← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
TRUMP'S TANTRUM BACKFIRES: Lawsuit is 'the stupidest thing he could have done,' says legal expert
00:42:04
Donald Trump's desperate desire to make everyone stop talking about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein has run contrary to his petulance as his lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch for publishing his creepy birthday message to Epstein guarantees new news and developments in the story for the public to discuss for months to come. Former U.S. attorney Harry Litman, and MSNBC senior reporter Brandy Zadrozny discuss Trump's disastrous damage control.
Loading summary
Transcript72 lines
- [00:01]
Nicole Wallace
MSNBC presents the chart topping Original podcast the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week, Nicole speaks with legendary songwriter and music producer Jimmy Jam.
- [00:12]
Jimmy Jam
I treat it like a privilege to be able to do that, to be able to speak to people, to be.
- [00:16]
Nicole Wallace
Able to help raise money, help raise.
- [00:17]
Jimmy Jam
Awareness, but I get to do it from music.
- [00:20]
Nicole Wallace
The Best People with Nicole Wallace Listen now for early access and 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? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows. Ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [01:00]
Jimmy Jam
Donald Trump filed a defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, the paper's publisher, two journalists, News Corp. The paper's parent company, and Rupert Murdoch. At the core of that lawsuit is this piece that the Wall Street Journal published last night. The piece, based on documents that the Journal reviewed, alleges that Trump sent Jeffrey Epstein an incredibly lewd letter on the occasion of Epstein's 50th birthday. Now, I should say that NBC News has not independently verified the information reported, and Trump, of course, vehemently denies the letter's veracity. In his newly filed lawsuit, Trump claims that the Journal story has done billions of dollars in damage to his reputation and he is seeking $10 billion in relief. Now, on its own, this story certainly made a splash. However, it's not as if this is the first story about Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein allegedly being friends. In 2002, the year before, the Journal alleges that Trump wrote that birthday letter to Epstein. Trump told New York Magazine that Epstein was, quote, a terrific guy and a lot of fun to be with. He also notably told New York Magazine that Epstein, quote, likes beautiful women as much as I do. Many of them are on the younger side. All to say that it is not entirely clear whether this Wall Street Journal's story inflicted lasting reputational damage. But what is clear is that the new lawsuit has fueled interest in the alleged friendship between Epstein and Trump, a story that the President has been at great pains to defuse. In addition to the lawsuit's request for $10 million in damages, it also seeks a jury trial. And that could mean that lawyers on both sides would be obliged to prove and disprove the veracity of the letter in the and the Wall Street Journal's reporting. And that would mean that this story and any lewd and lascivious details that might be surfaced in the course of a lawsuit could be in the press for months. In the media world, we call this the streisand effect. In 2003, singer and actress Barbra Streisand sued a photographer and a photo website, demanding that the site take down this aerial photograph of Streisand's home. Before the lawsuit, the photo had only been downloaded about six times. Nobody cared about it. But because of the lawsuit, more than 420,000 people viewed the photo on the website. Maybe the Streisand effect is now the Trump effect because right now Trump is triggering the Streisand effect left and right. And even as his lawsuit fuels interest in Epstein, some of Trump's pet outlets seem reluctant to cover this developing story. A lot of conservatives are afraid to talk about this. Fox News has been essentially mandated not to talk about this. Why do you think that is? That was Fox's right leaning rival, Newsmax. Even Newsmax has noticed how quiet Fox News has gotten about the Jeffrey Epstein story. And a week ago, Trump publicly called for his supporters to stop focusing on the Jeffrey Epstein story, claiming that nobody cared about it. And Murdoch owned Fox News quickly fell in line. Despite the story dominating news coverage across the country this Tuesday, Fox aired a grand total of zero segments about it. Now, to really demonstrate how much of an about face that was, take a look at how Fox News host Laura Ingraham covered the story just last week.
- [04:37]
Laura Ingraham
For some of the administration's top allies, this raised more questions than it answered online and on air. Podcasters, radio show hosts, others cried foul, alleging a cover up of the most heinous crimes against children. Here's what Kash Patel said about that Epstein client list shortly after he was nominated as FBI director. Watch.
