← The Jim Acosta Show
The Jim Acosta Show
Cuba Invasion Next? Former Obama Official Ben Rhodes, Legal Analyst Joyce Vance, and Immigration Reporter Nick Valencia
00:59:21
Loading summary
Transcript60 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:06]
B
Welcome to the Jim Acosta show. It's another day that ends and why and the chaos unleashed by Donald Trump around the world. And before we get started, a special thanks to our sponsor, Incogni. Identity theft is real. It's happening and they are fighting back. You'll find a link in the post for this program or you can scan that QR code, check it out, use the code. Jim55. But in the meantime, the White House says it has a plan for causing regime change in Cuba, where we heard this before. Let's discuss with President Obama's former deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes. He is the author of the new book Always the Battle for American a history in 15 speeches. And Ben is somebody I used to annoy all the time when I covered the second Obama administration. Ben, good to see you.
- [00:54]
A
Good to see you, Jim. Yes, you, you did very much annoy us, but. Because you asked hard questions. But, but I hope that we, we, we annoyed you only insofar as people in power usually do, not as some people go an extra mile to, to, to harass as well as annoy.
- [01:09]
B
It's a little different these days. It just feels a little different. It felt different the first time. But, Ben, good to see. Congrats on the book. And I do want to talk about the book because I think it's, it's really important. And you say some very interesting things here. You get into Jeremiah Wright, which, you know, I thought that was an interesting idea. But let's talk about Iran if we can for a second, then delve into Cuba and then get to the book. Iran, I guess there's, there's. Yet again, I, my head is spinning so many times now because I don't know which way to look. You know, it's like watching the French open these days. Is it a ceasefire? Is it not a ceasefire? Do we have a framework for getting to a ceasefire? I guess there's, there's news out today, according to the New York Times, that they're closing in on a framework for negotiations with Iran that could extend the cease fire. Ben, you know, you, you're a veteran of the Obama White House. You're, you were there when the Iran nuclear deal was taking shape. And I'm just curious what your thoughts are looking back on all of this in light of what we're seeing now.
- [02:09]
A
Yeah, I mean, well, first of all, the crazy thing about all these reports is it's quite obvious what would happen if there's going to be some framework and then negotiation and then actual deal, which is that there would be some preliminary agreement for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and the United States to stop its blockade of Iran, perhaps probably in exchange for some sanctions relief and revenue going to the Iranians. And then there's some period of time, 60 days, to negotiate a nuclear agreement that's probably quite like the one that we negotiated. The reason I think we keep seeing these reports that it's done and then only to learn that it's not and there's been a hang up is because I think on both sides, probably particularly the Iranian side, some of the preliminary spin is spooking the negotiators. And I say this from personal experience, Jim, like you'll remember that our negotiation for Iran deal was very long. And there were times in that negotiation when answering questions from reporters like you, and we would talk about the kinds of concessions that we were seeking in the deal and sometimes we would hear from the Iranian negotiators, hey, can you please not, you know, lean so far into talking up all the concessions you're getting because it's giving us problems with the irgc, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that is not enthusiastic about a deal in the first place. And now what you have is the irgc, the hardliners that's the most hardline element to the regime is really in control of Iran because of this war. They're the ones who close the Strait of Hormuz. And I think that every time that Trump has gone out and kind of announced, done what he does, which is actually usually lie and kind of overstates, we're going to get the strait open, we're going to control the strait. And these are things he says that's not what's being agreed upon. And the IRGC probably calls up the Iranian negotiators and says, what the hell is going on? You know, and so, you know, I think eventually we'll get there. But again, I think the thing that keeps messing this up is probably particularly Trump mouthing off, putting something on too social, spiking the football before he scored, and frankly, you know, overstating what Iran is prepared to give. And, and then that keeps kind of delaying the inevitable here, which is that the United States is not going to get anywhere near what Trump suggested it would before and even during the war. But this is the only way to end it.
- [04:46]
B
Right? And he keeps saying that, that the end in all of this is for the Iranians to give up their nuclear program to hand over the uranium and, you know, basically have no potential whatsoever. For developing a nuclear weapon. Is that even realistic? Do we think we'll ever really get there? Because it seems to me the only way you get there is through a pretty, like, massive invasion with a protracted presence in that region for the US Military, I can't imagine they just. They're just going to hand it over no matter what deal is struck or.
- [05:17]
A
Well, it's. Yeah, you have to remember, Trump's going in position. The position before this war with Witkoff and Jared Kushner and the negotiations they were ongoing when he bombed Iran, their position was absolutely no nuclear program, no uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. I know from experience that's something the Iranians will never agree to. We got criticized for not achieving that in the negotiations, but we said at the time, while that'd be nice, they're never going to agree to it. I do think if you get into the longer negotiation, you know, they're never going to give up that stockpile. Now, on the front end, under the Iran deal that we negotiated, they did ship their stockpile out of the country, which is pretty funny to think about because Trump tore that up. But essentially, the terms of that deal where Iran shipped their stockpile of low enriched uranium out of the country, all they were left to, all that they had left was a very minimal amount that they have, low enriched uranium that was limited for the purposes of, like, medical isotopes. Right. Obviously, something you can't use at all for a nuclear weapon. And then they had strict limitations on how much they could enrich uranium, and they had inspections of all their facilities. I think that if he gets into that longer negotiation, the kind of deal that he might. And, you know, again, it's not, you know, nothing is for sure with this crowd, either Trump or the Iranians. I think he could potentially get them to ship out that stockpile, which, by the way, is much more dangerous than anything they ever had when we were in power, because it's highly enriched uranium. It's a. It's a higher caliber of nuclear material. If he gives them significant sanctions relief, you know, tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief and potentially their capacity to toll the Strait of Hormuz for some money, he then probably could get something like the Iran deal, which is they shut their stockpile out, they accept some limitations on their nuclear program. If he wants to get it out without a deal, he needs ground troops. If he. He wants to destroy the program, he needs ground troops, and that would be a bloodbath, and I don't think he wants that.
