← The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
Lawrence: Emil Bove could not find a single attorney to represent Trump’s DOJ in court today
00:41:52
Tonight on The Last Word: Democrats demand answers on Elon Musk’s access into government agencies. Plus, Donald Trump lies calling Ukraine’s Zelenskyy a ‘dictator.’ And Donald Trump endorses a GOP plan that could cut Medicaid. Adam Klasfeld, Andrew Weissmann, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, and Norm Ornstein join Lawrence O’Donnell.
Loading summary
Transcript42 lines
- [00:01]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Now it's time for the last word with the great Lawrence. Oh, Donal. Good evening, Lawrence.
- [00:06]
Rachel Maddow
Rachel, it's not just what you think. It's what I think too, about Blue sky, which is why I followed you to Blue Sky, Rachel. So this was one of those nights when I'm walking through the hallways to get here and the silent TV monitors that I'm walking by show you with some pretty important breaking news about birthright citizenship. And I can't hear a word of it. All I know is there's this thing at the bottom of the screen that says, you know, this really important thing has happened. By taking a quick look at the breaking news report on it. And it's a Trump appointed judge is saying, no, you know, this case can be handled through the standard procedures of the. And it's not an emergency. We don't have to go into an emergency mode to deal with your attempt to like hand rewrite the Constitution.
- [01:01]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Yeah, and it's actually, it's very well written. It's written like in non legalese, judges are charged to reach their decisions apart from ideology or political preference. When we decide issues of significant public importance and political controversy, hours after we finish reading the final brief, we should not be surprised if the public questions whether we are politicians in disguise. In recent times, nearly all judges and lawyers have attended seminar after seminar discussing ways to increase public trust in the legal system. Moving beyond wringing our hand and wishing things were different, one concrete thing we can do is decline to decide or pre decide cases on an emergency basis when there is no emergency warranting a deviation from our normal deliberate practice. Cuz they are going to appeal this on an emergency basis to the Supreme Court. And here's this appeals court judge in the 9th Circuit being like, this is a lot of things. An emergency is not one of them. You're just trying to change the Constitution.
- [01:58]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah. And this is the same Supreme Court that was in absolutely no rush to hear Jack Smith's appeal to the Supreme Court about the whole issue of presidential immunity. They wanted to deal with that one as slowly as they possibly could. Yeah.
- [02:16]
Lawrence O'Donnell
But this one is Trump trying to change the Constitution. So you're no longer an American. If you're born in America. The idea that this has to be taken up on some emergency basis, I mean, we'll see what the, we'll see what the, what the Supreme Court does as Justice Department tries to rocket this to the Supreme Court. But this pushback from this three judge panel at the ninth Circuit is pretty strong.
- [02:38]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah. Trump's On a losing streak with this one so far.
- [02:41]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Yeah.
- [02:42]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah.
- [02:43]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Thanks, Lawrence.