- [04:56]
Jimmy Jam
Why is the FBI protecting the greatest pederast, the largest scale pederast in human history?
- [05:03]
Kash Patel
Simple, because of who's on that list. What the hell are the House Republicans doing?
- [05:07]
Jimmy Jam
They have the majority. You can't get the list. Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are.
- [05:14]
Laura Ingraham
Tom, he sounded pretty definitive there. So what changed?
- [05:19]
Jimmy Jam
She sounded pretty definitive there. So what changed? Now, to be fair to Ms. Ingraham, she did mention the Epstein story on her show last night. The Wall Street Journal's story about Trump's alleged letter to Epstein, the story that is the subject of this new Lawsuit was published minutes before Ingraham's show started last night. And before taking a commercial break, Ingraham teased that she was going to cover the Journal's story.
- [05:45]
Laura Ingraham
We have new news coming on about this as well from the Wall Street Journal. A new report tonight, next.
- [05:51]
Jimmy Jam
News coming about this from the Wall Street Journal. A new report tonight, next. But curiously, for the rest of her hour, Ingraham never mentioned the Wall Street Journal story. When Mediaite inquired about what happened, Fox News did not respond. Instead of talking about the breaking news from the Wall Street Journal, here's how Ingraham covered the Epstein story last night.
- [06:16]
Laura Ingraham
Don't you love how suddenly the Democrats are caring about the Epstein files? The Democrats are so obsessed about this. In reality, I think the polling shows that the American people, and especially Republicans, they're focused on the economy and they're focused on this border issue.
- [06:32]
Jimmy Jam
She's basically making the case, much as Donald Trump did a week ago, that nobody really cares about the Epstein story. So why is anyone even talking about it yet? Polling from CNN this week shows that this story is one of the few issues that both Democrats and Republicans care about. Right now. At a time of rampant polarization, this is the issue that has garnered attention on both sides of the aisle. Among Republicans, a whopping 40% are dissatisfied with the way Trump has handled this issue. And yesterday, polling from Reuters confirmed this finding, quote, just 17% of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the case, a weaker rating than the president received on any other issue in the poll. And Ms. Ingraham should know that it's not just Democrats who care about this story. Here she was a week ago today at a Turning Point USA conference, a gathering of young MAGA conservatives.
- [07:29]
Laura Ingraham
How many of you are satisfied you can clap? Satisfied with the results of the Epstein investigation?
- [07:37]
Kash Patel
Clap.
- [07:43]
Laura Ingraham
How many of you are not satisfied with the results of the investigation?
- [07:51]
Jimmy Jam
Donald Trump is doing everything he can to try and make this story go away, including bullying media outlets into silence in a way that should alarm everyone. However, the more Donald Trump tries to bury the story, the bigger it seems to become. Joining me now to break it all down is senior MSNBC reporter Brandi zadrozny and former U.S. attorney and former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Harry Lippman. Harry, let me start with you. What do you make of Donald Trump suing Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal to stalwarts of the right? How is this going to go for him with his base and with the conservative movement?
- [08:30]
Harry Lippman
It seems to me the single stupidest thing that he could have done, Melissa. And I don't understand where he thinks it's headed. First, as you say, it guarantees that every filing is another news cycle that brings it up. But second, he's now drawn a line. You know, he could have tried, tried strategically to distance himself from Epstein, as others have done. Say we had a break in 2000, in 2004. Instead, he's made it all about, is this notebook fake? And I'm sorry, anyone with any sophistication and that knows how the Wall Street Journal's work, that's going to lose. That's just a stone cold loser. And it just means he doubles down, doubles down, doubles down. At the end of the day, the, the notebook comes out and makes it more likely he's going, it's going to, not to mention the deposition in the case. So it's a, it's a wretched idea for him, not the first time, but it's just, it can, only if he stays with it. He's in quicksand. Deeper and deeper, the truth will out. Remember, the truth is a defense here and he's going to have the burden of showing that it's false. You read that Wall Street Journal article, there's no doubt they have it buttoned down six ways of, you know precisely what's there and they've seen it. They, they anticipated this and they're ready for war.
