← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
TRUTH TO POWER: Constituent delivers blast of reality to Republican congressman at town hall
00:41:40
Republicans championing Donald Trump's unpopular agenda get an earful from constituents at home.
Loading summary
Transcript77 lines
- [00:00]
Jen Psaki
How many discounts does USAA Auto Insurance offer? Too many to say here. Multi vehicle discount, Safe driver discount, New vehicle discount, Storage discount.
- [00:09]
Rachel Maddow
How many discounts will you stack up? Tap the banner or visit usaa.com autodiscounts restrictions apply.
- [00:15]
Bubba Wallace
Bubba Wallace here with Tyler Redick. You know what's more nerve wracking than waiting for qualifying results?
- [00:20]
Jen Psaki
Waiting for the green flag to drop.
- [00:22]
Bubba Wallace
Instead of pacing, you rev up with Chumba Casino's weekly new releases.
- [00:26]
Jen Psaki
It's like a fresh set of tires for your brain.
- [00:29]
Bubba Wallace
Play for free@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba.
- [00:33]
Tyler Reddick
No purchase necessary VGW Group Voidware prohibited by law. CTNC's 21+ sponsored by Jamba Casino There.
- [00:41]
Rachel Maddow
Is a lot to get to, a lot to talk about. Thank you so much for being here with me tonight. And one of the things I've been thinking about today is if there's one thing that has been very clear through the last few weeks of Trump's, I can only call them daily meltdowns over the Epstein files is that for Trump, protecting himself is more important than basically anything else. Definitely more important than transparency, more important than public interest, and more important than the people who suffered at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein and his co conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. Well, today we got another reminder of that, because today was the deadline for Epstein's victims to weigh in on whether or not a court should grant Trump's request to release all grand jury testimony relating to the late sex predator. And those victims are justifiably irate about how the Trump administration has handled all of this so far. As one anonymous victim wrote, I'm not sure the highest priority here is the victims, justice for the victims or combating child exploitation. Another said, I'm not some pawn in your political warfare. And a lawyer representing numerous victims put it this way, quote, we were quite surprised to learn that the government sought the unsealing of grand jury materials before this court would without first conferring with the victims or their counsel. This omission reinforces the perception that the victims are at best, an afterthought to the current administration. An afterthought? The fact that these victims and their family members and their lawyers and their community all feel they are an afterthought to Trump and his administration. Shouldn't be surprising. I'm not surprised by it, given that Trump said Epstein, quote, stole young girls from him at Mar A Lago. Stole. And that was the word he used. I mean, here's how the brother of former spa worker Virginia Giuffre reacted to that last week when you said the President invoked your sister's name. He said specifically that word when he described her as being stolen, having been, quote, unquote stolen. What went through your mind when you heard that? Uh huh. I think we were shocked by it.
- [03:09]
Jen Psaki
Especially to use the term stolen.
- [03:14]
Rachel Maddow
Because she's not an object, she's a person. I mean, every time the Trump administration mishandles this, acts insensitively, which feels like it's every day, it's another slap in the face, another jab in the heart of these family members and of the victims. And you just saw that from the brother of Virginia Giuffre and some. Yet in their letters to the court, none of the victims have explicitly opposed the release of the transcripts as long as their names and identifying information are redacted. But the lawyer representing Epstein victim Annie Farmer today went further, coming down firmly on what should not be redacted, saying, quote, the court should not rubber stamp redactions to withhold from the public information related to third parties who neither have been charged or alleged to be involved in the crimes with which Epstein and Maxwell were charged. She said any effort to redact third party names smacks of a cover up. Something tells me that was not the reaction Trump was hoping for when he called for these grand jury transcripts to be released. I mean, he wanted credit from, I guess, everybody for just the attempt. You see, normally grand jury transcripts are incredibly hard to get released. And in Florida, where Trump also called for grand jury testimony to be released, a judge denied the request almost immediately. As much as Trump wants to claim he wants transparency, he likes to say that. I think the reality here, we all know, is that what he wants is headlines like this that give the appearance of transparency, even though he's not actually being that transparent at all. So now in New York, the judge in charge of whether or not these transcripts get released has said he will rule expeditiously on the matter. And if he ends up denying the release of the transcripts, then Trump will have successfully passed the buck. And you can expect, everybody should expect he's going to fully blame a judge for the lack of transparency. But if the judge allows the transcripts to be released, by the way, they are very narrow. They have a lot less information than most of these victims and most of their family members