committee in the Senate, which was the Government Affairs Committee, which is now Homeland Security and Government affairs, the committee in which I am the ranking member of the ability to get information from the administration. If five members sign a letter from the committee requesting documents from the administration, by law, they need to provide it to those members. So the letter that you're holding there asks for basically the files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. We know those documents exist. We know the attorney general said that they were sitting on her desk. So it should not be a big effort to actually put those all together and send them to us. And now it's this is based on law. They have to provide it. We're going to Give them some time to be able to do it in the next two or three weeks. But if they don't, this is another. Will be another indication of the Trump administration just flaunting the law and not abiding by the law that is on the books.
- [13:13]
Jen Psaki
So walk us through, because a lot of people, the overwhelming majority of the public of both parties want access to these files, think they should be released as long as there was respect and honor for the victims involved here. The letter sets a date of August 15th to turn over the documents, as you said, just in a couple of weeks from now. Is that set by law? That's the date that you gave them as your own deadline. So what happens if they don't provide them by that point?
- [13:39]
Tim Miller
Yeah, that's, that's our deadline. We wanted to give them time. And that's the, the normal request when you go to administration, and you know this very well from your work, that you give some time to work with the administration and figure out a time. Oftentimes those deadlines go, go longer, but at least you get involved in conversations. So we want to see if there's even any sign of possible good faith on the part of the attorney General to release these documents. I'll be perfectly frank. I'm not expecting that based on her behavior and the fact that Donald Trump is clearly, clearly trying to hide something here. In fact, we have Republicans who've said, said openly on the record that right now they are just covering, covering, quote, covering for President Trump. So we'll give that, but then we'll continue to work. I'm going to work with the chairman of the committee, which is Rand Paul. You know, he is constantly saying that he wants to do everything to bring transparency and accountability. And I'll go to Rand and say, rand, you've got an awful lot of people here in the committee, and we've evoked a part of federal law to require the production of these documents, should we take it to the next step and if he'd be willing to take it to the next step. So, you know, I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves. First, let's hope the administration does what is required by law for them to do. Again, this administration has been pretty lawless, but we're going to continue to take every legal option we can take.
- [15:03]
Jen Psaki
Sure. And as you said, you don't expect they haven't been fully transparent, this current administration at all. So you're planning for a range of different scenarios, which you should be doing in the House as you. Well, know, and I just talked about this. There's a surprising group of strange bedfellows, shall we call them, who work together to vote to subpoena the Epstein files. Now, James Comer hasn't signed that yet. He hasn't said why. Do you think there could be a move or are those the type of conversations that you're having with people like Chairman Paul and other Republicans who have been, as you've said, quite vocal about wanting this information to be released?
- [15:39]
Tim Miller
Yeah, those are definitely the conversations that we're having. Certainly they're not, I'll be perfectly honest, they're not that open to it, but at least they will have the conversation. And certainly it's always good in a sense, civil way to point out some hypocrisy if you want transparency. Here's a classic example and you have a president who said he would release these files over and over again. So we're just saying hold your promises, do what you promise to the American people that you will provide these, these documents. But I think, you know, part of it is my Republican colleagues have to get pressure from the folks back home, people that say, why are you not releasing these? We were told by the president that these would be released when he came into office. He hasn't, you know, get this information. I think it puts a lot of my Republican colleagues, and we're seeing that across the country, put in a very uncomfortable position. We just got to keep making life uncomfortable for him.
- [16:36]
Jen Psaki
Yeah, it's interesting because House members are getting some of that, but it'll be interesting to see if some of your Republican Senate colleagues get it. Let me ask you while I have you, because I think there's so many dates and news pieces that are moving in this storyline every day. And the Supreme Court today officially set a date of September 29 for a private hearing to consider whether it will review Ghislaine Maxwell's petition to overturn her sex trafficking conviction. Now it takes four justices to agree in order to grant a review. What are you expecting, anticipating? I know you're not a naive person about the conservative leaning court, but what do you think in this case could happen?