- [09:59]
Jimmy Jam
Randy, Harry is exactly right. The standard to establish defamation is incredibly high. But yet Donald Trump has actually prevailed in getting a lot of media outlets to capitulate, to settle even before these cases go to trial. Is that the strategy here?
- [10:14]
Brandi Zadrozny
Well, it definitely seems that way. At least he's, that's the way that he's presenting it. And his truth Social post, you know, he ticked off a list of the cases that he has come on the right side of. You know, he said, I've sued abc, I've sued cbs, I've sued the Pulitzers, and I will sue, you know, Wall Street Journal and I am here for you. And so it's really important in terms of media manipulation, I think Trump's being pretty savvy here. He had a really, really big problem with the MAGA Epstein files and the way that that was handled. You saw the things at Turning Points. I watch, I know we make media.
- [10:47]
Jimmy Jam
We watch a lot of this stuff. My apologies.
- [10:49]
Brandi Zadrozny
It is my pleasure, truly. But so I watched a lot of this media and people were so angry in a way that I had never seen covering this for over 10 years now. And so what do you do with that. And I talked to a couple MAGA influencers last night, but they told me very specifically that what this was was a change in the narrative. And when you think about the really animating narratives for this MAGA base, one is this anti pedophilia. Trump's gonna do all this. But another one is enemy of the people. And framing this, putting this on blast and making this like a talking point all day, it really has changed the conversation for Trump's the MAGA influencers, but not for the MAGA true believers. I'm on those sites as well. And for those sites, there's still a hefty group of people who take the Wall Street Journal at face value. I mean, they're delusional sometimes, but they're not stupid. Well, they see what that is.
- [11:42]
Jimmy Jam
This is a core outlet of the right. I mean, it's not cbs, it's not abc, and yet this is. This is the Hill. He's going to die on, on this story, taking on Rupert Murdoch. Is this going to end the way it ended with CBS and abc?
- [11:57]
Brandi Zadrozny
Well, let's. I used to work for Fox News, and I know another segment. This is not Wall Street Journal is not FOX News.
- [12:05]
Jimmy Jam
Right.
- [12:06]
Brandi Zadrozny
The Wall Street Journal is Rupert Murdoch's crown jewel in his empire. And so I think it's very unlikely. You know, their editor in chief, Emma, she was the one who stood, stood by this reporting. So I just don't see this happening in the same way. Like you said, they were really ready for it. They had his denial. They know what he said. And so now he kind of had to put up or shut up. And this is what he's doing. I don't know how it's going to play out, though.
- [12:29]
Jimmy Jam
All right, Harry, I want to pivot for a minute and talk a little bit about the motion that the Trump DOJ made today in a district court to release the grand jury materials related to both the Epstein and Maxwell indictments. And I just want our viewers to understand not all of the information that is amassed in a criminal investigation is actually presented to the grand jury. Which means that even if the grand jury materials are released by the district court, and that's a very big if, it's not going to be the release of the Epstein files, like the whole file that MAGA has been demanding. Will his base understand that and will they be appeased by whatever limited information is relieved if any information is released?
- [13:14]
Harry Lippman
You know, I think they will understand that and they will not be appeased. Melissa, first, as you say, it's unclear. It's up to the court whether to even do it. The reasons that the department gave just aren't part of the rules for when you release grand jury. But the far more important point, you look at the indictments and what they were proving in the case. They had nothing to do, not just with Donald Trump, but any of the sort of customers. They were all about Epstein and the people who were helping him, like Elaine Maxwell and the underage girls. They don't figure in to prove the crime that they had to prove. There just had to be a knowledge that some commercial transaction would take place. Even all the sex in the indictments are just with Epstein. So I think it's an total red herring. There's basically no chance that what they have there is the sort of thing that MAGA is clamoring for.
- [14:09]
Jimmy Jam
So, Brandi, this motion seems to be an effort to distract the base a little bit. Are they likely to be distracted? Are they going to know that this isn't what they want? These are not the drones they're looking for?