would like to see. Trump can claim he championed transparency. Well, again, conveniently admitting that these transcripts are a small sliver of the materials the Justice Department has at their disposal and is refusing to release. In a similar vein, I'm sure you saw the headlines today about how Republican House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer issued a series of subpoenas for testimony and records related to Jeffrey Epstein. And while that may sound like Mr. Comer is pushing for full transparency here to get more information released, not exactly the full story. I mean, first of all, Comer was obligated to issue a subpoena for files related to Jeffrey Epstein following a Democratic led vote from one of the Oversight Committee's subcommittees a few weeks ago. It was bipartisan, but he had to do this at some point. In addition to subpoenaing those files, though, Comer also subpoenaed a very telling list of people for testimony. People like Bill and Hillary Clinton and James Comey and Robert Mueller. All people whose testimony would certainly be a complete and utter circus on Capitol Hill and a distraction from the actual matter at hand here. Perhaps even more telling is the fact that Comer subpoenaed attorneys general for the last four presidential administrations. Merrick Garland, Bill Barr, Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, and Alberto Gonzalez. And over and over again, in the subpoenas to those attorneys general, Comer referenced the sweetheart deal that a federal prosecutor gave Jeffrey Epstein in 2008, as if he really wanted to get to the bottom of that. But Comer did not subpoena the actual federal prosecutor who gave Jeffrey Epstein that sweetheart deal. Trump's former Labor Secretary, Alex Acosta, seems like quite the guy to leave off the list if you're actually trying to get to the bottom of what happened there, isn't it? I mean, what does Loretta lynch have to do with all this? Today we also got the news that the Justice Department is contemplating releasing transcripts or audio recordings of the department's meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell. Now, that whole meeting was very weird, very concerning from the start. Trump's former personal criminal attorney turned Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, conducted the interview to start, which is very bizarre on many levels. Despite having no previous involvement in the case, despite the fact that the senior Justice Department officials do not typically conduct these kinds of interviews themselves. The interview lasted nine hours and spanned two days. We don't know if anyone else was in the room besides Blanche Maxwell and Maxwell's attorney. We don't know. They haven't shared that with us. We don't know what they discussed or what kinds of deals were made before, during, or after that interview. We do know that Maxwell wants a pardon very badly. We also do know that within days of that interview, she was transferred to a minimum security prison in Texas, despite bureaus of prison rules against sex offenders being held in minimum security facilities and with basically no justification whatsoever given by the bureau or the Department of Justice. This morning we also learned that the Justice Department is considering releasing some or all of Maxwell's interview with Blanche. And then this afternoon, ABC News had this scoop from anonymous sources that Ghislaine Maxwell apparently said nothing that would be harmful to Trump in her interview with the Department of Justice. That is the headline there. You can see that headline now. Again, here's the thing that strikes me. The only people we know of that were in that meeting were Blanche Maxwell and Maxwell's lawyer. So the fact that we hear anything at all from anonymous sources about what happened in that meeting is quite telling. There were only so many people there. The slant of the leak is not exactly a mystery, but as that appears to be the next quote, unquote, transparent action we should expect from the Trump administration on this front. What should we expect? I have a lot of questions here. I've been dying to talk to these ladies all day. MSNBC legal eagles Christy Greenberg and Lisa Rubin standing by. They're going to join me live in 90 seconds.
- [09:15]
Tyler Reddick
Summer's heating up and so is the action with chumba casino and 2311 racing. Whether you're trackside with Bubba, Riley and Tyler or cooling off at home, the fun never stops at Chumba Casino, the online social casino packed with free to play games like slots, blackjack and more. Jump into summer@chumbacasino.com and score your free welcome bonus. 2 million free gold coins and 2 free sweeps coins. No purchase necessary. VGW Group voidware prohibited by law. CTNC is 21 plus. Sponsored by Chumba Casino.
- [09:44]
Angie Hicks
Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of Angie. One thing I've learned is that you buy a house, but you make it a home. And for decades, Angie's helped millions of homeowners hire skilled pros for the projects that matter. Get all your jobs done well@angie.com Imagine.
- [10:00]
Odoo Representative
Relying on a dozen different software programs to run your business, none of which are connected, and each one more expensive and more complicated than the last. It can be pretty stressful. Now imagine Odoo. Odoo has all the programs you'll ever need and are all connected on one platform. Doesn't Odoo sound amazing? Let Odoo harmonize your business with simple, efficient software that can handle everything for a fraction of the price. Sign up today@odoo.com that's odoo.com.