- [17:14]
Tim Miller
Well, I'm really concerned about that. You know, I don't believe that she could be a credible witness here. She's going to say anything that will get her out of jail. And she knows that what she has to do is basically cover for Donald Trump if indeed he's in those files. So, you know, she has no credibility. And I think if, if you really want to be transparent let's have transparency with the meetings that they have had with her to get a better sense of, of what she is saying and what, why she wants to provide this information. So, you know, I think we've got to have the documents. We got to have something that we can actually verify, the documents if they're there. President Trump keeps saying that they were there and he was going to release them. We have Attorney General Bondi saying they were on her desk. So everybody is saying they're there until now. They're saying there's nothing to see there. It makes no sense. And I have senators saying they're covering for him. Let's get the documents. Let's see things that we can actually verify are actually real, as opposed to offering a free get out of jail card to someone if they make potentially false statements and just to get out of jail.
- [18:19]
Jen Psaki
Yeah, never mind. She is a sexual predator herself who and many victims are suffering and reliving the trauma seeing her ask for this. Senator Gary Peters, thank you so much for taking the time. Really appreciate it. We all learned something about laws today, so that's always a good thing when you've been in Washington a long time. Really appreciate it. Okay, up next, a lot happened today. Trump's treasury secretary also said the quiet part out loud about the future of Social Security. I'm gonna play that for you. Senator Elizabeth Warren joins me to talk about it right after a quick break.
- [18:56]
Nicole Wallace
Saturday, October 11th, from New York City, it's MSNBC Live 25. Join your favorite MSNBC hosts, Br Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Nicole Wallace, Ari Melber, Alicia Menendez, Simone Sanders Townsend, Michael Steele, Chris Haynes, jen Psaki, Lawrence O', Donnell, Stephanie Rule and more. Visit msnbc.comlive25 to buy your tickets. Today.
- [19:30]
Jen Psaki
Within Donald Trump's big ugly bill is the creation of a new savings plan for children with the MAGA Friend account. Yes, that name is baked into the law, is what it is. Now, their overall idea isn't radically new. Similar ideas have been proposed by Democrats before, by Republicans before. And this new program functions, functions essentially like individual retirement accounts with a few complicated rules. And they come with a $1,000 initial deposit from the federal government for children born between January 1, 2025 and December 31, 2028. So and then parents can contribute up to $5,000 a year in tax deferred contributions to the account and until the child turns 18. But take a look or take a listen. Not just a look. Take a listen to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant talking about the new Trump accounts at an event hosted by right wing news outlet Breitbart.
- [20:22]
Tim Miller
In a way, it is a backdoor for privatizing Social Security. Social Security is a defined benefit plan paid out. That to the extent that if all of a sudden these accounts grow and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, then that's a game changer, too.
- [20:45]
Jen Psaki
I don't know if he practiced that line, if somebody wrote him that line, but he just said it's a backdoor for privatizing Social Security, which sounds like what someone sounds like when they say the quiet part out loud. Joining me now is Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat from Massachusetts. Senator, great to see you. I know there are votes tonight. Thank you for taking. Sometimes I just want to say, and unfortunately, this is Evergreen during this moment. Secretary, why did you, why are you saying that out loud? Mr. Secretary, what did you make? You are so familiar with retirement accounts. What is good, what is bad for families and of course, the impact of privatizing Social Security, even if it's a backdoor way. What did you make of what the secretary said today?
- [21:30]
Bill Nye
Well, so the secretary is just reiterating what Republicans have been saying for years and years and years, years. They want to privatize Social Security. They want their buddies on Wall street to be able to get their hands on your retirement, and they want to take away the retirement that Americans earn out of their paychecks every single week. Every single paycheck. And look, it's just another Trump scam. As you pointed out, this initial boost is only for three years. And basically it's only for families that can afford to put $5,000 into a kid's account every year. The bottom line, I just say this every chance I get about Social Security. Social Security is not charity. Social Security is something people earn by making their contributions. And it becomes a solemn contract between the worker, the person who paid in, and the government. And we have to continue to honor that. And we're just not going to let the Republicans continue to chip away at it. That's what they're gonna try to do. That's why we fight them.
