Another day, another principled resignation at Donald Trump’s Justice Department

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Another Day, Another Principled Resignation at Donald Trump’s Justice Department"

The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
Host: Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC
Release Date: February 19, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, host Lawrence O'Donnell delves into the escalating turmoil within Donald Trump’s Justice Department, marked by a series of principled resignations. Drawing upon insider accounts and expert analyses, the episode sheds light on the internal conflicts and ethical breaches within the department, and examines the broader implications for American politics and governance.

---

Key Topics Covered

1. Surge of Resignations in the Justice Department

Lawrence O'Donnell opens the discussion by highlighting a troubling trend of withdrawals from Trump’s Justice Department. The latest resignation comes from Denise Chung, the Chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., who has stepped down after refusing to comply with unlawful orders to seize banking records without probable cause.

Notable Quote:

"[01:42] Lawrence O'Donnell: Yeah. And every single person with a job in America of any kind, including the richest people in America, contribute to Social Security in their paychecks."

O'Donnell emphasizes that Chung’s resignation is not an isolated incident but part of a growing resistance against unethical directives within the department. He compares the situation to the Watergate era, suggesting that the current actions mirror historical abuses of power.

2. Legal Battles: The Case Against Mayor Eric Adams

The episode discusses an unprecedented federal hearing concerning New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who faces bribery and other federal crimes. Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan is set to evaluate the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case. This hearing is extraordinary due to the number of resignations from prosecutors who refuse to support the motion, citing it as a quid pro quo intended to coerce Adams into enforcing Trump’s immigration policies.

Notable Quote:

"[16:23] Timothy Snyder: So two points on this. Essentially what the law says is that if you've got an officer who is exercising this level of power...'

Timothy Snyder, a Yale history professor, criticizes the Justice Department’s strategy, arguing that it represents a blatant abuse of power aimed at extorting political compliance rather than upholding the rule of law.

3. Trump and Elon Musk’s Interview on Social Security and IRS

In a joint interview on Fox, Donald Trump and Elon Musk address the management of Social Security and the IRS. However, their discussion is criticized for lacking substantive policy details, leaving critical questions unanswered about Musk’s role within these agencies.

Notable Quote:

"[28:09] Lawrence O'Donnell: Most presidents have never given an interview where they needed help. They needed someone sitting beside them to help carry them through the interview."

Lawrence O'Donnell challenges the lack of clarity in Trump and Musk’s statements, prompting concerns about potential future actions that could undermine Social Security and IRS operations.

4. Senator Ron Wyden’s Insights on Social Security and Fiscal Policies

Senator Ron Wyden of the Senate Finance Committee joins the conversation to discuss the threats to Social Security and potential Medicaid cuts proposed by Republicans. Wyden highlights the disproportionate tax burden on working Americans compared to the tax strategies employed by billionaires.

Notable Quote:

"[32:26] Ron Wyden: Yeah, there's no question about it. This is all about getting more help to the people at the top and paying for it by hitting folks who are working for a living."

Wyden underscores the Democratic stance on ensuring equitable tax policies that support the working class rather than disproportionately benefiting the wealthy.

5. Trump’s Foreign Policy and the Ukraine Conflict

The episode transitions to an analysis of Trump’s handling of the Ukraine conflict, drawing parallels to historical diplomatic failures. Timothy Snyder critiques Trump’s diplomatic engagements, particularly his negotiations with Vladimir Putin, arguing that excluding Ukrainian representatives undermines the legitimacy of peace efforts.

Notable Quote:

"[37:54] Andrew Weissmann: The crucial thing here... we are meeting with the aggressor."

Snyder and legal analyst Andrew Weissmann condemn the Trump administration’s approach, suggesting it prolongs the conflict and weakens international support for Ukraine.

---

Expert Analyses and Insights

Andrew Weissmann and Timothy Snyder provide in-depth legal and historical perspectives, respectively, on the unfolding events within the Justice Department and U.S. foreign policy. Weissmann compares the resignations to a constitutional crisis, emphasizing the erosion of ethical standards. Snyder draws historical analogies to WWII diplomacy, critiquing Trump's maneuvers as counterproductive and damaging to international alliances.

Notable Quotes:

"[13:54] Timothy Snyder: Absolutely. And the same thing from the FBI... This really is the kind of thing that is so anathema to the oath of office that we all took and these people took serving as public servants."
"[41:25] Andrew Weissmann: What should happen next is pretty simple... This has to be the hour of Europe."

Their insights highlight the severity of the current political climate, suggesting that the integrity of American institutions is at stake.