- [10:40]
Rachel Maddow
Joining me now is Promise, former federal prosecutor Kristi Greenberg and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin. Thank you both so much for being here. I've had so many questions all day. I've wanted to ask you. Christy, let me start with you. I want to start where I kind of ended there. And we've been talking about this on our team all day. I'm just trying to wrap my head around this whole possibility of a release of some part of the transcript. I mean, what do you make of the reporting that the Department of Justice is considering releasing some or all of Maxwell's interview with Blanche?
- [11:12]
Angie Hicks
It just raises so many questions. First question that I have is, did Todd Blanche find Ghislaine Maxwell credible? Does he think she told the truth? And then if the answer to that is yes, I guess the question is, like, what has he done to corroborate her account? He met with her last week. Typically, when prosecutors meet with anyone, it takes weeks, months, potentially, to go through and try and corroborate their accounts, whether they're being truthful or not. He's not familiar with the case, and he met with her about a week ago. When he reviewed the file, the Epstein file, he had said that the statements in that file were unverified hearsaylaine. And that's why he was not going to release the Epstein file. It was unverified hearsay. So how is Ghislaine's statement? How has that been verified? I mean, it just raises so many questions today. Just today, Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer said in a court filing that Ghislaine Maxwell is a scapegoat for Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, that she was convicted in a media firestorm of false reporting and mischaracterization of evidence. So does he believe that's true? Does he believe that she's a scapegoat? I mean, if that's the case, has he even talked to the victims? I don't believe he has because they have a very different account. I guess it comes down to this woman is a proven liar. She lied throughout her case, through every stage, from at the time of her arrest. She lied about her finances, about whether she was involved in a sex trafficking operation at all. Even through the conditions of her custody. She was lying while she was in prison, complaining that she was losing her hair and losing weight, and none of that was true. I mean, she's just a proven liar, liar through and through. And so why release this account from a Proven liar from someone who has been convicted of sex trafficking. This cannot be in the public's interest. To me, the only person whose interest this could possibly be in is Donald Trump's, because, as you just noted from that ABC scoop, it appears that she went in and she knew who her audience was. She understood the assignment, and she said that there was nothing concerning that Donald Trump did. If that's true, then, yes, releasing this would very much be in Donald Trump's interest, but it would certainly not be in the public's interest in terms of getting to the truth of what happened here.
- [13:42]
Rachel Maddow
I mean, that scoop, as we're gonna call it, the headline, I mean, we don't know all of what they had access to. The headline is a little blowing my mind, because there's only a handful of people we know, as I just said, who were even in this meeting. Maybe there were more. That's all we know about. I mean, Lisa, let me ask you about this, because I just hearing them seeing that ABC story come out, to me, it feels like it's a pattern. Like this is all a plan, right? They put the headline out. There's somebody who is close to either Maxwell, close to Trump, maybe there's a coordination, who knows? And now they're saying they're gonna release this audio or some version of it. Not the audio, necessarily, but the transcript. So what do you think about that story and just those chain of events?
- [14:25]
Kristi Greenberg
Well, certainly, Jen, as you noted, there are only three people that we know for sure were in the room. But that doesn't mean that a broader audience of people hasn't either heard the recording or read the transcript. And my own personal view is that the number of people who have read that transcript is much more significant than the three people that we know were in the room. This is, I think, a trial balloon on behalf of the White House and the Department of Justice working together, which has not traditionally been the case in the post Watergate era, to try and float an idea that will again make them look as if they're being transparent. In the same vein as these motions to unseal the grand jury transcripts, but are not the sort of transparency that the victims here are demanding and which they have called out in their letters to the court about this release of the grand jury transcripts. It's not that they oppose it per se, but to a person, they have said the process stinks, and it's certainly not enough to grant the transparency that they deserve and that the public deserves.
- [15:23]
Rachel Maddow
No, they're so narrow, as you Both have educated me on many times. They're narrow. They're oftenjudges, often reject the release of these as Trump wants some credit for transparency. Let me ask you, Christia, just about the omission of Alex Acosta and these subpoenas, because this is another case. It's a lot of phony transparency going on here. That's what I'm calling it. There are a lot of people who have been issued subpoenas, including Loretta lynch and all sorts of people. Alex Acosta was not on the list. What is that all about? Right.