- [22:42]
Jen Psaki
Absolutely. It is not an entitlement. People pay into it. It's their money. There's so much economic news. I'm always so grateful to talk to you about so many things. But let me ask you, there have been a lot of developments on a ban on stock trading by members of Congress today, something you have long been advocating for. I may not get everything. So let me get a Few of the things that happen. So Republican Senator Josh Hawley voted for a new bill to that effect along with the Democrats on the committee. But he says he's open to amending it to get Trump support. We don't entirely know what that means. There's an extended couple years of implementation for presidents and vice presidents. What do you think of the bill that passed the committee today?
- [23:23]
Bill Nye
So it's a good bill because basically it deals with a real problem around here. And let's look at it this way. No one in this country should wonder whether or not their senator, their representative, or their president. President is making a decision that is good for the country or maybe just good for their own private pocketbook. We get a lot of insider information around here and a lot of capacity to affect outcomes, and that's true for senators, for representatives, and for the president and vice president. So this bill says, hey, you don't get to trade. Now. It's got a little bit of a slope on how it comes in and so on, on timing. But the basic idea behind it is long overdue. It's a good, solid bill.
- [24:14]
Jen Psaki
I think for a lot of people watching, they probably wonder, how can people trade stocks who are in Congress or their spouses? That is a separate question. So one of the things I've been talking about a little bit on this show, and Holly's a good example of this, is how there are some members. We don't have to give them profiles and courage, but they realize that their constituents, the people they represent, don't want them to align with billionaires. Don't want them to align. I mean, no kidding. You've been saying this for many, many years now. Senate Majority Leader John Thune basically said he doesn't plan to bring the bill to the floor because only one Republican voted for it. But I'm wondering, I mean, you're not whipping votes in the Republican Party, but do you think is your sense from talking to members that there could be more support in the caucus writ large for something like this beyond Hawley? I think there probably is. But what do you think?
- [25:04]
Bill Nye
Oh, I think there is. Look, I've been reaching out to Republicans literally for years now, and we've never actually landed a bill that we could get onto the floor and get passed. But there are Republicans who are interested in this. And this is because it is driven from people back home who just say, what the hell, guys, here you are. You get the first look at the information and you get to influence markets and companies and make lots and lots of Policy decisions that can drive the value of stock up or drive the value of stock down. I just. Nobody around the country wants to be wondering what exactly is in your mind when you make those decisions. And look, for me, this is what public service is all about. I get it. There are people who want to trade stocks. They say that's an important part of protecting my future, my family. That's fine. Don't run for elective office, then don't be in public service. But if you want to be in public service, if you want to represent the people of the good Commonwealth of Massachusetts or your home state or you want to represent the whole country, then yeah, sometimes there is a little. You got to manage your own personal life differently. And that means not buying stock, not selling stock, not holding stock, not trading in stock stock. You got to say that that is not for you. You want to be in the stock market, then get in the big mutual funds, get in those. But don't get in individual stocks and don't trade those stocks that you can influence.
- [26:44]
Jen Psaki
Very Makes sense. I really want to ask you about this because we don't always have bipartisan news here. Right. Good bipartisan news. And you've been working on this proposed housing package with Republican South Carolina Senator Tim Scott. The cost of housing is, I don't have to tell you, but one of the most pressing questions in the overall conversation about affordability. What would this legislation do to help people?
- [27:09]
Bill Nye
Okay, so first understand the problem. You know, we've been standing around for the last 40 years talking about, wow, how expensive housing is getting and the cost just keeps going up. And frankly here in Washington, we don't do anything very differently about that. The problem is we just don't have enough houses. We don't have enough housing of any kind. And we need more housing. We need housing for seniors and housing for people who are first time home buyers and housing for renters and housing for people who have no homes at all. We need it in urban areas, we need it in rural areas. So what this bill is, is all about is it has a lot of different ways to move toward getting localities to make it cheaper to build in their towns and to encourage more building. So I want to shout out that every single person on the Banking committee, by the way, it's Banking Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, every single person on the committee had at least one idea that made it into that final bill. And so we ended up with all 22 people on the committee, Republicans and Democrats, voting in favor of the bill to move it forward because they see it as a big step forward toward getting more towns to build more housing and making the federal government a good partner in that.