---

Concluding Remarks

Lawrence O'Donnell wraps up the episode by reinforcing the gravity of the situation within the Justice Department and the broader implications for U.S. governance and international relations. He criticizes Trump’s approach to both domestic policies and foreign affairs, particularly his interactions with influential figures like Elon Musk and his handling of the Ukraine conflict.

Notable Quote:

"[43:56] Lawrence O'Donnell: Professor Timothy Snyder, thank you very much for joining us tonight."

O'Donnell calls for vigilance and accountability, urging listeners to recognize the potential erosion of democratic principles under Trump’s administration.

---

Conclusion

This episode of The Last Word provides a comprehensive examination of the ethical and legal crises unfolding within Donald Trump’s Justice Department. Through detailed accounts of resignations, legal battles, and flawed policy implementations, host Lawrence O'Donnell offers a critical perspective on the challenges facing American political institutions. Supported by expert analyses, the discussion underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law and maintaining the integrity of democratic governance.

---

For more insights and detailed analysis, tune in to upcoming episodes of The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC.

Transcript

[MSNBC Host]

Stay connected with the MSNBC app bringing you breaking news and analysis anytime, anywhere.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Let's get up to speed. We've got some breaking news right now.

[MSNBC Host]

Watch your favorite shows live.

[Jen Psaki]

There's a lot happening here in Washington as Donald Trump's second term starts to take shape.

[MSNBC Host]

Read live blogs and in depth essays and listen to coverage as it unfolds. Go beyond the what to understand the why. Download the app [e-mail] app MSNBC presents a new original podcast hosted by Jen Psaki. Each week she and her guests explore how the Democratic Party is facing this political moment and where it's headed next.

[Jen Psaki]

There's probably both messaging and policy issues, but as you look to kind of where the Democratic Party is, do you think it's more a messaging issue, more a policy issue?

[MSNBC Host]

The Blueprint with Jen Psaki. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple podcasts for ad free listening and bonus content.

[Rachel Maddow]

Now it's time for the Last word with Lawrence O'Donnell.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Good evening, Lawrence. Good evening, Rachel. I can tell you and Martin O'Malley that Elon Musk just did an hour on Fox with Donald Trump. The two of them sitting in the Roosevelt Room and they did not put up or shut up on the actual details of what they claim Elon Musk has found. It was just as breathtakingly empty an interview as you could possibly imag. You couldn't actually, it's more empty than that. A complete utter waste of time other than I can report to you authoritatively. They didn't put up or shut up.

[Rachel Maddow]

It's one thing for them to be like the condoms to Gaza lie and the Politico in New York Times being supported by government funding to write good stories about Democrats and the Reuters lie about Reuters being a mind control agency and all these other things that they're lying about to try to justify cuts and demolition of agencies that they can't defend with facts. It's another thing to tell Americans, yes, Social Security is a scam. Social Security actually is just a bit. It's criminal. You know, it's 150-year-old people and 200, as Governor O'Malley was just saying, there are more than 70 million Americans rely on Social Security right now and people know that it's not a scam. It's been a third rail in American politics for a good long while and for a good long reason. And I think that this is an error on their part and I look forward to seeing a blow up in their face.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Yeah. And every single person with a job in America of any kind, including the richest people in America, contribute to Social Security in their paychecks. Every paycheck they get. Rachel, I wanted to mention something to you about this book, Lauren, that was on the show. The author, Susan Morris, was on the show last night. And I actually meant to tell you this last night in our little chat, because there's a line in this book, and I'm going to save you reading the 600 pages to get to this line because it's the key line for you in the entire book, given that you work in live television. And it was actually something that Lawrence said to me in the elevator in the first year I was doing this show when I was complaining to him about how everything I was getting wrong and the show wasn't ready and I had to go. And he said it was the most important thing I'd ever heard about how to do this kind of tv. And Lawrence said, well, we don't do the show because we're ready. We do it because it's 11:30. And I walked out of the building and the size of that thought just kept expanding in my head as a defining principle of what we do here for a living.

[Rachel Maddow]

That is perfect.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

I know for a fact you are never ready. And the thing that gets delivered on TV is the best you can possibly do, since they're gonna start it at 9pm no matter what.

[Rachel Maddow]

Yes. And I have very, very rarely but occasionally gotten up to the moment where things were gonna start at 9:00 and I wasn't here. That has happened.

[Andrew Weissmann]

I have to say, I was a.

[Rachel Maddow]

Little bit close to it tonight. But, you know, that's like a serenity prayer for live television. I love it.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Yeah. It doesn't get more profound than that in live tv.