- [02:44]
Rachel Maddow
Thank you, Rachel. Thank you. Well, today at 2:31pm exactly, the white House posted on social media, congestion pricing is dead, Manhattan and all of New York is saved. Long live the king. President Donald J. Trump. And I'm sparing you what was attached underneath those utterly insane words. It was a deeply perverse rendition of Donald Trump on what was designed to appear to be a fake Time magazine cover with him wearing a gold crown that he imagines kings wear every day. There was a time when New York City was governed by the King of England, but the people living in New York City and the other colonies joined together to kill as many British soldiers as necessary to remove a king from their lives forever. Of course, not a single Republican objected to anything about that social media posting today. And although Republicans will constantly tell you that government is best when left to the state and local officials, especially on health care issues or education, for example, education should be as local as possible. None of those Republicans objected today about Donald Trump interfering in the most local possible issue. Traffic jams. At the beginning of this year, New York City tried something that I for one, did not think was going to work and I thought was going to be a lot of political trouble. It was an idea that had been kicking around think tanks and urban planning seminars for at least 40 years, that I'm personally aware of, was talked about in subcommittee hearings in Washington decades and decades ago. But it was the kind of idea that usually scared most politicians. The New York politicians who supported the idea in the state legislature and got, and the ones who supported in the city got very scared of the idea the closer it came to being a reality. The idea of congestion pricing to try to control traffic in Manhattan. So they delayed the idea. They delayed the idea that long held dream of urban planners. Congestion pricing, in effect, electronic tolls invisibly applied to cars venturing below 60th street in Manhattan. It was a desperate attempt to try to do something about 100 years of increasingly unbearable New York City traffic. And as the deadline for implementing congestion pricing approached, politicians began to fear the wrath of every New York City car driver, while the governor had to worry about the wrath of suburban New York drivers. Also, politicians who supported congestion pricing, as the implementation day approached, worried that they wouldn't get any gratitude at all from most New York City residents who don't even own cars. New York City is the only city in the country where most people do not own cars. And at the last minute, they dramatically reduced the toll pricing in the congestion pricing plan. And the first day that congestion pricing went into effect in New York City, a miracle was upon us. I got into a car in Lower Manhattan and speeded up to Midtown on the FDR Drive at the highway speeds that road was to allow for, for the first time in my life, the ride that normally would take at least 45 minutes took 20. I went into an office where the first person I spoke to was from Staten Island. Her commute to Midtown Manhattan usually was at least 90 minutes each way, sometimes two hours. And that day, for the first time in her life, it was 45 minutes and she wasn't even driving. She was riding the express bus from Staten Island. And that's when I realized congestion pricing just might turn out to be the popular thing that has happened in government in New York City in a very long time, because the bus riders were very happy. New York City roadways intersect with the Interstate highway system. So there are three levels of governmental interest involved in congestion pricing. The government of New York City, the government of New York State, and the federal government. Within a couple of days, most people in New York politics breathed a huge sigh of relief, realizing that not only had the plan worked exactly as intended, even better than intended by breaking gridlock, but it could end up being the most popular thing they've ever done. President Biden signed off on the federal government's okay for New York City's congestion pricing plan last year. And today, 2:31pm, Donald Trump announced that the King was ending it all, or trying to end it. Donald Trump revoked the federal approval of congestion pricing. And Governor Hochul announced that New York was rushing into court to try to preserve the only new thing ever devised to reduce traffic in New York City. In Donald Trump's entire 78 years of life, the only thing that has actually worked. At a press conference about Donald Trump's attempt to block congestion pricing this afternoon, Governor Hochul was asked a two part question about two different things.
- [08:48]
Norm Ornstein
And what would it take for you to determine that Mayor Eric Adams was no longer able to govern New York City?
- [08:53]
Rachel Maddow
I'm ignoring the second part of the.
- [08:55]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Question because I said, that's another day.
- [08:57]
Rachel Maddow