- [07:22]
B
Yeah. And despite the fact that they've created this entire environment of instability in the Middle east that's caused a massive global energy crisis in particular for the United States. They have these designs on Cuba. And I think you were telling me a few moments ago you're in Miami for a book event. So that's interesting. But, but Ben in Axios, and I don't know why all these stories show up in Axios, but anyway, it says the Trump administration is bracing for the potential collapse of Cuba's totalitarian government. As early as this summer, they've war gamed new military response plans in case the island descends into chaos. I don't know what kind of war game is going to prepare us for Cuba descending into chaos, but you and I had sort of a back and forth messaging on, on X or somewhere on DM and we were talking about how this could just turn into a total catastrophe for the Trump administration and the American public is not prepared for it at all if, if it really descends badly this summer.
- [08:19]
A
Yeah, that's right. And I, I, there are a lot of good journalists at Axios, but I will say, Jim, you don't have to comment on it. Sometimes they give those types of leaks or, you know, reports to people because they know that they will not ask any follow up question in the way that you would have if I ever tried to give you a report when she was on the other foot. So anyway, how's this going to work, that kind of thing? Yeah, no, they don't like to be pressed on their theories. They just like to call someone and say, like, here's what we're thinking, you know, Look, I think they're clearly preparing to do something to Cuba. I think probably to include some kind of military intervention. They've had this blockade in part in place for months, which on top of the embargo, which had already kind of helped strangle the Cuban economy alongside some of the policies of the Cuban government that has really devastated the island because they have no access to fuel. And that means that at times they don't have no access to electricity, which means that in addition to being impoverished, you have people dying, hospitals don't have power. That means ventilators don't work. I've talked to journalists in Cuba who say that the sanctions the United States have in place are already killing people. And it's something that doesn't get a lot of attention in the United States, but I wish it would because that's our taxpayers and our policies doing that. Whatever you think of the Cuban government, I Just don't think anything justifies that level of sanction. And now what you see is them putting in place a pretty carbon copy of the Venezuela playbook where they're amassing military force in the Caribbean that is highly abnormal. That goes far beyond what we would ever have in the Caribbean, as we did before the Venezuela operation. They've announced this indictment of Raul Castro, the 94 year old former president of Cuba, man I met with several times, a man that you questioned quite toughly down in Havana, in the same way that they announced an indictment of Maduro. And. But here's what's strange, Jim. Like I don't like with Iran,
- [10:27]
B
you
- [10:27]
A
know what the national security issues, you know, there's a nuclear program. So even though I think it was absolutely ridiculous to go to war with Iran and dangerous and destructive, you could at least identify, you know, in some negotiation what we were asking the Iranians to do with Venezuela, even looking the backdrop was that they had the largest proven oil reserves in the world. So, and Trump was very honest after the intervention. That's why he did it. He wanted to take some of their oil. I should say that they've gotten some of the Venezuelan oil. But how much has that really helped our shortages? I mean, it hasn't really made a discernible difference. Cuba has very little to offer other than some real estate, which I should add might be part of the interest here. There's some beachfront property, a significant amount. There are some supporters of Trump in this city where I'm talking to you from, I think who would very much like to get their land back that was taken away in the Cuban revolution and probably helped develop the island for economic purposes as well as personal interests, long standing obviously in their ancestral homeland. And yet the problem is there's a deeply entrenched Cuban Communist party and just having a bunch of special forces guy go grab Raul Castro. I mean in the best case scenario, yeah, maybe you do that and you have a Cuban government that makes some concessions. But I don't think there's any amount of concessions that will meet the, the demands of Marco Rubio, which are essentially, you need to, to change your own regime. And in the risk that people aren't taking into account is what you mentioned is, and they're now waking up to this. The sanctions have been so devastating that you could just have a complete collapse of society in Cuba. The government could lose control and a US operation could instigate some kind of internal conflict like an uprising and then an attempt to suppress an uprising. Then all of a sudden you've got people starving in Cuba. You got people fighting in Cuba. You've got people, desperate people, tens and tens of thousands of people trying to cross the strait from Cuba to Florida. You have a migration crisis and a humanitarian crisis. And I don't think we're ready for that. And I think, as with the Iran war, if that scenario happens, I'm not saying it's definitely going to happen, but if that scenario happens, we. Which is possible, people will ask, like, what do we do? Why do we do that? Like, what is that doing to help lower prices in the United States, you know?
- [12:54]
B
Yeah, exactly. Well, and you mentioned when we had that press conference with Obama and Raul Castro, this is in March of 2016. We can show a picture of this. There I am asking a question of Raul Castro about his political prisoners. He got really pissed at me. And I remember Obama looking at me like, jim, I hope you can get out of the country okay. I think that was basically the expression on. You turned around and said, at least you asked the question. But how, I mean, how close were we to really kind of normalizing relations with Cuba? It seemed like it was starting to happen. And then Trump came in and slammed the door shut before he came into office. I will just disclose to the audience I took my dad to Cuba because he had been asking me to take him to Cuba in December of 2016. He saw his family, and so we have a couple pictures of that. But I mean, it just seems to me, Ben, that it, you know, you guys were on the cusp of something.