[Rachel Maddow]

The words of all of you, thank you. I will take that and hold it here. Thank you, Lawrence.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Thanks, Rachel. Thank you. Well, the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston is the best presidential library in the country. Completed in 1979, it became the model that all subsequent presidential libraries aspired to. And today, Donald Trump closed the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. Presidential libraries are quasi government operations that fall under the jurisdiction of the National Archives. The John F. Kennedy Library has federal employees. John F. Kennedy Library foundation put out a statement today saying that the sudden closing of the library today was forced, quote, by the sudden dismissal of federal employees. Elon Musk and Donald Trump were not asked about that on Fox tonight. Today, Elon Musk and Donald Trump decided to close the presidential library of the assassinated President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Who was a Democrat. The Nixon Library was open all day today in Yorba Linda, California. Richard Nixon is the only president who was forced to resign the presidency when he was facing accusations of criminal misconduct in the Oval Office, crimes committed in the Oval Office that would have gotten him impeached and removed from office, and possibly prosecuted and convicted of federal crimes. A month after the criminally corrupt Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, his vice president who became president, Republican Gerald Ford, pardoned Richard Nixon. And today, the only criminally pardoned president of the United States continued to be memorialized all day by his presidential library, which Donald Trump did not close down. The Reagan Library in California also stayed open today. Ronald Reagan was a two term Republican president. And so that is the country you live in tonight. It is a country you have never lived in before. It was unthinkable until the most uncouth president in history took office. Donald Trump, a man consumed by petty and permanent jealousies. Another day, another principal's resignation letter in Donald Trump's Department of Justice, this time written by a career federal prosecutor in Washington who was ordered to cross a line that she refused to cross. The chief of the Criminal division of the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C. denise Chung, resigned today after refusing to lie about an investigation and put that lie in writing so that the Trump Justice Department could illegally, in her view, seize banking records. Denise chung is a 1995 graduate of Harvard Law School. She has spent the last 24 years as a prosecutor in the Justice Department, beginning her service under the Republican President George W. Bush and continuing under every president until today. Like the principled resignation letter written last week by the acting U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Danielle Sassoon, Today's resignation letter specifies exactly how far the Trump team in the Justice Department tried to push Denise Chung. In her letter, she wrote, when I explained that the quantum of evidence did not support that action, you stated that you believed that there was sufficient evidence. You also accused me of wasting five hours of the day doing nothing except trying to get what the FBI and I wanted. But not what you wanted. As I shared with you, at this juncture, based upon the evidence I have reviewed, I still do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to issue the letter you described, including sufficient evidence to tell the bank that there is probable cause to seize the particular accounts identified. Because I believed that I lacked the legal authority to issue such a letter, I told you that I would not do so. You then asked for my resignation. And this brings the total number of principled resignations just in the last week in the Trump Justice Department alone to eight. Also today, federal Judge Tanya Chutkan considered new claims by the Trump administration that Elon Musk is not the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, as Donald Trump has repeated that he repeatedly said that he is in considering motions in a lawsuit against Elon Musk and the Trump administration to prevent them from arbitrarily shutting off funding and shutting down agencies created by Congress. Judge Tanya Chutkan said the case has strong merits, adding, plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight. The judge considered an affidavit presented under oath by the Trump administration claiming that Elon Musk has no role at all in the so called Department of Government Efficiency. Judge Chutkan said, referring to that affidavit, quote, defense counsel is reminded of their duty to make truthful representations to the court. That is something judges say only when they think the lawyers are not being truthful. Judge Chutkan refused to grant the plaintiff's emergency injunction shutting down the activities of the so called Department of Government Efficiency at this particular stage of the case. The case remains open for the plaintiffs to provide sufficient evidence to the judge to merit that injunction that they are seeking. Leading off our discussion tonight is Andrew Weisman, former FBI General Counsel and former Chief of the Criminal Division in the Eastern District of New York. He's also an MSNBC legal analyst. And Andrew, I want to begin on the latest principled resignation in the Justice Department and how this has now become. From the start, it was something we haven't seen before. It had airs of what we had experienced during Watergate when there were resignations against Richard Nixon's attempt to take over the Justice Department, but today took us to yet another level.