- [28:39]
Jen Psaki
Senator Elizabeth Warren, you gotta go to votes, I think. But I really appreciate you joining me tonight. Thank you again so much. Okay, coming up, I'll get the latest on Trump's anti science policies from none other than Bill Nye the Science Guy. We all remember him. But first, when Donald Trump's flunkies in the Justice Department get creative, watch out. We're going to talk about more on that just ahead. So last year, the former CEO of Fat Brands Incorporated, the parent company of a restaurant chain called Fat Burger, a guy named Andrew Weiderhorn, was indicted and what federal prosecutors alleged was a $47 million sham loan scheme. A few months later, Fat Brands Incorporated gave Trump's inaugural fund $100,000. And then yesterday, the Justice Department dropped the charges against Andrew Weiderhorn. Funny how the timeline of all of that worked out, isn't it? Now, I should note that Andrew Weiderhorn denies the allegations against him, but the backstory of Trump's involvement here is pretty important because a few months after Trump took office, the prosecutor who brought the indictment against Andrew Weiderhorn was fired. And the LA Times reported that the firing was ordered by the White House directly. Then, a few days later, Trump's Justice Department appointed this man, Bill Assaile, as the interim U.S. attorney for the Central District of California. The LA Times reports that shortly after being appointed, Assailee met with Andrew Weiderhorn's defense team personally. And shortly after that meeting, Assailee suggested that the case against Wederhorn could be dismissed if he were to get permanently appointed to his position. You cannot make it up sometimes. I mean, you see, as an interim U.S. attorney, there is supposed to be a system of checks and balances in place. Interim US Attorneys are supposed to be confirmed by either the Senate or a board of judges in their district, or they have to vacate the position at the end of 120 days. Today would have been Bill Asale's 120th day. He hasn't been confirmed by the Senate. He hasn't been confirmed by a board of judges. Today should have been his last day for a range of reasons, but the Trump administration pulled a fast one. Rather than appointing someone else and showing Mr. Aseli the exit, the Trump administration simply changed his title from Interim U.S. attorney to Acting U.S. attorney, using semantics and a loophole to keep Aseli on the job. And within hours of that, the charges against former Fat Branding Inc. CEO Andrew Weiderhorn were dropped. And while that is how Aseli is treating people whose companies gave Trump a hundred thousand dollar check as Saleh has reportedly made a reputation for himself at his office for, quote, yelling at career attorneys to pursue MAGA aligned cases despite their warnings of insufficient evidence. As Bloomberg Law reported yesterday, that behavior has led to a mass exodus of dozens of career attorneys since Assaile took over the office. Bloomberg Law and the LA Times both have reporting from sources inside Aseli's office saying that he has pressured his office to bring more politically motivated prosecutions against protesters and people resisting Trump's immigration agenda. Assaile denies those allegations, saying they're misleading information and gossip, not facts. But the picture coming out of his office is pretty stark. I mean, Trump donors appear to get one system of justice, while Trump enemies reportedly get another. This is a clear cut case of weaponizing the Justice Department. Now, normally, behavior even remotely close to that would doom your confirmation in the Senate and mean the end of your time as U.S. attorney. But thanks to Trump's neat trick, Bill Saleh will remain the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California for another 210 days. And he is not alone. The Trump administration has used also used loopholes like that to keep interim US Attorneys in place without being confirmed in New York, New Jersey and Nevada. This is Trump trying to destroy one of the most important checks we as a country have against the weaponization of the Justice Department. And at least so far, it seems to be working. Coming up, Bill Nye, the science guy, joins me as Trump's Environmental Protection Agency gets out of the environmental protection business. Stay with us. So just yesterday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans for Trump's epa, epa to give up their power to regulate pretty much anything, despite the fact that scientists have been warning about the dangers of greenhouse gas pollution since the 1950s. It took over 50 years until 2009, when the EPA under the Obama administration put in place what's known as the Endangerment Standard, which states that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threaten the public's health and welfare. As we all know, it was only then that the EPA started regulating emissions from things like tailpipes and factories and power plants and oil fields. And now the Trump administration wants to eliminate pretty much all of it. And Lee Zeldin seems pretty proud of that.