Okay. The first part of the question which we missed was actually about congestion pricing. And then there was a question thrown in there about Eric Adams, which the governor then didn't want to answer. The governor then turned to legal experts with help for the questions about congestion pricing and where that case was going to go. Now it has been falsely reported day in and day out, pretty much everywhere in the news media, that the governor of New York has the power to summarily fire the mayor of New York. That is not true, as I explained here last night, but it bears explaining again, since it's apparently a difficult lesson for people to learn, especially in the news media. The governor of New York only has the power to initiate a process that has never been tried before, to remove the mayor of New York only after a hearing in which the mayor would be allowed to defend himself and be represented by as many lawyers as he wants, who would be allowed to call as many witnesses as they want. The rules for such a hearing do not exist. They would have to be created by the governor. Because in this kind of hearing, which has never occurred, the governor plays the role of the judge and therefore would have to be there every minute. The governor also plays the role of the prosecutor in that hearing, presenting the evidence against the governor. And the governor plays the role of the jury in that hearing and would have to make the final fact finding and render a verdict. Every aspect of that process that has never been used before and has been never tested for due process, every bit of it, could be appealed in court and such appeals could be fought all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and that could take years. So, no, the governor does not have the power to fire the mayor, just have a hearing about the possibility of removing the mayor. And in that hearing, if the governor decided to have one, she would not be able to use any of the criminal evidence collected by the FBI and present it to a federal grand jury, which led to the criminal indictment of Mayor Eric Adams on bribery and other charges. So there would be zero criminal evidence available to the governor to consider in such a hearing. Zero. And so the magic bullet firing scenario that you've been hearing from people who literally in every real sense don't know what they're talking about is impossible. Also, at exactly 2:31pm today, the Trump White House issued their proclamation from their king about congestion pricing. Exactly 2:31pm and at that very minute, Mayor Eric Adams was testifying under oath for the very first time in the criminal case of United States of America vs. Eric Adams. Federal Judge Dale Ho, who has been presiding over the case of the United States of America versus Eric Adams, was hearing a motion by Donald Trump's Justice Department to just dismiss the charges against Mayor Adams, a motion that was opposed by all of the New York City federal prosecutors who were handling the case. In all, eight federal prosecutors in New York City and Washington have resigned over what they believe is an illegal scheme to dismiss the case for political purposes. One of the briefs filed in the case today included a letter from Danielle Sassoon, who was the Acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Her eight page letter offering her resignation and her refusal to file the motion to dismiss accused acting Deputy Attorney general Emil Bove of entering a quid pro quo for the dismissal. The letter said Mr. Bove proposes dismissing the charges against Adams in return for his assistance in enforcing the federal immigration laws. The reasons advanced by Mr. Bove for dismissing the indictment are not ones I can in good faith defend as in the public interest and as consistent with the principles of impartiality and fairness that guide my decision making. Danielle Sassoon's letter also reveals that she and her team of prosecutors were ready to bring an additional indictment against Mayor Adams, saying, we have proposed a superseding indictment that would add an obstruction conspiracy count based on evidence that Adams destroyed and instructed others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI and that would add further factual allegations regarding his participation in a fraudulent straw donor scheme. Emile Beauvais could not find any attorney in the justice department willing to stand in front of the judge today and argue in support of that motion. We saw the unique spectacle of an acting deputy attorney general appearing as a litigator in court, which they virtually never do. One of the prosecutors who quit rather than stand up and tell the judge what he believes to be lies in the courtroom today said in his resignation letter last week that he was confident that Amel Bovey would be able to find, quote, enough of a fool to do it. Emil Bovey did it. Emil Bovey told the judge, I'm here personally to answer your honor's questions, to give you the assurance you need to sign this. Judge Ho began the hearing by asking Eric Adams under oath if he was on drugs. That is actually a standard question for defendants in hearings like this to establish that they actually comprehend the proceedings that they are in. The judge clarified that the Trump Justice Department intends to hold out the possibility of bringing these exact charges against Eric Adams against him again whenever they want to the court. Mr. Bove, if and when the motion is granted, can these charges be brought again? Mr. Bovet? They could be in the department's discretion. Yes. Judge. The court. Okay, so Mayor Adams could be re indicted at a future date. Mr. Bovet, it's possible the court is the government committing to stopping any additional investigative steps with respect to Mayor Adams? Mr. Bobay? No. That answer contradicts what Emile Bove put in writing. In his order to Danielle Sassoon to ask for dismissal in the case. In that order which she refused, Emil Bove said, there shall be no further targeting of Mayor Adams or additional investigative steps. Now, you really don't want politicians like Eric Adams to know that the FBI has been ordered not to investigate him? The judge asked, Mayor Adams, has anything been promised to you to induce you to consent to the motion? The defendant. Not at all, you, Honor. The court. Okay. Has anyone threatened you in any way to induce you to consent to the motion? The defendant? No, you, Honor. If he doesn't come through, I'll be back in New York City, and we won't be sitting on the couch. I'll be in his office, up his butt, saying, where the hell is the.
- [16:20]
Sheldon Whitehouse
Agreement we came to?