- [14:21]
Brandi Zadrozny
Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, I think that this group is very, very animated by this thing right now. And what really happened was that memo that came out that said, there's nothing to see here. There's no client list. They didn't do it. Nobody else did anything wrong, and case closed, there's nothing else coming out. That instead sensed this group so much that now they're out for blood and they want every single thing. It doesn't help that also Democrats want every single thing now, too. You have this weird moment of synchronous bipartisanship. I know. Is this what can bring us all together? I don't know, but it's just a really, really interesting time. But, no, I don't. There's no satisfying a group of conspiracy theorists especially. I think the only thing that they could have possibly done is drawn this out for the entire length of Trump's presidency. If they had just said, they're coming, they're coming, they're coming. We've seen what happened with QAnon, right? Been promised a judgment day since 2016 that never really came. You could have done that, but that was just a break in the dam that now they better produce something and something good if they're going to want to appease these people.
- [15:21]
Jimmy Jam
It's put up or shut up time. All right, Harry Lippman, Brandi Zadrozny, thank you. In just 90 seconds, we will continue our conversation about this breaking news regarding the President's lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the fallout. And later, we'll get inside of CBS cancellation of Colbert, the shocking late night decision that's got a lot of people asking questions. We are back in just 90 seconds. We are following the latest in Donald Trump's lawsuit over the Wall Street Journal's biggest bombshell story last night. But it wasn't just that reporting that suggested that Donald Trump is closer to Jeffrey Epstein than he's likely to admit. Here's Trump's former chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney earlier this week. They're furious at him for not releasing the Epstein files as he promised he would. Is it because, as Elon Musk has said, Donald Trump is in the Epstein files?
- [16:25]
Kash Patel
No, absolutely not.
- [16:26]
Harry Lippman
He's in the files.
- [16:26]
Nicole Wallace
A lot of people in the files.
- [16:27]
Jimmy Jam
My guess is, and it's educated guess is that it's particularly damning of very important people on both sides of the political aisle. We also heard from a former Trump business associate who said this on cnn. Donald and Jeffrey had come into, into the casino in the wee hours of Sunday morning, 1 1:30 in the morning. You know, two buddies, they had, they had three women with them. And the commission was waiting for me because they had determined that the women that they brought down were underage to.
- [17:05]
Harry Lippman
Be on the casino.
- [17:07]
Jimmy Jam
And when I asked them how they knew that, by the way, one of them was the number three ranked tennis player in the world. Okay. And this guy happened to be a tennis fan. And he said, Jack, I know she's 19 years old. It's that drip, drip, drip of information that are getting many lawmakers to try and get all of these files released. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia. He is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and he is also a co sponsor of a bipartisan House resolution that calls on the Department of Justice to make available within 30 days documents, records and communications surrounding the investigation and into Jeffrey Epstein, his death and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Congressman, Republicans have so far blocked efforts to force the release of this information on Epstein at least three times. What do you hope to achieve with this bill and are you likely to succeed?
- [18:04]
Hank Johnson
Well, I tell you, with a rubber stamp Congress in control, with rubber stamp Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, I should say I'm not very optimistic that this mass I kind of resolution will pass, but it's certainly going to be around throughout the August recess period for the people of this country to ask their representatives, why haven't you signed on to it or are you in favor of releasing these Epstein files? Because it's quite frankly a bipartisan desire now that these records be released. And so this thing is not going to go away. I don't care how much Republicans or Donald Trump try to hide it or try to snuff it out. I don't think that their efforts are going to be successful because the American people mean business about these records. They know that there are records and they know that they need to be seen.
- [19:10]
Jimmy Jam
Well, Attorney General Pam Bondi certainly seems to be trying to sate some of the interests in these records. Today she filed a motion to unseal grand jury transcripts. As we discussed with Harry Lippman in the last segment, these transcripts and the information from the grand jury will be part of the investigation, but it will not be all of the information amassed in the initial criminal investigation that then led to the grand jury's investigation and then to the indictments. Are these materials from the grand jury going to be enough to satisfy the demands from both sides of the aisle for the quote, unquote, Epstein files?