- [15:53]
Angie Hicks
He's somebody who would have information. I mean, this was by all accounts, a really dirty deal that happened in Florida. He would be one of the first people you would want to speak to to understand why his office entered into that dirty deal. They also put aside going to all of these people in the past. Why haven't they brought in the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, the FBI director, and the deputy who oversaw months of a review of the entire Epstein file. There were agents apparently working around the clock and people sleeping at their desks to review all of this. And we got a two page unsigned memo that raises more questions than it answers. So why aren't they testifying before Congress about that review and the basis for their conclusions? They said after reviewing all of that evidence that there was no basis to answer, even investigate anyone, much less prosecute anyone. They should have to explain why, because the victims tell a very different story. They said that there are plenty of investigative leads and they don't understand why they're not being pursued. I would think that the current Attorney General and the current FBI director would be the first ones you'd want to talk to, to ask why.
- [17:12]
Rachel Maddow
You'd think if any of this was on the level, that's what would be happening. But this is an effort to create a total circus, or that's my theory. So let me ask you, Lisa, just about. There's a lot of people on this subpoena list. I listed a number of them. The Clintons, Bob Mueller, Bill Barr, Jeff Sessions. I mean, it's hard for me to envision these people are actually going to show up. I guess we'll see. DOJ was also subpoenaed. What do you make of this list? What happens if they don't show up? And what about the DOJ piece of it?
- [17:42]
Kristi Greenberg
Well, I think that their counsel is going to negotiate with House Oversight about what the sort of parameters of their depositions will be, if they're given at all. Some of them may try to invoke various privileges. But, Jen, let's put aside the list of people whose testimony is being sought because I think the subpoena to DOJ is far more interesting. It goes well beyond what we traditionally think of as the Epstein files, because it also asks for all documents and communication that relate to either Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell and their alleged crimes. That would mean that by its plain terms, this subpoena is also calling for, for example, communications between people in the deputy attorney general's office and Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team arranging for that interview, or emails between people in the Office of Public affairs at the Department of Justice and various people in the media who have asked questions that have resulted in some of the reporting that you were invoking tonight. So I'm much more interested in seeing whether or not DOJ complies, how they try to warm themselves up out of it. But communications between the Department of Justice and a third party, there isn't any privilege or protection that should apply to those communications. And if DOJ doesn't just ignore it and blow it off entirely, you could see some really explosive stuff come back to them, particularly if the committee has the gumption to try and enforce its own subpoena.
- [19:06]
Rachel Maddow
I'm waiting for people to start foiaing things because it's an agency, so we'll see what happens there, too. Christy Green Greenberg, who, by the way, hosts a new YouTube show called Courtside, which feels very topical right now. You should check that out. And Lisa Rubin, thank you both so much for joining me. I really appreciate it. Okay, we're gonna take a quick break. But after that, all this talk about Epstein has got the Trump administration talking Russia hoax again. Of course it has. I'll try to cut through the noise of all of that. But first, Texas Democrats are out of town in a bid to block Republicans from redrawing, drawing the state's congressional maps in their favor. And now Texas Governor Greg Abbott wants to remove one of the state's Democratic leaders from office. Texas state Rep. Jean Woo joins me after a very quick break. This just happened in the last few hours. We quilt this city with a comfy roll.
- [19:59]
Lisa Rubin
Quilted Northern is quilted with three cushy layers for your comfort.
- [20:03]
Rachel Maddow
The quilted comfort of quilted Northern.
- [20:07]
Lisa Rubin
Keep it quilted with quilted Northern.
- [20:09]
Bubba Wallace
Bubba Wallace here with Tyler Reddick. You know what's more nerve wracking than waiting for qualifying results?
- [20:15]
Jen Psaki
Waiting for the green flag to drop.
- [20:16]
Bubba Wallace
Instead of pacing, you rev up with Chumba Casino's weekly New Releases it's like.
- [20:21]
Jen Psaki
A fresh set of tires for your brain.
- [20:23]
Bubba Wallace
Play for free@chumbacasino.com let's chumba no purchase necessary.
- [20:29]
Tyler Reddick
VGW Group Void where prohibited by law CT&C's 21/plus sponsored by Jumba Casino Imagine.
- [20:35]
Odoo Representative
Relying on a dozen different software programs to run your business, none of which are connected, and each one more expensive and more complicated than the last. It can be pretty stressful. Now imagine Odoo. Odoo has all the programs you'll ever need, and they're all connected on one platform. Doesn't Odoo sound amazing? Let Odoo harmonize your business with simple, efficient software that can handle everything for a fraction of the price. Sign up today@odoo.com that's o-o.com there being.
- [21:14]
Jen Psaki
94 members present, a quorum is not present.