[Timothy Snyder]

So let me just make sure I put this in context. Let's not forget that this started with a complete pushback by the seventh floor, the leadership of the FBI and then the special agents in charge around the country at the FBI up in arms at the sort of rounding up of names of people for the sin of having investigated the crimes that we all saw before our eyes of January 6th. That sort of was step one and that was be orchestrated by Mr. Beauvais, the acting Deputy Attorney General of the United States, who by the way, just footnote, worked on those cases as well. So he can round himself up. Then you have what you talked about with Danielle Sassoon in the Southern District of New York and her colleagues resigning out of principle. You have a slew of people at Main justice in Washington of, in, of all things, the Public Integrity section. And now in the D.C. u.S. Attorney's office, you have Denise Chung, all of these people resigning because of actions emanating from the Deputy Attorney General, the acting Deputy Attorney General, all of which people thought was either immoral, unethical, or even illegal. And these are career people of all stripes. Denise is somebody I know very well from my time. She worked for Republicans and Democrats. She is the most apolitical person. You do not resign out of a snit. You do not resign someone like her because she just thinks it's a policy difference or a good faith difference. You're resigning because you're being asked to do something that you really, the law does not allow. And in this case, she's outlining what would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects all of us if there isn't probable cause to see something, which is what she was being asked to sign off on.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

One of the fascinating things in her letter is actually how far she was willing to go for Emile Beauvais and the Trump teams who were pushing her. She was willing to go to the point of communicating with the bank that perhaps the funds should be frozen. Seizing is a whole different level that she said they absolutely did not achieve. And so this was someone who was trying to give them as much as she could give them. It certainly wasn't some reflexive insubordination.

[Timothy Snyder]

Absolutely. And the same thing from the FBI. The FBI said, look, if we hear from you, Denise, that your office is willing to tell us that there's probable cause, we'll do it. But if not, we cannot do it because we don't have lawyers saying this reaches the necessary level. This is what you want in our government. You want people who are faithful. And this is. I really want to make sure people understand this is where the Constitution lives and breathes, which is in the good judgment and the good faith of the FBI agents and IRS agents and DEA agents and the prosecutors evaluating the facts and doing so in good faith. But what she is outlining, and I have no reason whatsoever to think what she's saying is not completely true, it would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And that's something we should all be concerned about. This is not. This is something where the government wanted to take unilateral action to represent something that they didn't think was true. To seize something, seize something that could be a person. It could be things without the probable cause that's required by the Fourth Amendment. This really is the kind of thing that is so anathema to the oath of office that we all took and these people took serving as public servants.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

I want to get your take on the civil case that Judge Chutkan is handling. Some state attorneys general trying to stop the whole Musk Department of Government efficiency operation. She didn't grant them the emergency restraining order now, but she's open to it, apparently as the case proceeds. She did say in her ruling today Musk has not been nominated by the President nor confirmed by the US Senate as constitutionally required for officers who exercise significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States. Bypassing this significant structural safeguard of the constitutional scheme, Musk has rapidly taken steps to fundamentally reshape the executive branch, accepting plaintiff's allegations as true defendants actions are thus precisely the executive abuses that the Appointments Clause seeks to prevent.

[Timothy Snyder]

So two points on this. Essentially what the law says is that if you've got an officer who is exercising this level of power, this is something that Congress has to create. It can't be done unilaterally by the executive. And this person was not blessed by Congress, wasn't given money by Congress. The irony here is that that claim of like that was something that the president, when he was candidate Trump, he was making that argument about Jack Smith. He was saying Jack Smith is a principal officer and wasn't validly appointed because Congress didn't nominate him and confirm him and he wasn't given money Congress. And now that he is President, it's like the shoes on the other foot and he's making completely inconsistent argument. I am not that worried in terms of the merits of this case because what Judge Chutkan did is said look on the merits, this seems like a very strong case. But in order to get an injunction to stop what Elon Musk is doing right now, I need to see more. I need to see your. You have presented to me a lot of hypotheticals and things that you are validly worried about. But come back to me if and when this happens, because I see your point that there's a real problem with Congress not having approved this, but I need to see him taking action with respect to the things that you are challenging. So this is one where very much is stay tuned because I highly doubt that Elon Musk is going to just sit tight and not do anything here. So she has definitely left the door wide open for them to come back.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

We're going to squeeze in a quick break here. Andrew, please stay with us so we can consider the very strange case of the mayor of New York in our next segment. Also coming up, Yale history professor Timothy Snyder will be joining us later in this hour. But first, tomorrow, a federal judge in New York will hold a hearing about the workings of the Trump Justice Department. It will be a hearing unlike any other that has happened in an American courtroom. That's Next.

[MSNBC Host]

It's President Trump's first 100 days, and MSNBC's Alex Wagner will be covering it all from the front lines. What issue matters to you the most? Join her as she travels the country to talk to the people at the center of the president's policies and promises.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Do you think now that he's pardoned.

[Jen Psaki]

Everybody, he can count on this group of people again?