- [16:22]
Rachel Maddow
That video was not part of the record of the hearing today. To Emil Bove, the judge said, I just want to confirm my understanding that the motion contains no statement about the government's views regarding the strength of the case in terms of the facts or the legal theory. Mr. Bovet, that's correct. And less than a minute later, in his very next answer, Emil Bovet contradicted that answer he had just given when he said he believed that the indictment, quote, is an abuse of the criminal justice process. Emil Bove advanced the novel theory that no candidate for office should ever be charged with a crime. He said to the judge, I mean, frankly, I think the fact that Mayor Adams is sitting to my left right now is part of the problem. He's not able to be outrunning the city and campaigning. I think that is actual interference with the election. So according to the new Trump Justice Department theory, any candidate in any party, anywhere in the country cannot be charged with a crime of any kind because that is interference with the election. Even if the election isn't even that year. Presidential campaigns are four years long, remember? Emil Bovey also advanced the novel legal theory that you cannot indict the New York City Police Commissioner because the duties of that job are so important. The judge asked, would a rationale like this, this ability to govern rationale, potentially apply to other public officials with significant public safety, national security responsibilities here in New York, like the police commissioner, for example, could it potentially be applicable in the event that the police commissioner were subject to some sort of Investigation or prosecution? Mr. Bovet? Yes, absolutely. In the long history of police corruption in the city of New York, no one has ever before advanced the theory that the New York City Police Commissioner cannot be indicted. The last New York City Police commissioner to go to prison was Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's police commissioner, Bernard Kerik, who decades later, was of course, pardoned by Donald Trump. Leading off our discussion tonight is Andrew Weishman, 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. Adam Klassfeld is also with us. He was in the courtroom covering today's hearing for us. And, Adam, I just want to begin with the way this played out in the courtroom. The transcript, which I've read, shows the judge being very, very careful and solicitous to Bovet as much as he possibly could, very polite, not turning over his cards in any way about what he was actually thinking about it.
- [19:11]
Andrew Weissman
That's absolutely correct. He was even deferential. I looked through the transcript as well after the hearing, and I think he apologized before questions about 12 times. So this was a hearing where he was being very careful, but he was also being very careful in his questioning. One of the moments that I found really interesting was through the hearing, there were these two parties in intense agreement, Trump's DOJ and Adams attorneys. But they disagreed one time, and that time was when the judge asked Adams about his security clearance. And this is a part the judge said, is Mayor Adams currently in the process of reobtaining his security clearance, or does that hinge on the resolution of the motion? Adams's attorney says it hinges on the resolution of the motion. And at that time, Bove interjected, just a correction. I don't think it hinges on that. It hinges his security clearance, because the security clearance issue is another executive power. So in that moment when he's asking that question, he's undermining the stated rationale that they were given. So that here's a judge who is being very deferential, very cautious, but he's not tipping his hand.
- [20:28]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah. And Andrew, the judge actually had. It emerged in the judge questioned him. But of course, Donald Trump can just give him a security clearance anytime he wants to, just like he did with Jared Kushner. It's completely within Donald Trump's power.
- [20:41]
Adam Klassfeld
Yeah. So that once that's conceded, that means that the excuse that you need to dismiss these charges without prejudice, because it's security clearance. I did think there were some other questions that I was kind of hoping the judge would ask. When Emile Beauvais says, basically, we can do this, frankly, we can do this even if there is a quid pro quo, that was sort of remarkable to me. And if I were a judge, I think I would have asked. So are you saying that if Eric Adams dropped a bag of cash off with the deputy attorney general, that that would be legal? And what's the difference here? If there is that quid pro quo, if you can't do the bag of cash, why can you do this? And then also, why is it that you want to reinstate these charges? Would it be if he doesn't toe the line and then just sort of pressing a little bit more on why it is that this is something they want to do without prejudice, as opposed to saying, look, we think it's a political prosecution, so we want it dismissed forever. And I think that is really the flaw in what the government is trying to do here is that sort of Damocles, the choke chain that is being put on Eric Adams, that just has to be something that the law forbids.