- [21:19]
Rachel Maddow
So that was the Texas House speaker today, gaveling out until Friday because more than 50 Democrats fled to three blue states Sunday in protest to deny Republicans from voting and approving their new very gerrymander. Texas law requires that 100 members be present for a quorum, and we're at this point because Texas governor Greg Abbott has insisted, at the request of Trump, that the legislature jam through new congressional maps because Republicans are freaked out about losing the House next year. Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton have previously threatened to both arrest and vacate the seats of Democrats who are taking this stand if they do not return to Texas. And it appears that effort has officially begun. Earlier this evening, in just the last couple of hours, Abbott filed a lawsuit asking the state Supreme Court to kick state Rep. And Democratic caucus leader Jane Wu out of his duly elected seat. The lawsuit also accuses Wu of, quote, soliciting and receiving certain benefits in exchange for skipping a vote. But despite all of these fear tactics, Representative Wu is not backing down. And joining me now is Democratic leader and state Representative Jean Wu. Thank you so much for being here. I know you have had quite a day, to put it mildly. Let me just start by asking you. I mean, Governor Abbott is trying to kick you out of your seat, accusing you and other Democrats of soliciting money to pay fines, which I will just note this is in part because they could charge Democrats up to $500 a day, and there's been an effort to raise money to cover that expense. Right. That's why we're here. But what is your reaction to this lawsuit from the governor?
- [22:56]
Jen Psaki
It's simply insanity. Look, I mean, first of all, this seat doesn't belong to me. It sure as hell doesn't belong to the governor. This seat belongs to the people of the state of Texas. And I took an oath to protect them and defend them. And when the governor conspires with a corrupt president to use illegal, unconstitutional racial gerrymandering to strip power from hardworking communities who have spent decades building up their power, building up their voice, only to have President Trump steal it from them, I took an oath to defend against that, an oath to defend those communities and an oath to defend the Constitution.
- [23:42]
Rachel Maddow
Donald Trump said again today that he is entitled to five seats in Texas, which is pretty outrageous. But I'd love to hear your thoughts on that comment. I mean, you spoke about the governor. What do you think about that?
- [23:57]
Jen Psaki
No, I mean, this is exactly what a king would say. Americans know what they're seeing. They may not be able to put words to it quite yet, but they know that this is wrong, it smells wrong. And they know that this is the lead up to authoritarianism, that this is what despots and dictators do around the world. We have fought wars against people like this. We have. We have sacrificed lives to free people from dictators like this who do these kind of things, who use the legal process, use law enforcement to go hunt down their enemies, hunt down people who disagree with them, and use any means necessary to silence them. This is not America. And if you think that this is wrong, we need people to stand up.
- [24:44]
Rachel Maddow
Now, I think just so people. I know people watching have been following this closely, but Trump also mentioned that the FBI may have to be used to go after Democratic elected officials who are out of the state, which is an absolutely insane thing to say. But I want to know your thoughts on that. What are your caucus colleagues saying about that?
- [25:05]
Jen Psaki
Yeah, so we knew going into this that this was a possibility. We knew that Governor Abbott, Senator Cornyn, Ken Paxton, none of them have power outside of the state and can do anything outside of state. And we know that Donald Trump and the FBI and whoever else he has cannot get involved unless they are legally allowed to get involved. Our issue is, will they actually follow the law? And we've watched Governor Abbott, Ken Paxton, and especially Donald Trump just flout the law, just does not care what the law says or especially what the Constitution of the United States says. That is why we're here. That is why we're doing this. For we are tired, just like the people in this country. We're tired of corrupt politicians. We are tired of the corrupt process. We're tired of politicians telling us Nice things to our face, and then turning around and doing the opposite and just taking care of themselves, taking care of their buddies. Enough. We have said enough. And we want the people of the state of Texas to say enough. And most importantly, we need the people of the United States to say enough.
- [26:20]
Rachel Maddow
I can hear in your voice and seeing your passion, you are not backing down. I think it is incredibly inspiring to see you also are helping lead this group. And you have to keep enough people from going back to Texas and allowing them to have a quorum to move forward. And you're trying to do this at the time when the governor is threatening to try to take people's seats away, when Trump is talking about the FBI. How are you? How are those conversations going? And how confident do you feel you're going to be able to keep enough Democrats from going back before the end of this session, at least?
- [26:59]
Jen Psaki
So all the Democrats who are here, we had lengthy discussions about this, about the dangers of doing this. Before we did it. We had long discussions. Everybody who is here recognizes the danger to them personally, recognizes the danger to their families, recognizes danger to their communities. But we have all agreed that for us to do nothing is far worse. For us to be complicit in the destruction of communities across the state would be immoral and unethical, would be a violation of our oaths. And all of us, all of us have taken oaths to swear to defend the United States, to defend the Constitution of the United States, and to defend her people. We take this oath very seriously. And that is why we're here. We will stand up against Trump. We will stand up against Abbott or whoever they have to throw at us. We will fight to our last breath to save this nation.