[MSNBC Host]

Search for Trumpland with Alex Wagner wherever you're listening and follow subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen ad free. The first 100 days, bills are passed, executive orders are signed, and presidencies are defined. And for Donald Trump's first 100 days, Rachel Maddow is on MSNBC five nights a week.

[Rachel Maddow]

Now is the time, so we're gonna.

[MSNBC Host]

Do it, providing her unique insight and analysis during this critical time.

[Rachel Maddow]

How do we strategically align ourselves to this moment of information, this moment of transition in our country?

[MSNBC Host]

The Rachel Maddow show, weeknights at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC. Get the all new CNBC Sport newsletter. Alex Sherman brings you exclusive interviews and the biggest news impacting the world of sports, business and media, all straight to your inbox. Sign up for [e-mail] Sportnewsletter.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Today, a federal judge hastily scheduled a hearing for tomorrow in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Federal Courthouse in Manhattan that will be unlike any hearing ever held in American history. The judge will be considering a Justice Department motion to dismiss the criminal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who is facing the charges of bribery and other federal crimes. Such hearings are usually pro forma, and the judge goes along with the recommendation by the prosecutors to dismiss. But not this time. Federal Judge Dale E. Ho already knows that seven prosecutors have resigned from the Justice Department because they refused to file the motion to dismiss, believing it to be based on a lie. The Acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York sent an eloquent resignation letter to the acting deputy attorney general who was one of Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyers. Danielle Sassoon's letter said, quote, I cannot fulfill my obligations, effectively lead my office in carrying out the department's priorities or credibly represent the government before the courts if I seek to dismiss the Adams case on this record. Six more prosecutors resigned since that time over the same issue. Three former US Attorneys sent Judge Ho a letter asking him to sharply question the prosecutor's motives for dismissing the case. They wrote. The public furor that has arisen during the past week raises concerns about respect for the rule of law and the division of power between the executive and judicial branches of government of our nation. Common Cause also sent a letter to the judge asking him to deny the motion to dismiss because it is part of a, quote, quid pro quo bargain. The bargain described in her resignation letter by Danielle Sassoon is that Mayor Eric Adams will cooperate with the Trump administration in vigorously enforcing their mass deportation program, which Danielle Sassoon insisted was an improper quid pro quo agreement. Also today, New York Governor Kathy Hochul met with New York City officials and community representatives to consider whether Mayor Adams is still capable of of doing his job. It has been falsely reported that the governor of New York has the power to summarily fire the mayor of New York, which has led to uninformed commentary like this. I'm sorry, the governor of New York is a dope. Why she doesn't get that guy out of their plateau, I have no idea. Adult okay, the answer is the governor cannot get rid of the mayor pronto, and that is why she hasn't done it. What the governor can do is call a hearing about the mayor's transgressions, in which the mayor is allowed to be represented by lawyers and vigorously defend himself, including calling as many witnesses as he wants. There is no rule about how long such a hearing can go on, but the governor must be present for every minute because the governor is the judge in that hearing, and the governor is the prosecutor in that hearing, and the governor is the jury in that hearing, rendering the final verdict. The governor alone decides the outcome of that hearing, and such a hearing has never happened before. And the mayor can appeal to the courts about anything he doesn't like about that hearing, and he can fight his appeal all the way to the United States Supreme Court, all of which could take years. So anyone who tells you that the governor can fire the mayor pronto is wrong. The governor cannot fire the mayor. The governor can initiate an untested procedure that could have an unpredictable result, no matter what the governor thinks of the evidence. And all of the evidence of criminal conduct by the mayor would continue to be locked down by Donald Trump's federal prosecutors, who won't allow the governor to see one bit of the criminal evidence obtained by the FBI against the mayor. So what exactly would the governor's hearing be about? If there is adult in this story, it is anyone who is telling you that the governor can fire the mayor pronto. Andrew Weissman is still with us. Andrew, this hearing tomorrow where a prosecutor is trying to get a case dismissed, which is the most routine kind of possible session you could have in a federal court, take minutes is set up now like something we've literally never seen.