- [19:46]
Hank Johnson
Professor I don't think so. Everybody knows that in order to indict someone and this indictment had to do with only Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine his, his girlfriend, they were the subjects of the indictment. And so the information in the alumnus file and investigation that was done in this case only concerned those two when it came to the grand jury. And, and you know, I don't think it's very likely that the grand jury records, which are secret, are going to be released by the judge, but if they are released, it'll just be a thimble full of evidence as compared to the vast trove of evidence that is in those files. And by the way, I'd like to point out, professor, that, you know, Pam Bondi said she had the list on her desk and now she's saying I had the file on my desk, but the file is too large to fit on a desk. So she so I mean, they keep saying things that cause people to think that perhaps they're trying to cover something up.
- [21:02]
Jimmy Jam
You make a great point that one, a judge may not even release these grand jury materials and the grand jury materials are just a thimbleful of what may actually be there. Are you worried that you're your Republican rubber stamp colleagues may actually use this motion as an off ramp to back off of supporting this bipartisan resolution?
- [21:21]
Hank Johnson
Yeah, they're going to do their best to try to hoodwink the American people into thinking that they're doing as much as they can to get as much of the documentation released, but they've dug themselves into a deep hole. I don't think they're going to be able to dig out of it. And we're going to do as much as we can to make sure that the American people know that their efforts are just totally inefficient and insufficient.
- [21:56]
Jimmy Jam
All right. Thank you, Congressman Hank Johnson, thanks so much for joining us tonight and for those insights about that bipartisan resolution. Coming up next, a look at what life is actually like for the California National Guard troops who have been dragooned into service supporting immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. But first, CBS dropped a bombshell on late night host Stephen Colbert deciding to end his show. And that is raising questions about why the Tiffany Network is pulling the plug. All of that is up next. At least three major national media outlets have undergone major changes this week. PBS and NPR will be stripped of their government funding as part of a rescissions package that Congress passed this week at the president's urging. And CBS announced on Thursday that it will cancel the Late show with Stephen Colbert after its next season wraps in May. The network called the move a financial decision. CBS parent company Paramount is in the final stages of a merger with media company Skydance, and that deal will need the Trump DOJ's approval in order for the sale to go through. And perhaps it's just a coincidence, but it is worth noting that Stephen Colbert recently took aim at CBS's efforts to settle a lawsuit with the president.
- [23:24]
Harry Lippman
Now, I believe this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official.
- [23:29]
Jimmy Jam
Has a technical name in legal circles. It's big fat bribe, because this all.
- [23:35]
Harry Lippman
Comes as Paramount's owners are trying to.
- [23:37]
Laura Ingraham
Get the Trump administration to approve the.
- [23:39]
Jimmy Jam
Sale of our network to a new owner, Skydance. It's unclear whether Colbert's sudden cancellation is related to the late night host's public criticism of the administration. But what is undisputed is that the move has earned raves at the White House with the president crowing on street social media. I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. Joining me now to discuss all of this is Eric Duggans, TV critic and media analyst for npr. Eric, thanks so much for joining us tonight. I want to start with the plans to cancel Stephen Colbert Show. Colbert has topped the late night ratings and his viewership was increasing. In your view, is a decision like this one completely independent of political considerations, or is there more here than the alleged financial decision.
- [24:34]
Kash Patel
Well, we should note that CBS has insisted that this was a financial decision and there is evidence that could back up that claim. I mean, it has been obvious to people who watch the industry that viewership and ad revenue for late night TV shows has fallen seriously in, say, the last five years as TV audiences, especially younger viewers, migrate from broadcast and cable to streaming. And CBS itself has seen two late night shows shut down. First the Late Late show with James Corden and After Midnight. Those are two shows that aired after Colbert. So, so, so there is some evidence to that claim. But of course, given the backdrop of this expected sale and given the fact that the cut a settlement with Donald Trump for a lawsuit that legal experts said they had a good chance of winning, there is also concern that another element of this may be an attempt to appease Donald Trump.
- [25:41]
Jimmy Jam
So there may be financial considerations, but it's not necessarily the ones inherent in a changing late night media situation. It's really perhaps in part some of these things going on with the administration and its attacks on media outlets. With regard to some of those attacks, the administration has been very forthright in trying to get the Fourth Estate to get in line with its program. He's shown an incredible willingness to use government power to pressure media outlets into submission. Are you worried that this is likely to have a chilling effect on other outlets that report on stories that could portray the administration in a negative light? And are you worried just generally about what the media landscape will look like in the face of these deterrence?