- [13:46]
A
Yeah, that's. I think, you know, anyone who's followed my path since the administration knows I'm willing to be quite critical of things that we did. I think we made a bunch of mistakes like anybody else does. And I think that I say that because I don't think this is one of them. I was very proud of what we did in Cuba and in terms of the progress we made, first of all, we did reestablish embassies. The United States and Cuba re established diplomatic relations. That was normalized. We opened up as much as we could, really, under the restrictions of the legislation that Congress has in place of a country embargo, the ability for people to travel to Cuba, you didn't need some license. You could just get on a plane, you could just get on a ship and go to Cuba. We also licensed certain other types of investments in Cuba and different sectors, particularly the fact that there was a Cuban private sector that was developing on the island. So this was not money that would go directly to the Cuban government and it's kind of controlled economy. These were people connected to the travel sector, the people in restaurants, people in shops, airbnbs that Cubans had in their homes. We wanted to make it possible for Major League Baseball to have athletes that could be drafted out of Cuba instead of having to be human trafficked through Mexico, all these different kinds of things. And I think it was working. The Cubans also agreed to allow Internet access as part of our negotiations. For instance, they did release a bunch of political prisoners. The Internet access is interesting because when there were some protests a couple years later that were suppressed, people pointed to that as a failure of our policy, when in fact I pointed to it as a success, because all those people had organized on the Internet. And that speaks to our bet, was if you just open this up and this is 90 miles from Florida, you let Cuban Americans go back and reconcile, you let Americans travel, you let people invest money. It will change the island. Maybe not overnight and maybe not exactly how the hardest line exiles in Miami want it to change, but it will change. And I think it was changing. And I say that with confidence, Jim, because you could feel it. You went. You could kind of feel a hope among the Cuban people. Even Cubans who didn't like their government, they just wanted to be reconnected to the world. I think your question, having a proud Cuban American journalist stand up and ask a really hard question from the entire world, honestly, like, that's what happens when you have engagement. You know, that could never happen without engagement. And so that's what was working. And then Trump comes in, he kind of pulls the plug on a lot of it in the first term, including the ability to travel, which I think was central to it. And now in the second term, it's obviously a much harder line. And I think it'd just be a tragedy. Like even I'm sure I'll maybe see people here in Miami who don't like kind of my view of things because they hate the Cuban government. And I always tell them that the policy actually shouldn't be about how you feel about the Cuban government. I certainly have my criticisms of them. It should be about what's best for the Cuban people. And I just don't think this approach is the best way to do it. Even if somehow you do change that regime. I think if the United States is the one that changes the regime, it creates, you know, an historical legacy that could be very difficult and dangerous to manage.
- [17:29]
B
Yeah, presidents have tried this before, and it hasn't, has not worked out that well. And Ben, we should talk about the book. We should show the COVID one more time because I think it's a fascinating idea for a book. I mean, obviously you're going to write about Obama in this, but you also write about Trump and you also write about Obama dealing with the Jeremiah Wright problem back in 2008, which I remember covering. And that was a hornet's nest. Tell us about the book.
- [17:56]
A
So the book basically tells the entire story of the argument we've been having about identity in this country through 15 speeches. I wanted to understand the moment we've reached today by going back through American history. And in each chapter, I don't just have a speech, I have, how did this speech come about? Who is the person that gave it? What was going on in the country at the time? What were the arguments happening? What movement led into this speech so that we could kind of understand the stories that weave through our entire history? Because what I was discovering is to get to Obama and Trump. Obama and Trump kind of represent kind of two opposing views of what it means to be an American. Trump's is the kind of very reactionary, exclusionary, kind of almost blood and soil nationalist version of America. You know, this is a white Christian nation that is exceptional from its founding inherently and is kind of for a certain group of people. Other people can be here as long as they kind of subordinate themselves. And there's long traditions of isolationism and anti immigrant sentiment and, and sometimes racism and degrees of nativism that kind of run through that story. Obama represents the more progressive. America was founded on an idea that all men are created equal. And American history has been the struggle to live up to that ideal. I start with Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention making the case for compromise because that's what allowed the nation to start. But it set in motion this competition and, and so the Obama story runs through. I have speeches by abolitionists and suffragettes. I've got presidents like Lincoln and fdr, but I also have Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stevens. I have Ronald Reagan, different versions of a more conservative worldview. And it culminates the last two speeches are the 2008 Obama race speech and Donald Trump's second inaugural. Because I think that kind of captures where this competition has reached
- [20:01]
B
and why Jeremiah Wright. Why bring that up? Why deal with that?
- [20:08]
A
Well, it's quite interesting, Jim, you asked that question. You remember the Selma speech that Obama gave in 2015 and the anniversary of the Selma March, the Bloody Sunday that was Obama's favorite speech. It's kind of the ultimate declaration of victory, essentially, for the progressive story. It's about the activist tradition in the country and trying to kind of reclaim that as the American story. And after Trump won his election, I looked at it, and I'd written a whole chapter about that speech, and I said, this doesn't seem right for the times. Actually, it's kind of a victory speech for the progressive story. And actually, I went back and I looked at that 2008 speech in the midst of the controversy over Jeremiah Wright, and it looked far more of the moment. It felt very contemporary to me because it was Barack Obama addressing the controversy over the words of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, in very personal and visceral terms and using that opportunity to talk about the racial stalemate in our country. And the couple things that were really interesting to me about that Jeremiah. First of all, the sermons of Jeremiah Wright that caused such controversy sounded a little different in the Trump era, because the. The words that had gotten him into trouble were things like, America was a nation founded upon racism, or 9, 11. I mean, quite provocatively was America's chickens coming home to roost, and different iterations of those two ideas. And so, first of all, what was interesting is reading Jeremiah Wright from the perspective of today, it didn't sound quite as extreme as it did in 2008. You know, I'm not saying I agree with Jeremiah exactly, but I feel like I hear Jeremiah Wright online all the time now. But actually, more importantly, it was the Obama speech. And because what he does in that speech is he. He speaks to the experience. You cannot understand Jeremiah, right, unless you kind of step back and think about him almost like a member of your family. And Obama speaks about his white grandmother, who he loved and who loved him, and yet who he'd heard say racist things that made him cringe. And he's saying, look, Jeremiah Wright has done wonderful things, and I love him. And he said terrible things I disagree with, just like my mother. Everybody in this country, everybody in our lives, everybody at our kitchen table, none of them are perfect. And the reason we keep getting trouble with race in America is we only choose to see the worst version of other people's identity and not seeing all the things that we share and our capacity to change and work together. And he talks about the experience of structural inequality for blacks and housing and education and income gap. But then, Jim, there's this passage about the white working class that rang very true to my ears today. He says, these are people who don't feel particularly privileged by their race. They're the ones who've seen their jobs shipped overseas. They're the ones who, if they voice concerns about crime, they're called racist. And it was very interesting to hear Obama before Trump kind of describe the Trump voter in very empathetic terms and say that if we can get past this kind of fixation on identity and figure out what our shared American identity is, that's the only way we're going to be able to move forward in this country. If you read it again, it rings truer now in some eerie ways than it did even in 2008.