[Timothy Snyder]

Well, it's extremely rare for the government to have brought a case, and particularly a case of this stature against a sitting mayor to then do an about face and say we want it dismissed, particularly since as we've talked about on this show, the decision is not being made because the facts aren't there or because the law has changed in some way. This is a decision that is very, very hard to understand for any reason other than what Danielle Sassoon, the now former Southern District Acting U.S. attorney said is a quid pro quo. And I have to say, having looked at at least all of the facial evidence as well as the way Eric Adams has acted and Emile Beauvais own submission to the court where he says one of the reasons that we're doing this is it will free up Eric Adams to further the federal immigration policies of this administration, it's hard to see this as anything but a quid pro quo. I want to make sure everyone understands what this means if Danielle Sassoon is right and the judge can have a factual hearing. What this means is that our current administration is using the criminal law to extort a sitting politician and has a sort of Damocles of a criminal case over their head in order to get them to do their bidding. It is because of that that you are seeing so many resignations. It pales in comparison in many ways to the actual facts of the Eric Adams case. Which, you know, I think could if the feds don't do it, the state could pick it up. It really now the big issue is the conduct of the Trump administration's Department of Justice.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Andrew Weissman, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

[Andrew Weissmann]

You're welcome.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Coming up, Donald Trump humiliated himself once again tonight by being the first president in history to submit to a co interview with the richest person in the world. That's next.

[MSNBC Host]

Stay connected with the MSNBC app bringing you breaking news and analysis in anytime anywhere.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Let's get up to speed. We've got some breaking news right now.

[MSNBC Host]

Watch your favorite shows live.

[Jen Psaki]

There's a lot happening here in Washington as Donald Trump's second term starts to take shape.

[MSNBC Host]

Read live blogs and in depth essays and listen to coverage as it unfolds. Go beyond the what to understand the why. Download the app [e-mail] app stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNBC Daily newsletter. Each morning you'll get analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows.

[Rachel Maddow]

I do think it's worth being very clear eyed, very realistic about what's going on here.

[MSNBC Host]

Previews of our podcasts and documentaries, plus written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves, all sent directly to your inbox each morning. Get the best of MSNBC all in one place. Sign up for msnbc [e-mail].

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Most presidents have never given an interview where they needed help. They needed someone sitting beside them to help carry them through the interview. No president has ever submitted to an interview while joined, for example, by the richest person in the world in that interview. Until, of course, Donald Trump submitted in every possible way to the wealth of Elon Musk. In their joint interview tonight on fox, Donald Trump and Elon Musk did not explain what Elon Musk is doing inside the Social Security administration. They did not explain what Elon Musk is doing inside the Internal Revenue Service. But we did get this.

[Donald Trump]

Social Security won't be touched other than fraud or something. We're going to find it's going to be strengthened but won't be touched. Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Not joining us now is Senator Ron Wyden. He is the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Senator, I just played for you the only policy words spoken in an entire hour long interview. And they are directly about your jurisdiction. How much confidence do you have in Donald Trump saying Social Security won't be touched? Medicare, Medicaid won't be touched now that you know Elon Musk has gotten inside Social Security?

[Ron Wyden]

Well, first of all, Lawrence, they're already working on Medicaid cuts in the House of Representatives. They've got a big budget target. And you know, the reality is the Enterprise data warehouse where they keep all the personal data is something that I'm very concerned about tonight and the safety. And I just came from town hall meetings in Oregon. The newspaper said there were thousands of people and seniors came up to me and just said point blank, Ron, what in hell is going on back there with Social Security?

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Yeah, and also the irs, which is you know, also within your jurisdiction, which is the government's profit center, the irs, where every employee could not be more valuable, every employee turns a profit for the government.

[Ron Wyden]

And what we're seeing right now, Lawrence, in particular is these layoffs are affecting, you know, people being available to handle individual concerns. And I've noted and blown the whistle on the fact that this could affect refunds as well, which is something so important to millions of Americans.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

So there was no specificity tonight in Donald Trump and Elon Musk's discussion about what Elon Musk has been doing. They also did not clarify does Elon Musk run the Department of Government Efficiency or not? Which is now subject of a dispute in court, where the Trump administration is suddenly saying in court that Elon Musk has nothing to do with the department, the so called Department of Government Efficiency.

[Ron Wyden]

That's an absurd claim, Lawrence, and I think everybody knows it. And it's an effort to get away from the real issues. You know, if you have One of these 22 year olds mishandle somebody's Social Security information, it gets out that's going to be the mother of all identity thefts. And we can have blackmail and all kinds of other things. But that's the real world of this debate. And the theory that Musk has nothing really to do with it is absurd.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

You mentioned the budget process. Your committee, the Senate Finance Committee is the place where taxation and Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid live all beside each other in that jurisdiction. And so the Republicans on your committee seem determined to do two things in their upcoming budget bill. One, create a massive tax cut in your committee and balance it with massive cuts in something else in their jurisdiction. And the other things in their jurisdiction are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

[Ron Wyden]

Yeah, there's no question about it. This is all about getting more help to the people at the top and paying for it by hitting folks who are working for a living. And I'm going to be on the floor of the Senate here in the next couple of days and pointing out that if you're a firefighter or a nurse, you pay taxes with every single paycheck. If you're one of the billionaires and you got good lawyers and accountants, you can figure out a way to pay little or no taxes for years on end with just three words, Lawrence. Buy, borrow and die. So we're going to have a debate here on the floor of the Senate. It's going to be about choices. And we Democrats are for everybody getting ahead, not just the people at the top.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Senator Ron Wyden with a lot of work to do on the Senate Finance Committee and on the floor coming up. Thank you very much for joining us tonight.