- [22:01]
Rachel Maddow
Andrew, the judge is extremely limited here. It would be extraordinary for him to try to prevent the dismissal at this point. But, I mean, I have seen judges in hearings like this where no one feels as though they were pushed around by the judge, but the judge is actually just sitting there collecting all this crazy information that he needs to use against you, because Emil Bovet went down some roads that were utterly insane that you cannot indict. You know, the New York City Police Commissioner, in effect, you cannot indict a candidate anywhere in America as long as they're a candidate. I mean, he really. And the judge did not test him on just how far do you want that statement to go? The judge left them there as indefinite statements that could be just as wild as they sounded.
- [22:57]
Adam Klassfeld
Yeah. You know, I was reminded of the presidential immunity case, where there was the famous line in the Court of Appeals, which is, are you saying that the President can order Seal Team 6 to kill a political adversary under your theory? And this is that wacky. But unfortunately, one, as you said, Lawrence, the law here is very, very favorable to the government and their discretion. And two, we have a Supreme Court that is bending backwards to find this sort of overwhelming executive power to the exclusion of common sense. And frankly, I think sort of the traditional ways we think of the rule of law, it's the reason that you see so many people resigning.
- [23:43]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah. And to Andrew's point, Adam, the one question that I was wondering, why it wasn't there is the judge not specifically asking, why aren't you asking to dismiss it with prejudice? Because given the reasons you just gave, you know, why isn't that a dismissal with prejudice?
- [24:02]
Andrew Weissman
And that was entirely absent. I think one of the things that was a common theme from the beginning to end. The judge said right at the outset that he has very little discretion over things. And everything that we've been watching over the past week, these principled resignations, the Sassoon letter that you highlighted in your opening, none of that is officially before the court. Now, Bovey said that he should not even recognize that evidence because it is brought forward by the amici who the judge has not made the decision to recognize.
- [24:36]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah, but he incorporated that decision in the entire decision. He's going to decide whether he will accept those documents as part of the record. But, you know, like that FOX News video is never going to be part of the record. There's a context that we all know out here in the world that the courtroom will never allow within the playing field of this issue in the courtroom. And so this is one of those issues where we are more informed than the judge will be, even though the judge will be correctly legally informed. Andrew Weissman, Adam Klassfeld, thank you both very much for starting us off tonight. Thank you. You're welcome. Coming up, our next guest is from a place that used to be ruled by the king of England. And so he had a little something to say today when Donald Trump declared himself a king. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse joins us. That's next. Elon Musk's crew now has access to classified material in some government agencies. Today, the Atlantic reports an employee in senior leadership at USAID told us that Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency now has full unrestricted access to the agency's digital infrastructure, including total control over systems that Americans working in conflict zones rely on the ability to see and manipulate financial systems that have historically awarded tens of billions of dollars and perhaps much more. The employee's account, along with the accounts of several others across agencies, offers the clearest portrait yet of just how deep the Department of Government Efficiency has burrowed into the systems of the federal government and the sensitive information of countless Americans. NBC News reports that employees from Elon Musk's team are now at the Pentagon, arriving for the first time yesterday. Pentagon officials are refusing to share their names or explain what Musk's team is doing. And the most conservative so called think tank in Washington, the Cato Institute, said today Elon Musk is not going to find waste, fraud and abuse at Social Security. Cato said the amount of fraud is likely minuscule. And oh yeah, Donald Trump said he's a king today. Joining us now is Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. He's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Finance Committee and the Budget Committee. He's the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator, thank you very much for joining us tonight. And I know you are from a part of our world, Rhode island, that used to be ruled by the King of England. And I noticed that you took notice today of Donald Trump declaring himself a king.
- [27:27]
Sheldon Whitehouse
Yeah, I thought it was a little bit preposterous what he was saying and took a little poke at it.
- [27:35]
Rachel Maddow
Usaid in all of the work it does at certain points intersects with classified information as obviously Pentagon full of classified information. We're going to have absolutely no idea what the Musk crew is up to with any of that.