- [23:30]
B
Yeah. And just before we go, just finally, I'm just curious, are we going to have another or to her like Obama in the, in the Oval Office anytime soon? Is that what we need in this moment? I saw you write in New York Times the other day that you just feel like the Democrats are not connecting with voters in, in a, you know, in a sufficient way. They're just not, they're, they're not getting, I mean, there are some who do, some who don't, but as a party, it's just, they're just not connecting and it's holding the party back. I think we need a new orator like Obama. Or is it that not? That's not the point.
- [24:04]
A
I think we have to. And it doesn't have to be just like Obama. But, but a couple of things I'd say are, first of all, one thing that's happened is in writing this book, I've seen how much technology changes how speeches work, right? Because in Franklin's day, you write a speech to deliver in the room and then it's reprinted in a newspaper. And that makes a certain kind of speech. You know, you fast forward all the way up through the radio. That medium means that you favor plain spoken explanation. And FDR did that very well. Television favors charisma, spectacle. That's King and Kennedy, both of whom are in my book. But the Internet and social media kind of destroyed for a time being the art of telling a political story. Because suddenly speeches are only consumed in bits and pieces, viral clips that are meant to anger you or reinforce your own beliefs. And so we lose the capacity to make a whole argument and to listen to one another. And that's the perfect medium for Trump because he gives a one hour rally speech that is not intended to tell a story. It's intended to be broken apart and to polarize people. And I feel like Democrats have done two things in the Trump era wrong. One is to try to mimic Trump's form of communication. We're going to curse now and we're going to clap back on social media. And fine, maybe that's sometimes okay, but that's Trump's terrain you're playing on. Or they're so cautious about what they say that everything's so poll tested. I mean, I remember both Biden and Harris had this line about building an economy from the bottom up to the middle out. And, yeah, I'm sure that focus grouped well, but it doesn't mean anything. And so I think at a time of, of existential crisis for Americans, like the economy doesn't work, like inequality is insane, like we're fighting wars that we don't understand, AI is coming for our jobs and is befriending our kids. You know, people want to know what the hell is going on. And actually, if you look at our history, speech is how we do that in this country. It's how we adjudicate identity. And it may not be another Obama, but we've had a Reagan who spoke his way into the presidency and spoke the Republicans out of the wilderness. We had an Obama do it for Democrats. I think the next Democrat is more likely to succeed if that person can tell a story that is authentic about why they want to where we are, why they're motivated to change this country, why all these problems are happening, and make people believe in an alternative future, because right now they don't. And yes, not everybody will hear the first time that person gives that speech, but if they do it effectively, it can inform all of their communication. And you see Jon Ossoff doing that now. You see James Tallarico doing that now. You see AOC doing that now in her travels. And so my hope is that the next Democratic candidates take this seriously because, you know, speeches may be, you know, maybe in a low point now, but if you look at our history in this book, try to imagine our history without it. Try to imagine our history that I have a dream or ask not what you can do for your. Ask what you can do for your country or FDR telling us at the height of the Depression, the only thing to fear is fear itself. It's speeches that have gotten us out of some of the darkest places.
- [27:11]
B
No question about it. And I talk about on this show all the time. I, I talk about it as the American way of life being taken away from us. That's what it feels like. That's what's happening right now. But, Ben, it's a great book. It's called Always say Good Catching up with you, man. Good luck in Miami tonight. Don't let the Cubans. They can be a stubborn bunch, but they love.
- [27:28]
A
I love them. I love Cubans. I love them so much, you know, even when they yell at me.
- [27:32]
B
Me, too. Me, too. Good to see you, Ben. Thanks a lot.
- [27:35]
A
Thanks, Jim. Good to see you.
- [27:36]
B
Best of luck. Appreciate it. It's been Rhodes, and I think we might have Joyce Vance standing by. Now. I've thrown Joyce so many curveballs today, technically, that I. I put myself in danger of not getting Joyce today, but there she is. Hi, Joyce.
- [27:49]
C
Hey, how are you?
- [27:50]
B
I'm doing great. It's great to see you. And I saw you. I got a glance of you last night at the Bruce Springsteen concert. I don't typically wear T shirts on the show, but I'm wearing my Bruce T shirt from last night. I think it's still okay to wear despite all the rain and everything last night. But what a show. Wasn't that amazing?
- [28:07]
C
You know, it was something else. I mean, the music was great. The politics were great. It was great being with folks that you love, I'll tell you. Did you see on the way in, there was a big sign that said Trump must go? A big banner by the entrance, and Mary Trump and I were walking in together. So, like teenagers, we went hauling ass across the street to mug in front of it. You know, we're the alternative Trump and Vance teachers team. So, yeah, we had maybe too much fun last night.
- [28:37]
B
Too much fun. But I think it felt good to get that off our chest. I don't know if we just. It was like we need to let out a primal scream or something, but the Boss did it for all of us. It was sort of booze for Trump and Bruce, for. For Springsteen is. Is what it felt like to me. But it was such an amazing moment because, you know, folks are feeling really beaten down right now. And Bruce, he. Not. Not a lot of artists are doing this these days where they go out in public and they just say what's on their mind and tell it like it is and just. Just say it. And he did it. And I think that's why it resonated so much.