[Ron Wyden]

Thank you, Lawrence.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Thank you. The world is lucky that the United States did not have a president like Donald Trump during World War II, as Donald Trump proved once again today. Yale history professor Timothy Snyder will join us next. The war in Europe and World War II was fought by an alliance of two countries attacked by Adolf Hitler, Great Britain and Russia, Soviet Union. Neither country could have survived the war without the other. Great Britain and the Soviet Union were eventually joined by a third ally who played the decisive role in winning the war, the United States of America. Those three allies had very different governments and very different people leading those governments. The Soviet Union's dictator, Joseph Stalin, never trusted his English speaking allies. He always worried that one of his allies would try to negotiate an individual peace agreement with Hitler. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill feared the same possibility with Stalin. But the alliance held all the way to the end of the war with the president and the prime minister repeatedly promising Stalin that they would not engage in separate peace negotiations with the mass murdering dictator Adolf Hitler who invaded the Soviet Union. We now know how different that would have been if the United States had a president like Donald Trump. During World War II, Donald Trump broke with the United States allies fighting Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine by sending a delegation led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to a meeting in Saudi Arabia to negotiate with the murderous dictator Vladimir Putin's representatives. Here is the way Senator Marco Rubio saw Vladimir Putin before becoming Donald Trump's Secretary of State.

[Marco Rubio]

A gangster in Russia is threatening NATO, threatening the unity of Europe and now expanding his reach into the Middle east at our expense.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

That is the way Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt talked about Adolf Hitler's march across Europe, invading every country along the way. The countries that are now unified against Vladimir Putin's Hitler style invasion of Ukraine. Here's what Secretary Rubio said today about his meeting with the people who work for what he used to call a gangster in Russia.

[Marco Rubio]

I came away today convinced that they are willing to begin to engage in a serious process to determine how and how quickly and through what mechanism can an end be brought to this war. Whether we can ultimately reach that outcome will obviously depend on every side in this conflict's willingness to agree to certain things.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Joining us now is Timothy Snyder, professor of history at Yale University. He's author of the New York Times best sellers On Freedom and On Tyranny Professor Snyder, I just want to add one more thing that was said on this same day that Secretary Rubio said that, just to show us how Donald Trump has stacked the deck now against Ukraine, who he apparently blames for the war. Let's listen to what Donald Trump said today about. About Ukraine.

[Donald Trump]

I think I have the power to end this war, and I think it's going very well. But today I heard, oh, we weren't invited. Well, you've been there for three years. You should have ended it. Three years. You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

You should have never started it. He's saying that to Ukraine.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yeah, it's ghastly. Ukraine was invaded by Russia in violation of every fundamental principle of international law. And the Ukrainians have resisted far better and far longer than anyone would have expected or had a right to expect of them. And by resisting, they've allowed the rest of us, throughout the west, throughout the world, to have a chance to engage in more or less normal politics. For the last three years. They've held off darkness for so many other people. So the contemptuous way that Trump is treating them is not only wrong, it's just. It's. It's morally disgusting.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

And you point out there's a difference between negotiating and talking. What do you see actually happening in Saudi Arabia?

[Andrew Weissmann]

The. The crucial thing here, as you suggested earlier, is that the Ukrainians are not actually present. It's. It's a little bit like it's 1941 and the United States meets with Nazi Germany to decide the fate of Great Britain without inviting the British. That's where we are right now. We are meeting with the aggressor. We are meeting with the representative of a man who was indicted for war crimes, and quite rightly so. We are legitimating this war of aggression by meeting with the representatives of the aggressor state, and we are marginalizing the people, the nation, the Ukrainian state that were attacked. Negotiation could take place between Ukraine and Russia about peace. It can't take place between the United States and Russia about peace, because the United States and Russia are not at war. If the United States wished to bring an end to this war, and if Mr. Trump is right that he has the power to end this war, the way that that would look would be that the United States would make it harder for the aggressor to fight and easier for the state that's defending itself, Ukraine, to do so. But that is not what we are doing. If anything, we are throwing our power on the side of the aggressor, which is not going to bring peace. It's more likely to bring a longer and a bloodier war.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