- [26:28]
Kash Patel
Of course, there's a lot of concern about chilling effects. First at Paramount, where two executives left CBS News because of pressure that was brought to bear on 60 Minutes because the original lawsuit that we were talking about that got settled involved a 60 minute story and it's editing of an interview with Kamala Harris. So, of course, when you have a situation where a company has had two executives leave, CBS News has cut a settlement with Trump, and now you see someone like Stephen Colbert, who is considered one of Trump's, you know, most passionate critics in Late night, suddenly handed his walking papers. Of course people are concerned. I think a lot of attention now is going to fall on the Daily show, which airs on Comedy Central, which is another platform that's owned by Paramount.
- [27:20]
Jimmy Jam
Right.
- [27:21]
Kash Patel
The Daily Show's also been a very consistent critic of Trump. And if there's some effort made to rein them in, if, for example, host Jon Stewart's contract isn't renewed when, when it expires at the end of this year, I think people will Definitely feel a chill and wonder, particularly at Paramount, is there room for people to criticize the current administration?
- [27:46]
Jimmy Jam
So so far, a lot of the attention has been on left leaning, more progressive outlets. People like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert. But just today, the president sued the Wall Street Journal, a major conservative outlet, and its owner, Rupert Murdoch. And we're now seeing reports that Dow Jones is vigorously defending the reporting that is the subject of that lawsuit, saying that, quote, we have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit. This is Donald Trump not just attacking the press, but now attacking a longtime ally, Rupert Murdoch, a longtime ally, the conservative media. What do you make about this? What do you make of this infighting amidst the right leaning media landscape? This is very unusual.
- [28:32]
Kash Patel
Well, Rupert Murdoch and Trump have always had a sort of hot and cold relationship. I think if Rupert Murdoch had his druthers, he would be dealing with someone other than Donald Trump. There have been several times, you know, he flirted with supporting Ron DeSantis when Ron DeSantis challenged Donald Trump for the Republican nomination for president. He's flirted with supporting other candidates when Donald Trump first ran for president. So I think there's always been a sense that Rupert Murdoch has never been entirely comfortable with Donald Trump. And I also think Rupert Murdoch values his identity as a newsman and someone who's willing to break big news stories even if they hurt someone who's considered an ally of his. And I think he takes great pride in owning the Wall Street Journal and having the news coverage of the Wall Street Journal be as unsparing as it can be, regardless of who it's covering. What's interesting to me about this lawsuit is that Donald Trump's other lawsuits have been settled. And there's been a sense that media outlets have settled them because they're worried about a precedent or because they're worried about vindictive, you know, repercussions from the government. I don't think we've seen one of these lawsuits, you know, fully tested in a court of law where the media outlet was fully committed to pursuing and resisting the lawsuit until there's a verdict. So if the, if Dow Jones actually lives up to what it's saying and really fights this lawsuit, then we may see a real test of Donald Trump's current tactics of, you know, suing media outlets and then trying to pressure them to settle.
- [30:17]
Jimmy Jam
And the irony of all of this coming from a stalwart outlet of the right is just not to be missed. Eric Deggans, thank you so much.
- [30:25]
Kash Patel
I would just point out that the Wall Street Journal's news coverage is separate from its Opinion section. And I think its news coverage has been fair, often fair.