- [33:56]
Nicole Wallace
If finalized, this amounts to the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States. Thanks to President Trump. The Trump mandate, the American people.
- [34:07]
Jen Psaki
That guy seems delighted by his efforts. Now, I will note Zeldin was out there bragging about the end to combating the climate crisis or a contribution to the end, right alongside severe warnings for the extreme heat that's been blanketing much of the country this week. Joining me now to discuss is the one and only Bill Nye, the Science Guy. Bill, it's great to see you. Thank you for being here with me. I just want to start with the EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's claims that overturning the EPA's endangerment finding is a good thing. You are the best science educator out there. I will say explain why overturning or potentially overturning this rule is a big deal.
- [34:47]
Elizabeth Warren
Well, so the premise of the bit back in 2009 was carbon dioxide. If you think of it as the greenhouse gas that keeps the Earth warm enough for all of us to be here to have liquid water, solid water and gaseous water all at the same time, that's great. If you think of it as the chemical, the compound that nourishes plants, that enables them to metabolize, and for you and me to have food, that's really good. But if you have too much carbon dioxide, then the world's getting warmer at right now uncontrollable rate, and that's bad. So carbon dioxide is a gas that is both good and bad. And Mr. Zeldin and his colleagues have embraced the idea that it's only good. And so therefore it's not a pollutant or it doesn't endanger anyone, as was discovered. As you said back sort of at 1950s, but especially in the 1980s, people pointed out that if you have too much of it that we're going to have serious problems here on Earth. And so I'll just say categorically, I'm not. He's wrong. They're wrong. What they're talking about is inappropriate. And he's embraced the idea that the oil and gas industry has promulgated for a long time that climate change is not a serious problem.
- [36:11]
Jen Psaki
One of the things they did that was jarring to me, I'm sure even more jarring to you because you're an actual scientist, is they justified their decision to relinquish their power by citing a report from the Department of Energy, which has included in it this line, that CO2 warming quote appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed and that aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial. I would just add that Wired magazine also reports that nine scientists across several different disciplines say that the report mishandled citations of their work by cherry picking the data. This seems to be a bit of a trend, cherry picking data from renowned scientists, well known scientists, a number of them calling it out. How concerned are you about that trend? As somebody who is such a defender of science and data?
- [36:59]
Elizabeth Warren
Well, this is the concern. Everybody is pretending that science is not. The discoveries made by scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency are to be ignored based on, as you said, cherry picking certain sentences where mitigation would be good. Yes, it would be good, but there's no substitute when you're in a hole. You know, stop digging, as the saying goes. And look, you guys, everybody, I used to work in the oil industry. People forget I used to work in the oil patch in West Texas. And we just can't do it anymore. I mean, okay, so the sooner we stop doing it, the better. And of course, for us in the United States right now we're having this very strong heat dome, it's very hot weather, which is going to affect agriculture, which will affect everybody's prices, the price of your food in the grocery store. And what you don't want, what we don't want, is to have it be so far along it's very, very difficult to reverse. So everybody pay attention and vote. And I'll just say that this idea that whatever the oil and gas industry tells people in the administration is true is probably wrong. And so just don't vote for them anymore. And when you get a chance, let's get them out of office. But of course, the longest journey starts with but a single step. And so they're doing everything wrong right now. Pretending carbon dioxide is not a problem, pretending methane leaks from the oil and gas industry. You may have heard this expression, flaring gas, burning it, turning methane into carbon dioxide. But you don't get all the methane. Methane's very strong greenhouse gas. Pretending this isn't a problem is not in anyone's best interest. And this is the thing I always wonder about. These guys, don't they have kids? Don't they want grandkids? And this is you're mortgaging the future, as the old saying goes. Now we've been talking about this for decades and this is a new tactic from this administration. It really is surprising. The other thing that happened just yesterday and last night was Steve Voss, you may not know this guy, he's at NOAA and he's been put on administrative leave. And this is. He ran nesdis National Environmental Satellite Data Information Service. And so they're curtailing that. They're pretending that by turning off satellites or stop taking satellite data, you can ignore the problem. It really is amazing, and I'm paraphrasing as best I can, Upton Sinclair, who said, it's very hard for a man to accept a fact when his living depends on him pretending it's not true. And here we are. It's really serious problem.