How does what we're seeing now compare to, say, what Henry Kissinger did in the Nixon administration that got the phrase shuttle diplomacy? Kissinger would talk to one side in the Middle east exclusively, and then Kissinger would go and talk to another side in the Middle east and in the hope that that could come together into something. It never did come together into something lasting in the Middle east, but there was an. That. That did look, that. That was a version of talking to one side at a time.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yeah. I mean, there's a. There's no coherence to what the United States is doing formally. We've got a special envoy Ukraine. We've got a special envoy to Russia. The special envoy to Ukraine wasn't at the talks in Saudi Arabia, just as the Ukrainians weren't at the talks in Saudi Arabia. The Americans speak publicly about what they're doing in ways that are totally contradictory, with some American officials saying that we'll, yes, we'll strengthen Ukraine all the way to Donald Trump saying Ukraine might not even exist at the end of this. So there's. There's no coherence to this except the underlying formal problem that we've left the Ukrainians out of it entirely. And the other thing which has happened, which is the United States has started to make demands on Ukraine. The other thing that Trump talked about today was that Ukraine should have presidential elections, which is a Russian talking point. The Russians are demanding that they have a say in how Ukraine is run, and the Americans are now echoing that. At the Munich Security Conference, where I was a few days ago, the Americans demanded that Ukraine hand over half of its mineral wealth, half of its economic income, essentially forever, in exchange for nothing in particular. So it's looking awfully like what we're doing is that we are using the threat of Russian violence to try to get things ourselves. That is a far cry from being. Attempting to be a mediator in an ongoing conflict.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

What should happen next?

[Andrew Weissmann]

What should happen next is pretty simple. I mean, in. In an ideal world where the US Were making sensible policy, what we would say is the United States should assist Ukraine. We should go up from the measly figure of 0.15% of GDP, we should help them more, and we should enforce sanctions on Russia and make it harder for Russia to prosecute this war. Trump is right about one thing. The United States does have the power to end this war. But it would have to make positive policy in a sensible direction. If you want a war to end, you have to make it harder for the aggressor and easier for the defender, not the other way around. In the world that we're actually in, where it doesn't look like American policy will be sensible, this has to be the hour of Europe. The Europeans have to make sure that Ukraine can defend itself, and they have to offer all the economic aid that they possibly can, beginning right now.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Donald Trump has never been able to mount an argument about anything without lying. And one of the interesting lies he tells about this war is he wildly exaggerates the number of casualties on both sides, puts it up into the millions, which isn't even close. And that is seemingly, if you can translate it into something that could have intention to make himself seem even more heroic by stopping these millions of deaths which are not occurring, he's trying to.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Make it seem like he's the one with any. With any power. A week ago, I was 20 miles away from the front in a city called Zaporizhzhia. And as you drive along the main boulevard, you see buildings that have newer bricks and older bricks. And the reason for that is that the Ukrainians repair the buildings. As soon as the Russians destroy something, a road, a building, a hospital, they repair it. I was there to open a school which was built in six months, which is an extraordinary thing, under rocket fire and bombing. The entire school was underground, and students were there, very happy. They could be in school. Ukraine is attacked, things are destroyed, people are killed, and they re. And they keep fighting, they keep rebuilding. They have been doing this essentially on their own for a long time. Their country is not the wreck that Donald Trump is describing. Their trains run on time. Their roads are clear. Their cities function right up to the front. He's trying to create this idea that the Ukrainians are hopeless, and Zelensky hasn't done anything, which is exactly wrong. They've been valiant, and we ought to be respectful and appreciative, and we ought to be on their side.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Professor Timothy Snyder, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Thank you. We'll be right back. Just reading Susan Morrison's wonderful new book, Lorne, about Lorne Michaels, 50 years of running Saturday Night Live. There's something. There's something you learn on every page. I was actually at the Saturday Night Live episode when the Rolling Stones were on the show, and I learned something on page 302 that I did not know that night. And it's why Keith Richards was not in any of the sketches. And it says here Richards was scheduled to be in two pieces, but his parts were cut when in rehearsal. He didn't appear to know where he was. That's just one gem in this book full of gems. Lorne by Susan Morrison. It's worth reading more than just during the commercial breaks of this show. That is tonight's last word as President.

[MSNBC Host]

Donald Trump returns to the White House. Follow along as his agenda takes shape with the new MSNBC newsletter. Trump's first 100 days weekly expert insight on key issues sent straight to your inbox. Sign [e-mail] TRUMP100.