- [29:10]
C
You know, it's possible to speak truth to power, and for whatever reason, we don't have politicians who do it. We don't have figures in the culture who do it. I think it's important, quite frankly, that he's doing it. I sometimes measure how important an event is based on how many trolls it brings out on. On Twitter and elsewhere. Certainly Bruce activated the whole troll farm network. So I. I think he hit a home run last night.
- [29:37]
B
Totally. And we have some pictures we can show the audience if the team wants to just scroll through some pictures. We had a great time. A couple members of my team actually managed to make their way towards the stage. I think they may have evaded security in some fashion to get really close to Bruce Springsteen, which was really nice. I didn't try to do that because I'm too much of a goody two shoes. I don't do those things. But my. My team did, and I applaud them for this, but it was so amazing. And he talked about Renee Good, and he talked about lax, pretty. He talked about how inspiring Minneapolis has been. He didn't hold back on ice, didn't hold back on Trump being corrupt, the weaponization fund, you name it. I mean, he really. It was a. It was a sustained takedown and it was impressive.
- [30:19]
C
It was really good. You know, I don't know if that came from the heart. It felt like it came from the heart and it was in his own words, but, but the substance, his legal analysis was as good as any legal analysis that I've heard of the anti Democratic flaws here. What I really liked at an emotional level was the way he talked about Minneapolis and the way he talked about Renee Goode and Alex Preddy. It wasn't performative, it wasn't there for show. He made them feel like real people. He's lost matters to all of us. And the pictures he chose were remarkable. And I wish we could take what he did last night and make it available to everybody in America. I feel like it's what needs to be heard and seen right now.
- [31:05]
B
Yeah, that's the way I felt walking out of it. Joyce was just like, we need more of this in America. And yeah, it kind of harkened back to that Vietnam era of protest music and musicians just putting it all out there. And I just wish we could see more of that and feel more of that because it felt like a really unifying event last night. It was not TDS or anti Trump or anything. It was. It kind of felt patriotic. It. It not kind of. It was a patriotic night in a. In a. In an amazing way.
- [31:37]
C
Yeah, it was the best kind of patriotism. And I had sort of this moment of clarity that I'm not sure if I can still channel where I have all too often thought, you know, why aren't there young people protesting? They should be out at the protests. And yes, that's true. But what was clear to me last night was the people who have that perspective from the 60s up until now, who get what it looked like to live under a functioning democracy and how much we've given up, those are old people like me, and we really do have the responsibility for doing, you know, what, what. I was a little bit Young in the 60s, but I can remember my mom taking me along to protests. And I think we have the obligation to make the connection from that moment to this one.
- [32:23]
B
Yeah. No question about it. Well, I, I can't bring you on, Joyce, without throwing some legal questions at you. I, I have to get your take on, I think, which it was a kind of earth shattering story last night and some of us may have missed it, who are at the show. But the fact that the Justice Department has opened this criminal investigation involving E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits, according to NBC, over her sexual abuse allegations against Donald Trump. This is according to two sources familiar with the matter. The probe is focused on a trust founded by billionaire Democratic donor Reid Hoffman, whose nonprofit helped pay some of Carol's legal costs. What do you think? I mean, obviously this is just another example of Trump using the Justice Department to retaliate against his perceived political enemies. But your, your take on this, your response to this.
- [33:12]
C
So I should say, Jim, that Eugene and I are close personal friends and I think it's important to disclose that bias so you can take it into. But I would weigh in with the overwhelming majority of legal analysts who I have heard just, you know, put their hands up in the air and wonder what the hell folks at DOJ are thinking to do this. First off, the reporting is that it's happening in Chicago. And the allegation, at least as to E. Jean Carroll, is that she committed perjury in a civil case when she gave deposition testimony in Manhattan. So the U.S. attorney in Chicago would not be able to charge that unless there's been some kind of internal DOJ recusal of the US Attorney in Manhattan and reassignment to Chicago, which isn't included in the reporting. But, you know, jurisdiction, that's the sort of nerdy inside of DOJ legal stuff that's critical in a lawsuit, but that's maybe less apparent on the surface. The real problem, as, as reported, the allegation as to Eugene is this perjury in a civil case. And, you know, DOJ does not typically go around investigating perjury in civil lawsuits, which is sort of a rampant issue. And I guess if DOJ wanted to prosecute those cases, it could look at them, and it would add millions of cases to its docket. They just don't have the sort of national importance that's one of the standards prosecutors consider when they're investigating a case. Beyond that, though, as a case, this would be fatally flawed from the outset. The allegation is that she wasn't truthful about the fact that there was some outside funding to support the case. She testified her lawyers had it on a contingency fee. Well, this issue was raised during that trial, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals already looked at it and said she didn't commit perjury. Right. She just didn't. She had had a conversation two years earlier with her lawyers where they said, oh, we are some money from someplace else. But as to her, the case was on a contingency fee. She wasn't getting any money. If you put those facts in front of a grand jury and explained what the government has to prove in a. A perjury case, a knowing material false statement, it just couldn't pass muster for obtaining an indictment. This would be another failed indictment by doj. And so I think that's the bottom line on this case. Now, look, there might be some reporting developing. I've just heard Carol Lennig say it for that it could be an investigation into the donor who was the source of these funds in Chicago. And maybe that's true. They still couldn't indict E. Jean Carroll there. And, you know, there's nothing illegal with a donor donating funding for a lawsuit. I mean, this is America, folks.
- [36:04]
B
Right, Exactly. And a couple of things on that. One is if you're suing Donald Trump, you're going to need help paying your legal bills, because he is the master of stretching these things out. We saw this happen during almost the entire Biden presidency with all the legal hot water that Donald Trump was in. His whole. His whole game plan was delay tactics, one delay tactic after another. And so, of course, if you're suing him, he's going to stretch things out and make it expensive for you. So you're going to need help paying those legal. That. That just was my reaction to it when I saw this. So I'm like, what's the big deal here?
- [36:35]
C
I mean, Trump was direct mailing his donors to support his legal fees.
- [36:40]
D
Right.