- [28:06]
Rachel Maddow
You're very much on the front lines of what I think everybody anticipates being an effort nationwide by the Republicans to attempt to gerrymander and strong arm governors into doing exactly that because Trump and others are so freaked out about losing the House. There are Democrats in blue states like California and New York and rumored to be others who are trying to figure out what's possible here. Illinois, of course. What do you think about that? Is that an encouraging sign? Do you worry about the trend we're going down as a country? What do you think?
- [28:41]
Jen Psaki
Of course, people look, everybody knows that something is wrong. Everyone's looking outside their lives and watching things fall apart piece by piece. For the last 50 years, the people who have done this have spent their time stripping apart every institution that made us great, that made America great, piece by piece and sold it off to the lowest bidder. And there is one thing left that they have not taken, and that is our voice and our power. And they're here for it. If they take this from us, if they take our voice from us, that is the end. Our republic is meaningless. Our democracy is meaningless if the people's voice does not matter, if they can do whatever they want. If Donald Trump can lie, cheat and steal his way into power and with no consequences, there is nothing left of us. There's nothing left to save. And I am not going to stand by that quietly. We will do everything we can. We will fight as hard as we can. We will use every tool we have in our arsenal to do whatever we need to defend this country and defend our people.
- [30:00]
Rachel Maddow
Texas State Representative Jean Wu, you have an incredibly stiff spine. Thank you for standing up, for voicing what this is all about. I think it's so important for people to hear about. I really appreciate you being here with me tonight. Thank you. Thank you again. Okay, coming up, we have more to talk about. It's been a day. Butter emails. No, seriously, the Trump administration and its friends in the media are talking about the 2016 election again. It will never end. I'm going to explain it. We're going to talk about it after a quick break. So amidst all of this, Attorney General Pambani appears to be very, very eager to get back in Trump's good graces and, of course, take the spotlight off all the things he doesn't want to talk about. Because one of her latest actions, asking a grand jury to look into the Obama administration's probe of Russia's actions in the 2016 election is, well, pretty peak desperate, isn't it? I mean, first of all, there are a few issues that have been as exhaustively investigated as this one. Remember, there have already been multiple investigations into Russia's influence on the 2016 race. There was the Mueller investigation. There was the bipartisan Senate intelligence investigation. Thank you for your contributions, by the way, Marco Rubio. We really appreciate them. And of course, the John Durham special counsel investigation that specifically looked into the FBI probe into Russia's influence on the 2016 election. So, yes, the investigation has already been extensively investigated, all of which either did not dispute or found that, yeah, Moscow interfered in the 2016 election to help one candidate in particular, Donald J. Trump, win. And all of those investigations happened during Trump's first term in office. But in a new effort to apparently distract, Trump's DOJ is opening yet another Russia probe, one based on a Criminal referral from the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, after the Trump administration declassified files about Russia's actions in 2016, which invoke some of Republicans favorite boogeyman and women, including even Hillary Clinton, literally. Hillary Clinton should be behind bars and.
- [32:17]
Angie Hicks
So should the people who worked for her.
- [32:18]
Rachel Maddow
Who did this?
- [32:19]
Jen Psaki
George Soros People worked with the DNC to roll the hoax and the FBI was in on it the whole time.
- [32:26]
Rachel Maddow
These documents point specifically and right straight to Hillary Clinton, as she was the key voice signing off on the entire Russiagate scheme.
- [32:36]
Jen Psaki
I've been saying that this is going to make Watergate look like a jaywalking ticket in the end. And I believe this smoking gun out today proves that comment to be correct.