- [30:35]
Jimmy Jam
Now, again, all true. Eric Duggins, thank you so much. Coming up next, we have new reporting on National Guard troops that have been deployed deployed to Los Angeles to fight alleged lawlessness. Many have ended up fighting boredom instead. We're going to have more on that after this break. For months, Donald Trump has openly mused about reopening the notorious Alcatraz Federal Prison, which is located on an island in the San Francisco Bay. Now his administration is seriously looking into reopening Alcatraz. Today, Axios reported that Trump's plans to reopen Alcatraz, which is now a popular tourist attraction, could cost up to $2 billion. That's right. Donald Trump is looking to spend billions of dollars on reopening a prison that was shuttered over 60 years ago precisely because the government deemed it, wait for it, too expensive to operate. But Trump's Alcatraz plan is hardly the only place where the administration appears to be wasting taxpayer money. More than a month after Trump deployed 4,000 National Guard members and 700 active duty Marines to Southern California to support his immigration crackdown, we now have a clearer picture of how embarrassingly wasteful the predicted $134 million deployment has actually been. This week, the New York Times reported that only about 400, just 1 in 10 of those national Guard members have actually performed assignments away from the base on which they are stationed. And yesterday, the LA Times reported that a source within the governor's office claimed that the number of troops taking part in daily missions, which primarily involves standing guard at federal buildings, is even smaller, around 120 troops. As one Marine summed it up, quote, there's not that much to do. The New York Times also reports that some of the National Guard members who have been sent off base vehemently object to what they are being asked to do. According to the Times, in One incident, quote, 60 troops were awaiting transport to planned immigration raids in Ventura county when a Latino soldier approached officers in charge of the mission. He told them that he strongly objected and he offered to be arrested rather than take part in the operation. Eventually, they said he was reassigned to administrative tasks. Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent home 2,000 members of the California National Guard. That leaves 2,000 still sitting around Los Angeles, not to mention the 700 active duty Marines who have also been deployed to Southern California. Hexa's decision comes just days after a Federal judge blocked immigration agents from stopping people by racially profiling them based on the color of their skin, their accents, or the language that they speak. The court's decision has essentially thwarted ICE's ability to just show up at parks and parking lots and other public areas to round up those whom they believe to be undocumented immigrants. But new reporting shows that the administration may have a new way to circumvent that judicial ruling. This week, we learned that the Trump administration will start sharing the personal information of the country's 79 million Medicaid enrollees in an effort to identify and track down immigrants. That information is usually only distributed to law enforcement to investigate waste, Medicaid fraud, and other abuses. The Trump administration now appears to be repurposing that data to underwrite this immigration crackdown. Now, to be clear, undocumented immigrants and some legal residents are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid. However, federal law requires that all states offer emergency Medicaid temporary coverage for life saving care in emergency rooms to everyone. And it is this emergency program that could furnish the necessary information that the administration needs for that immigration crackdown. Now, immigrant rights groups are trying to get the word out on individual basic rights in the event that ICE shows up at someone's door. One of those groups is reminding immigrants, if an officer knocks on your door, do not open the door. Officers must have a warrant signed by a judge to enter your home. ICE warrants are not signed by judges. They are ICE forms signed by ICE officers, and they do not grant authority to enter a home without the consent of the occupants. Coming up after this. Donald Trump is working his way down his enemies list as he carries out a policy of retribution rather than justice. And you've heard of the art of the deal, but what about the deal with the art? I'll explain when we come right back. This week really highlighted the Trump administration's utterly backwards approach to accountability and justice. We all know that the President has notoriously used his pardon power to let violent criminals, financial fraudsters, and corrupt politicians off the hook. Meanwhile, his Justice Department is preoccupied with a retribution campaign against those who are on the President's quote, unquote, enemies list. That crusade continued this week with the news that Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, a vocal critic of the administration and an impeachment manager in the president's first impeachment, has been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for alleged mortgage fraud. At the same time, Trump is trying to stack the federal courts with loyalists like his former lawyer and now senior DOJ official Emile Beauvais. But this was the headline that really put things into perspective. Trump Justice Department seeks one day in prison for ex officer in Breonna Taylor case. Five years ago, Brett Hankinson blindly fired 10 shots into Breonna Taylor's apartment. And while he was not the officer who fired the fatal shot, he was found guilty of violating Taylor's civil rights, an offense which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. And yet the DOJ asked the court for just a single day's imprisonment. Joining me now to discuss all of this is Rachel Rossi, former Deputy Associate Attorney General and now President of the alliance for Justice. Rachel, I want to get your reaction first to this sentencing memo in the Hankinson case. What went through your head when you first saw this news that the DOJ is seeking just one day imprisonment for an offense that typically carries a life sentence?
- [37:33]
Rachel Rossi
What we're seeing with the Breonna Taylor sentencing memorandum filed today is simply that this administration is very clear about who they are going to support and who they are not going to support. They're also clear that they will use the law to punish opponents and they will circumvent the law in order to benefit the allies and the loyalists. And what we saw with the just, I think, embarrassing filing that is only seeking one day in prison for this terrible violation of civil rights, I think it's just appalling.