- [36:40]
C
And the other thing is, if you want to look at perjury in a civil deposition, maybe look at Donald Trump's testimony in that very same case, because I promise you, that deposition is filled with stuff that's far more credibly perjury than anything that came out of Jean's mouth.
- [36:58]
B
Right. Can we try, I mean, if they're going to try E. Jean Carroll for perjury, can we try Donald Trump for perjury? Or how about corruption in the Trump White House? Joyce, I just feel like this is, I know it's covered a lot, but I still feel it's undercovered. And I just wonder what is going to happen when this administration finally comes to an end and what kind of corruption investigations ensue. I mean, ProPublica reported today that when the Pentagon announced a $620 million loan last year to a small North Carolina startup linked to Donald Trump Jr. Defense officials and the company tried to tamp down suspicions of cronyism. Apparently there was somebody working behind the scenes to put pressure on for this loan to go through and that one of the calls that was made was from Peter Navarro, a White House advisor to Donald Trump and a friend of Trump Jr. I mean, you know, this is the request for the loan to go through. And it just seems to me, you know, maybe not this particular case, maybe it's a whole slew of cases thrown together here or taken in the aggregate, but it seems to me that there is just, there's going to be a case to be made for public corruption trials if and when this all comes to an end.
- [38:08]
C
So, look, we are living in a full blown kleptocracy, right? A government that's being run by corrupt people for their own personal benefit. Maybe the easier way to explain it is we live in a banana republic. The president rewards his friends, he sacrifices and punishes his enemies. It's not how the American justice system is supposed to work. And I don't really understand how that has become so normalized and accepted or how people just don't really seem to care. I think that to me is the major issue that we face as a society, why people don't care what's happening to the democracy. You know, will it be possible to hold people accountable? I hope so. For one thing, accountability comes in the first instance in the voting process, both here at the midterms and in 2028, because this justice Department, obviously not prosecuting anything. There I think are some interesting, important pushes at the state level and they may run into problems with under the supremacy clause, but we'll see if state AGs can make some headwinds. And the question you pose, I think, is the right one. What happens after 2028 if Democrats or just a pro democracy administration returns to power? You know, Trump will claim that he's cloaked in presidential immunity. And as I read that case, the Supreme Court says for official acts, not for personal ones. So that might offer some room to Rome. Trump will issue pardons to many of his friends and cronies. There's nothing really that can be done to get past the pardon power. And I suspect we'll see them begin to argue, we may even see it with Pam Bondi's testimony tomorrow, that the immunity that the Supreme Court has cloaked the president in for official acts and extends to people. So, for instance, if Trump is having a conversation with Bondi about something, she can't be investigated or prosecuted because that would render the president's immunity meaningless. And, you know, that's a path that I fear that there might be a conservative majority on this Supreme Court willing to accept. So I think that we should carefully model expectations about the reality of prosecutions, which I'm a big fan of. When people engage in public corruption, they should be investigated and prosecuted in if there's evidence to support that. But in the first instance, this is our responsibility as voters to say no and no more.
- [40:34]
B
Yeah, and there's going to be a debate over what. I mean, if you get into this immunity argument with the courts, there's going to be a debate over what the official acts are that fit under that umbrella. And it seems to me some of the things that Donald Trump is trying to do right now, pushing the envelope and ripping the envelope open, let's just say on meddling in the midterms, on corruption, on enriching himself. I think there's going to be a pretty robust debate over what, what, what parts of this fit under official capacity and which do not. And, you know, maybe there is an avenue somewhere down the road. Well, like you said, the pardon powder, pardon power is pretty hard to get around. But that doesn't, that's not going to cover everybody under the sun, it seems to me, and at some point, somebody's going to have to pay the piper. I, I just don't see how we escape this, this time in our history without any measure of accountability.
- [41:24]
C
And something we don't talk about enough is, you know, the, the purposes of the criminal justice system, which I teach to my first year law students, you know, punishment, rehabilitation, incapacitation. A big one we don't talk about enough is truth seeking, truth telling. It is an important measure of accountability to understand what happened. So even where there's immunity, Congress, for instance, could undert sort of investigation like the 911 Commission, like what it did on January 6th. A national truth telling commission to restore the idea that there are not alternative facts, that there is truth, that there was corruption. I would like to think that maybe 70% of the American public is still reachable on those issues.
- [42:12]
B
Absolutely. Well, the Boss was talking about it last night. Bruce Springsteen was talking about it last night. I feel like the Boss is calling all of us the worst workers to, to get our, our butts in line and get out there and start fighting for this democracy. And Joyce, I'm so glad you do it. And next time we see a Springsteen concert, let's, let's have a beer together. Let's hang out. Let's do something.
- [42:31]
C
Let's go together. Right. He says he's going to be back in D.C. in October. So it's a date.
- [42:37]
B
It's a date. I'll be there. All right. And I know you will too. Thanks, Joyce, great to see you.
- [42:41]
C
Good to see you too.
- [42:43]
B
Really appreciate it. All right. The wonderful Joyce Vance. I want to quickly go out to New Jersey and my friend and colleague Nick Valencia is out there. Nick, great. Great to see you, my man. And I hope you're staying safe. You're outside, is it Delaney hall, the ICE detention center out there. And apparently it's been getting a little intense. What can you tell us?