- [32:49]
Rachel Maddow
Watergate look like a jaywalking ticket, everyone? That was like a garble of word salad all over there in those clips. But it sounds bad. They made it sound really bad. Except the supposed smoking gun they're all talking about is an email included in the Durham Report's annex. You know, the last investigation that Trump and his media allies said would prove absolutely that Russian influence in the 2016 election was a hoax. Now, as the New York Times put it, what the newly released details show is actually almost precisely the opposite of what Trump World is now claiming. Here's what it says. The report shows that a purported email that Trump supporters have long tried to portray as a smoking gun is instead most likely a fake. A fake made by. Get this, this is quite a detail. Russian spies. Well, whoopsie daisy there, isn't it? I mean, aside from waving a shiny ball around to get their favorite lap dogs to cover, it's completely unclear what this latest investigation is even about. Well, that's what it's about. Probably waving the shiny ball for those who remember, and I definitely do, because I lived through it in the White House. Back In June of 2016, it was the company CrowdStrike and the Clinton campaign who claimed that Russia was meddling in the election despite a lot of pressure from the outside. We, those of us all in the Obama White House, didn't really say much about it. Neither did the intelligence community. That was criticized too, at the time. In fact, the Obama administration didn't put out anything until September of 2016. Anything of substance, really, that is. And even that was a statement that took weeks to negotiate with Republican leadership and was watered down by Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The statement basically encouraged states to protect their election infrastructure. It was not controversial really at all. Didn't mention the release of hack Clinton emails didn't even mention Putin. And the intelligence community didn't put anything out about Russia's intervention until October 7, which basically blamed Russia for the release of hacked emails from Hillary Clinton's server, did not assert they were trying to elect Trump. It just stated, quote, the Russian government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations, and again encouraged states to protect their infrastructure because that was the concern at the time. Admittedly, it's all pretty weak stuff in retrospect, given what we know now. As my former colleague Ben Rhodes put it, if you look at the October statement from the intelligence community, all it talks about is that the Russians hacked and released some of the material, which I think was only a small piece of their information war. My own view is we could have done more and said more certainly about the information war and fake news dissemination. That's all true. That's all true. Anyone who lived through it knows that. I mean, would sounding the alarm about the massive disinformation campaign have changed the outcome of the 2016 election? Maybe not. But there were a lot of lessons learned from that period. A lot that impacted how the Biden administration, which included a number of the same people in positions of power and the intelligence community more aggressively handled the declassification of information. They did a lot more of it. But if anyone should be questioning the approach of the Obama administration at the time, the last person last who is justified to do so is Donald Trump. I mean, without Russia, he might just be playing bad golf and eating burgers at Mar a Lago. That could be what we were dealing with today. Still come tonight, at a Republican congressman's raucous town hall last night in Lincoln, Nebraska, one voice from the crowd stood out.
- [36:17]
Rosina Paolini
This is about issues because we're about to lose our democracy.
- [36:26]
Rachel Maddow
We tracked her down. I'm going to talk to her about that moment in. In just a moment. If you watched MSNBC last night, you may have seen the extensive pushback that Republican Congressman Mike Flood received from voters in Lincoln, Nebraska, at his town hall yesterday. One of those voters cut through the raucous crowd in the town hall, skipping the insults and beginning with a simple request. She told the crowd she wanted to hear what Congressman Flood had to say because he didn't have his facts in order.
- [37:01]
Lisa Rubin
Hi.
- [37:02]
Rosina Paolini
I implore you to be quiet so that we can hear his responses. Remember, Mike's coming up for a re election and we'd really like to know what his responses are. I'm Rosina I write you emails with concerns of your voting behavior regarding Trump and his actions. You support him, especially confirming the Cabinet. Your responses are riddled with misinformation and lies. I fact check you and then I send the responses back and I get crickets. If I am fact checking them because they are wrong in your response, I send them back to you and I get crickets. I get kind of bummed. And this is not about partisan. This is about issues, because we're about to lose our democracy.
- [38:08]
Rachel Maddow
And joining us now is Rosina Paolini. I hope I pronounced that correctly. The Nebraska voter who raised those issues with Congressman Flood at last night's town hall. Thank you so much for joining us. First of all, when I saw that clip last night, I texted our producers and I said, we have to find her. She's great. She's inspiring to all of us. And I'm so grateful for you being here. So first, tell me what motivated you to show up and speak out at that town hall last night? Not an easy thing to do.
- [38:40]
Lisa Rubin
I actually speak before the city council fairly regularly, so it wasn't a huge leap. The other part, I was surrounded with love and people who support me. When you know you have that, it is easy to take the risk, as you all do every day.
- [39:04]
Rachel Maddow
Well, it's incredibly powerful to see because I think in this moment, sometimes, sometimes people can feel disillusioned and scared and like they don't know how to use their voice. And that's a way to use your voice, is to show up to town hall meetings and write your members of Congress and ask questions. Now, the congressman, as I understand it, but you tell me, said he'd be willing to sit down with you and go through some of the issues you laid out. What's the latest on that? Is that something you'd like to do or you're open to doing?
- [39:32]
Lisa Rubin
I'm open to it, yes.
- [39:35]
Rachel Maddow
And what are the questions you have for him that you'd like him to. You want better answers from him? On.