- [38:11]
Jimmy Jam
Can I ask just generally, this was filed before a Trump appointed judge. If the judge is amenable to this request for just a day in prison for Brett Hankinson, is this effectively a signal to other laws, law enforcement across the country, that they are now authorized to act with impunity with regard to individual civil rights when they do their work?
- [38:33]
Rachel Rossi
I think that's exactly right. If we do not have a court system that holds people accountable for violating constitutional rights, for violating civil rights, then absolutely it sends the message to other actors that they are beyond the law as well, that the law does not apply to them, and that they can act with impunity as well.
- [38:54]
Jimmy Jam
I want to pivot to the Bovet nomination to the Third Circuit. I know that alliance for justice has had a lot to say about this nomination. I want to talk about some of the speculation that Beauvais is essentially being primed for a Supreme Court seat. If that is the case, what do you think a Beauvais appointment might mean for the high Court? That is already very far to the right.
- [39:18]
Rachel Rossi
What we've seen with the Amil Bovi nomination is quite honestly a heightened and very troubling standard for judicial nominees. This standard is just straight up loyalty to Trump. This is a nominee that we have seen has directed DOJ lawyers to tell the court's fu to misrepresent the facts to the courts all within agenda of ensuring compliance to and obedience to the Trump agenda. This is a nominee who has also entered into a dangerous quid pro quo agreement with New York City mayor in order to essentially buy the ability for him to comply with the Trump mass deportation agenda. And also, very troublingly what we've seen with this nominee is that he was part of the scheme to ensure that the January 6th insurrectionists do not get what they deserve. So he was part of the justice system's efforts to fire January 6th prosecutors. So his record clearly demonstrates that he is someone who will not be obedient to the law, but will be obedient to Trump and the Trump agenda.
- [40:37]
Jimmy Jam
All right, Rachel Rossi, thanks so much for those insights and for taking the time to talk with us tonight. Coming up next, when denying the Wall Street Journal's reporting about a birthday card he reportedly drew for Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump claims he doesn't even draw. But a picture is worth a thousand denials. More on that. When reporters from the Wall Street Journal were reporting out their story about a quote, unquote bawdy birthday message that Donald Trump allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein In 2003, they got the following on the record quote from Trump that said in part, I never wrote a picture in my life. He then doubled down on his social media platform posting, I don't draw pictures. Now, without weighing in on the merits of his complaint against the Wall Street Journal, I would just like to address the assertion that Donald Trump never wrote a picture in his life. Because if that is the truth, then who drew these pictures that were auctioned for charity? Here is a drawing of the New York City skyline signed by Donald Trump in golden ink. It was auctioned in 2005 to benefit a charity that supports literacy. And here are some more drawings signed by Donald Trump auctioned off to benefit a New York City area food pantry. Seems like a totally worthy cause. And dare I say the drawings are kind of good. Trump himself acknowledged on social media that he donated at least one of the drawings. So kudos for him for saying that. Unless he's now saying that he didn't. I hope he's not saying that. And there is perhaps the most famous piece of artwork to be attributed to the president. It is unsigned and the artist used Trump's favorite medium, the sharpie to draw this famous addition to a hurricane projection map back in 2019. Now here's the question, is it art? That is the age old question here. And I confess it's too big for me to handle. But as to the question of has Donald Trump ever wrote a picture in his life? I think we can mark all of these Exhibit A. 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 for now. Goodbye from Washington and we'll see you next week.
- [43:05]
Nicole Wallace
MSNBC presents the chart topping original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week, Nicole speaks with legendary songwriter Anita music producer Jimmy Jam.
- [43:16]
Jimmy Jam
I treat it like a privilege to be able to do that, to be able to speak to people, to be.
- [43:20]
Nicole Wallace
Able to help raise money, help raise awareness.
- [43:22]
Jimmy Jam
But I get to do it from.
- [43:23]
Nicole Wallace
Music the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Listen now. For early access ad free listening and bonus content, subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.