- [39:57]
Jen Psaki
An end with Upton Sinclair is, I would expect nothing less from you. Thank you for reminding all of us. For people out there, they are not powerless they can engage here. The climate crisis impacts everybody. It impacts our water, it impacts our air, it impacts our children, our grandchildren. You are the best person to remind us of all of that, Bill and I thank you so much. Really appreciate you joining us.
- [40:19]
Elizabeth Warren
Thank you. Can I throw in one more thing? Can I throw in one more thing? You worked for the government. I guess you were part of the deep state or what have you.
- [40:28]
Jen Psaki
I see.
- [40:29]
Elizabeth Warren
But everybody, I, I guess, like everybody, I think of myself as a patriot. I was born here. Both of my parents are veterans of World War II. They're ashes at Arlington National Cemetery. Okay, we want the US to lead. We want the US to lead in addressing climate change, not pretend it's not happening. Come on, everybody, we can do this. So I wonder often if the other side is just scared. Like, they're just afraid to address this issue. They're afraid to take it on. But the longest journey begins with a single step. Let's go. Thank you very much, Jen.
- [41:08]
Jen Psaki
And don't step toward the oil companies. We all know that. Bill Nye, thank you again. We'll be right back after a quick break. In less than 100 days, voters in New Jersey and Virginia will vote for their state's next governor in what will be two of the very first, first major tests of how voters are feeling since Trump retook power. And in Virginia, Republicans appear to officially be in panic mode because their candidate, who is the current Lieutenant governor, winsome Earl Sears, isn't really doing great. I mean, so far, her Democratic opponent, Abigail Spamberger, has raised more than three times as much money as Earl Sears. And recent polling has Earl Sears down by double digits. The Republican Governors association reportedly considers the situation to be so hopeless, some are ready to halt their financial support of Earl Sears altogether and save their money for other races. That's how the cookie crumbles sometimes. Meanwhile, Republicans in neighboring North Carolina seem to be more than a little panicked, too. That's because earlier this week, the state's widely popular former Democratic Governor, Roy Cooper announced he would be seeking the US Senate seat being vacated by Republican Senator Thom Tillis. Republicans fear of such a prominent and very well liked Democrat being on the ticket was made more evident when they launched an aggressive slew of attack ads against Cooper, quite literally less than 60 seconds after his campaign announced. And maybe they have a good reason to be afraid, because in just 24 hours, Cooper's campaign raised a record breaking $3.4 million. Record breaking as in actually broke the record for most money raised in the first 24 hours of a Democratic Senate campaign. Virginia and North Carolina are clearly stewed states. Two states to watch will be watching them. That does it for me today. You can catch the show Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern on M. And don't forget to follow the show on Blue Sky, Instagram and TikTok.
- [43:02]
Nicole Wallace
MSNBC presents the chart topping original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week she sits down with political commentator Tim Miller.
- [43:12]
Tim Miller
Another way of saying I care about you is by saying like, I'm gonna fight the things that are preventing you from living the kind of life that.
- [43:19]
Nicole Wallace
You wish the best. People with Nicole Wallace. Listen now. For early access ad free listening and bonus content, subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.