- [43:05]
D
That's right. During your last guest, it got a little chippy and it has been getting chippy. Just as detainees show up. We see these white unmarked vans, federal immigration vehicles dropping off people here where there is a massive hunger strike being staged behind me here, in fact, we're hearing reports that earlier this morning detainees inside were tear gassed and beaten because of what they are doing, their days of action. We're on day seven today. There was a wife of a detainee inside who was describing what went on inside saying detainees were pepper sprayed today. They were beaten this morning. And the situation is just evolving very fast. As you were on with your last guest, what we saw here happen was a confrontation where demonstrators were pushed to the ground. Somebody, it seems as though, was pushed to the side of an 18 wheeler. And what we saw last night was at least one demonstrator be pushed into an 18 wheeler by a DHS agent and get their foot wrapped up under one of those big tires. Things have devolved here and more and more people are starting to show up. We saw all the action in Minneapolis earlier this year in January. And it seems, Jim, that the people that are really sort of frustrated with the Trump administration have decided to all show up here. There's people from Connecticut, people as well, from local New Jersey area, but also people who have come from far and wide to stage off against these DHCS agents here behind me. They've created this phalanx here and they are basically creating this barrier between the public road and this ice facility. About 100 yards or 50 or so yards from where I'm pointing, right there is another entrance where we see other groups of independent journalists, some local journalists trying to get a sense of what's happening inside. But it's really what we're expecting and anticipating here is things to really devolve once the night falls. That's when things get really trippy, get really violent and we've seen people get hurt. We haven't seen any arrests here so far, but we have seen these ICE agents or these DHS agents rather. They don't have time, they don't seem to be very patient with anybody. They're using heavy handed tactics from the jump and the get go and it seems to indicate that things are only going to get worse here from here on out.
- [45:09]
B
Yeah, Nick. I mean, I'm just kind of wondering why they're all lined up like that. And I guess, you know, it's, it's sort of reminding me of what you saw in Minneapolis, what we all saw in Minneapolis. They're wearing masks, they're not identifiable. They don't even, some of them don't even look like they're wearing, you know, branding from their agency. And I'm just curious, can you paint the picture of what we're looking at right there?
- [45:34]
D
We are looking at various federal agencies, executive removal operations as well as ice. Various divisions of Customs and Border or actually dhs. And you have these divisions, you know, Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, hci, ero. I mean it's an Alphabet soup of federal agencies and they're all in it together. Basically. You know, this is the, these are the DHS agents who have created this barrier, so to speak, between the news media and the public here on the side who have created this allyship with the massive hunger strike that's going on inside. And the reason they're, you know, the reason this hunger strike is happening. Jim, as I turn my camera around here, me turn this camera back around. The reason that they are striking here, hunger strike is they're protesting subhuman conditions they call them. They say they're also basically indentured servants that they are forced into labor here. They are paid one to two dollars per day, but sometimes it takes weeks, months if at all before they see that money. And so it seems as though, according to local reports, that one man organized this. He's denying being involved in it, but we've already seen retaliation. That man was transferred to another facility. Meanwhile, his wife has been out here sort of rallying the troops outside, he believes. He's given interviews in Spanish to Spanish language outlets saying that he's been targeted for retribution for something that his wife is actually organizing outside here. And the scene here is you have local demonstrators, you have people from outside of the state and others, as well as independent media outlets like ours here, who are coming to basically see what transpires. This is day seven of this hunger strike. No indication that it's going to let up. In fact, Jim, it's spreading. We're hearing of a similar hunger strike as well in Adelanto in California.
- [47:22]
B
And this is one of those for profit facilities.
- [47:26]
D
That's right. And we don't know too much about Delaney, but we do know a lot about the for profit prison infrastructure here. Something that we've talked about at length on your program, Something you've given a lot of time to. We know President Trump, he wants to expand those in beds. On an average year, you have about 40,000 people in ICE custody. President Trump wants to expand that potentially to 100,000, maybe even 120,000. And the question that we should all be asking ourselves is, do you really think that they're going to stop at undocumented citizens? There's undocumented Americans in this country. People who are here without papers, people maybe who have had their status lapse. It seems as though they are building an infrastructure and a private prison system that would be, you know, a place that they would put undesirable Americans, people that are speaking out against his administration. We've seen people like you and me. You know, I know, for instance, for me, you know, earlier this year there was sincere fears that potentially the administration would single us out for speaking the truth. And, you know, that is fascism, Jim. You know, this, this sort of feeling that we have that, you know, the boogeyman's out there coming to get us. Even though if it may be true or not, it's that subconscious, you know, fear that the administration, I think, wants to pedal and wants to sew, and that's what they're doing here and that's what people are upset about here and why they decided to come out of protest.
- [48:42]
B
Yeah. And we interviewed Senator Andy Kim earlier this week and, you know, he makes the point. I mean, he was pepper Spray. He was tear gassed by those agents and they knew he was a United States Senator and they did it anyway. Which tells you everything that you need to know about what's happening right now. But Andy Kim got inside that facility and he saw people who were clearly not violent offenders in any way, shape or form. There are just people who are here working and lots of different jobs a lot of Americans don't want to do. And they've been swept up in this mass deportation purge that was cooked up by Donald Trump and Stephen Miller and it's being implemented in a very violent way. And when you have thuggish looking, masked agents staged outside of a facility like that, it just totally paints the picture. But Nick, thank you so much. Get back to us, Let us know if everything's going to be okay, but please stay safe. I always worry when you're in these situations, but great reporting as always.
- [49:36]
D
We'll be here throughout the night, guys. If you want to follow our coverage, we'll be here. Nick, valencianews.com will be live here. Thanks, Jim, for giving us the time as always, brother. We'll see you.
- [49:45]
B
Yeah, you bet. Here we go. Wait a minute, wait a minute.
- [49:46]
D
Don't pull away here. Don't pull away here. It's coming up. Yeah, here we go. Here we go.
- [49:50]
B
What's happening? What's this all about?
- [49:52]
D
What happens as, as a vehicles emerge from this facility and another show up. This is the tactic that we've seen from these DHS agents for now. I mean, I'm here on the front line. We're respecting what they say. They have been heavy handed with others though. We have seen people pushed to the ground. We have seen people being threatened with a chemical irritant. There was others that was held, you know, they held bear spray inches from someone's face just a short time ago. It's very clear that they've lost patience for anybody here. They're not pausing when irritated. We have another vehicle coming from this side and this is sort of as animated as we've seen things get. When these vehicles come and go, it's chaos. And the phalanx comes and sort of comes face to face with the crowd as they make a Runway for these vehicles to enter and exit the facility. That wasn't as bad as we had seen things before. Again, about 15 minutes ago, we saw people shoved to the ground. It appeared as though someone who was going to get arrested right now. This is the tactic and the routine basically that we're seeing with these DHS agents coming out pushing people out of the way to make a path for these vehicles to come and go and then going right back to this phalanx protecting this facility. Jim.