- [39:41]
Lisa Rubin
Well, Jen, I watch you a lot and a number of other scholars. I have a book.
- [39:50]
Rachel Maddow
I love it. We love a book. And notes Rosina, we love. Everybody needs a book. What do you have on there?
- [39:57]
Lisa Rubin
I have everything from immigration to the fact that both our legislature in Nebraska and then with the big whatever you want to call it, bill has eliminated women's voted, not eliminated. Excuse me, is limiting women's voting rights. I'm 64. We've done a lot of work to get to where we were Six months ago. And I don't want to see it all gone. So everything from our workforce being disappeared to our women's health issues to the reality that Medicare is being changed. And when we really realize that the people who are on Medicare pay out of pocket costs, pharmacy costs, copay costs that lead them to Medicaid, it's an issue. So there are a number of issues, but I want to focus on that. There are issues. It's not partisan. We pay our taxes for services and we'd like to receive those services.
- [41:08]
Rachel Maddow
It's very understandable. I could talk to you all night. We only have about a minute left because we have to get to Lawrence o' Donnell, who is wonderful, of course, but he referred to. I know you like Lawrence too. I could tell. He referred to a hypothetical 28 year old who doesn't want to work when he tells talked about Medicaid cuts. And this is. So I know you do work at a food co op. Right. Who do you see come in when you're working there? Help people understand you're actually living in your community. You're talking to people you're seeing who needs those type of resources. Who do you see?
- [41:42]
Lisa Rubin
So we are a SNAP benefits store and we do double up food bucks so you get double the money for your vegetables and fruit. Everybody. Our 3% unemployment rate is misleading because we have a high underemployment rate. We see a lot of those folks, they're working two jobs, they're trying to pull together a family, all of the logistics of life. So that's what I see on a regular basis. I see a lot of college students on SNAP benefits. That's what I see on a daily basis. I see a lot of elders.
- [42:26]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah.
- [42:27]
Lisa Rubin
So yes, the wide spectrum. I actually invited Mike Flood to come to work with me because I thought then he would be able to.
- [42:36]
Angie Hicks
Step.
- [42:37]
Lisa Rubin
In it like to really feel it to know that the majority of our employees don't drive to work. They ride or take the bus or walk. Many of our patrons use the same mode of transportation. So things like that.
- [42:54]
Rachel Maddow
Rosina, I hope he takes you up on it. I'd love to come visit you. It sounds amazing what you do. I so appreciate you being here with us and using your voice last night is really inspiring. And for anybody watching who's just not sure what to do in this moment, you are a wonderful role model for them. So thank you again for being here with us. I appreciate it.
- [43:13]
Lisa Rubin
Thank you all. You do hard work and I really appreciate you all.
- [43:17]
Rachel Maddow
Oh, thank you okay? Thank you, Rosina. All right, hold onto your seats. Donald Trump appears to have broken a campaign promise. I'm going to tell you about it when we come back after a quick break. This time last year, Trump was facing mounting fallout from the strict abortion bans popping up all across the country. So he came up with a shiny new campaign prompt. He vowed to make the notoriously expensive fertilization treatment IVF completely free. Here he is pitching it to voters.
- [43:52]
Jen Psaki
Under the Trump administration, your government will.
- [43:54]
Odoo Representative
Pay for or your insurance company will.
- [43:58]
Jen Psaki
Be mandated to pay for all costs associated with IVF treatment, fertilization for women.
- [44:08]
Rachel Maddow
He even gave himself a new creepy nickname, the father of IVF Bich. Fast forward to today. Not only has his administration failed to deliver on that promise, but according to new reporting from the Washington Post, they're ready to give up on it altogether. Now, the excuse they're reportedly giving is that Trump can't do anything about IVF without Congress, which would maybe make sense if he didn't have a Congress full of MAGA loyalists ready to do anything he asks, if only he would ask. But putting in any effort to deliver on the promise would mean upsetting his far right buddies in the anti abortion movement who believe IVF shouldn't even be legal, let alone free. So Trump, father of ivf, kind of more like a deadbeat dad move to me, I guess. At best that does it for me.
- [44:48]
KPMG Representative
Tonight, KPMG makes the difference by creating value. Like developing strategic insights that help drive M and A success. And embedding AI solutions into your business to sustain competitive advantage. Or deploying tech enabled audits to deliver more accurate and transparent outcomes. Brighter insights, bolder solutions, better outcomes. It's how KPMG makes the difference. Every day, KPMG make the difference.