- [51:01]
B
Yeah, and I mean, what a colossal waste of resources that you have to have all of these people standing outside, you know, forming like a human barrier so cars can come and go from this facility. I mean, it just seems like this just reeks of government incompetence. And you know, they, they just don't know how. Waste and waste, absolute waste to protect what a for profit prison where they use people, they use migrants like forced labor. I mean, the whole thing just reeks of to high heaven of just corruption and inhumane treatment of people. Absolutely disgusting, appalling stuff. All right, Nick, keep us posted and watch Nick Valencia News all night. Nick's going to be doing lots of reports from out there at this demonstration that's taking place outside the Delaney Hall ICE facility in New Jersey. Thanks, Nick, really appreciate it. And I mean, and this is, I mean, Bruce Springsteen was talking about this last night. As I was saying earlier, if you're tuning in a little late to the program, I'm wearing my Springsteen and E Street Band T shirt that I picked up at the concert here in D.C. and this is what the Boss was talking about. He was talking about these for profit ICE detention facilities that are popping up all around the country. There's one in New Jersey, his home state. And you know, the feeling that I had when I left this really amazing experience of a concert, it was an epic night down at Nationals park here in the nation's capital, was that Bruce Springsteen has been more courageous than, I think, almost 99% of the politicians and artists and journalists and people who have, who have platforms and have the ability to go out and speak publicly about what is going on in this country, the business community, the academic community. And I know there are some folks here and there who do this, who come out and they speak their mind and I applaud that and I think that's all good. But my goodness, we know for a fact there are so many more artists, so many more politicians, so many more people in the public sphere who have large platforms, who could be speaking out more about this monstrosity of an immigration policy, for example, that we have taking place all over this country in places like New Jersey, this batshit crazy stuff that Trump is doing on a regular basis where he is turning this country, as Joyce Vance was saying, into a banana republic, into a kleptocracy, into a thugocracy. They're trying to put his face, ladies and gentlemen, on a made up $250bill. I mean, we should show this to the viewers. The Washington Post reported on this. Trump officials have pressed the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to design a $250bill featuring the President's portrait in what would be the first appearance of a living person on US currency in more than 150 years. We don't typically put living people on our money in the United States because we don't want to look like a goddamn dictatorship. We don't want it to look like Iraq under Saddam Hussein. We don't want that kind of country for our children and our grandchildren to think that this is normal, that it's okay to have a thug president, a thug dictator wannabe on some made up piece of currency. And I just have to say, knowing what we know about Donald Trump not paying his bills, bankrupting casinos, possibly bankrupting this country, sending our gas prices sky high. If you had a Trump $250 bill and there's the Treasury Secretary holding it up, looking like a gimp, there he is, Scott Besant, looking like a dork, holding up a 250 bill with Donald Trump's picture on it. I mean, if somebody gave you a 250 bill with Donald Trump's picture on it, would you accept it? Would you accept that as legal tender? I think we should describe this as illegal tender. This is cash that has no currency or should have no currency in this country because Donald Trump is the most thoroughly corrupt president we have ever had in American history. And they're going to memorialize that and lionize that with a $250 bill with his picture on it. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my cash in twenties or hundreds. I don't want a $250 bill. But this is what's going on in this country right now. And we need more artists, we need more journalists. Just today, 60 Minutes shit canned. Two very good journalists, two very talented journalists they fired over at 60 Minutes, Sharon Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega, two people I've worked with side by side over the years in various roles in journalism. They're top notch ace reporters. And they got fired. They got canned by 60 Minutes because they want, they don't want to be a part of an operation that kisses up to a wannabe dictator, a wannabe tyrant in this country, a guy who wants to put his face on the 200 on a made up $250 bill. What's happening in this Country. And so I, I will just say, you know, we had, we had a great time at Nats park last night watching Bruce Springsteen, had some terrific pictures and just, just had an amazing night soaking this all in. But I walked away from this experience wondering why when the hell is anybody else going to wake up in this country and see what the hell is going on and see how just badly rotten to the core this country is becoming? Because we have a commander in chief who is thoroughly corrupt, who is corrupt to his absolute fiber of his being, to the marrow of his bones. And the last thing we should do is create currency with his damn face on it. With, and I think that's the mug shot phase. Should we, we should show this to the viewers one more time before we go. I think that's the mug shot face. Isn't that the mug shot face of Donald Trump, the convicted felon? Do we want convicted, convicted felon currency in this country? Convicted felon dollar bills in this country? I think not. I think not. I, I, I, I will say that in my view, that is illegal tender. And the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, I hope the machines break down there and choke when they're, when they're churning this, this crap out, because that is USDA Grade A that the Trump administration is trying to push on the American people. And it's the reason why Bruce Springsteen's message was resonating last night. Americans have had it up to here. They're fed up with this stuff. They've had it up to here with Donald Trump, and they're just not going to take it anymore. And I suspect when he has that additional concert coming up in October here in Washington, D.C. that the turnout is going to be even more intense, even more incredible than what we saw last night here in the nation's capital. Great show today. Want to thank Ben Rhodes for joining me today. Want to thank Joyce Vance as well and Nick Valencia. Make sure you tune into his coverage. He's going to be on substack and all of his platforms this evening as he's reporting outside the Delaney hall detention facility in New Jersey. We're going to keep our eyes on that, too. If that starts to flare up, too. We'll, we'll possibly bring some other coverage of that as well. But in the meantime, still reporting from Washington, I'm Jim Acosta. Have a good night. We'll see you next time.