- [27:55]
Sheldon Whitehouse
No, but what we do know as the Musk crew, who I refer to as the Muskrats, that when they go into all of these different government data systems, whether it's our health care data, our Social Security data, our Labor Department data, or now USAID data, they have an undeniable motive which is that the tech bros who were there at Trump's inauguration and Elon Musk, their, whatever he is, boss, I guess they think this data is immensely valuable. They operate systems in which data is the coin of the realm. And as they go into AI, more data becomes more valuable. And so question one is, are they building in? Backdoors particularly you have something like God mode or administrator mode. You have the ability to actually change the wiring of how the system runs and you can put in a backdoor so you can get in later and then exfil data that you want or let somebody else do that. So there's a huge data security problem and they have a huge motive to violate Americans privacy and all of these things. Then you get into separate issues of do they really have the authority to be there? Do they have the security clearances to be there? Are they competent to mess in these complex systems and not do something inadvertently stupid? And there's no way to find out much of anything about all of that because the whole thing is shrouded in secrecy.
- [29:40]
Rachel Maddow
Well, I think we do know that there's no positive answer to any of those questions. Of course they're all capable of being wrong looking at something they've never seen before, working with things they've never seen before. They obviously had no comprehension of Social Security data and how that works. And they kept thinking they were staring at 150 year old people in the in there getting Social Security checks, which they're not because they don't know what they're looking at. Yeah.
- [30:08]
Sheldon Whitehouse
And so the gradient here is somewhere between let's hope only a small amount of bad stuff happens from all of this over to they break something really big or they leave an access into the data that they themselves or tech bros or perhaps even foreign interests can find a way into. And as best I can tell, there's nobody in the government who's watching that, who is checking on that, who is going to go back and try to see what patches need to be made. If you had a break in a corporate system, the first thing you do would be to bring the IT experts in and try to make sure that your systems had not been corrupted and not been compromised. And there's no sign of anybody trying to do that either.
- [31:04]
Rachel Maddow
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, I've got to squeeze in a commercial break here. When we come back, I want to ask you about something Donald Trump is doing we've never seen before. He's trying to be the first American president to change sides in the middle of a war. That's next. The United States of America has never changed sides in the middle of a war. The classic model for changing sides in the middle of a war is the big mistake Adolf Hitler made in World War II when he decided to turn against his ally, the Soviet Union. After Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin got over the initial shock of Hitler changing sides in the middle of the war, he joined in an alliance with Great Britain and eventually the United States to crush Adolf Hitler. Donald Trump has already changed sides in the war in Ukraine, and now it's just a question of whether he can get the rest of the American government to change sides with him for the first time and betray the people of Ukraine. Yesterday, in a flight of sheer dementia, Donald Trump blamed Ukraine for starting the war, which began only when Russia invaded Ukraine. That is exactly like blaming Poland for starting World War II. When Adolf Hitler invaded Poland. It's exactly the same thing. And no one in human history has blamed Poland for starting World War II, not even Adolf Hitler. Today, Donald Trump called the heroic Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator, which is a lie. President Zelensky was elected with a larger share of the vote than Donald Trump has ever won. And Donald Trump continues to tell the lie that millions of Russians and Ukrainians have been killed in the war. The last time millions were killed in a war in Europe was World War II. Once again, the total number of war dead on the Ukraine side is 46,000. The total number of war dead on the Russian side is 854,280, not millions still with US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who's just returned from the Munich Security Conference. Senator, today some Republicans disagreed. You know, they're careful about their language, but they certainly disagreed with Donald Trump about calling Zelensky a dictator.
- [33:31]
Sheldon Whitehouse
Yeah, I think most all disagree. I will tell you that in the meetings we had in Munich, there was a very substantial array of Republican senators, including very senior ones like Lindsey Graham, who runs the Foreign Ops account for Appropriations, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. And what our guests heard over and over again was their absolute support for Ukraine and for victory in Ukraine. The House chairman of Armed Services, Mike Rogers, even said any resolution to this has to be a defeat for Vladimir Putin and has to be seen to be a defeat for Vladimir Putin. So it's going to be a real test of what you might call Trump servience in the Republican Party to see how many will push back against this. We are already seeing push back. Trump is, you know, he's flagrantly, flagrantly lying. And the worst thing is that not just that a President of the United States is lying about something where he's obviously lying, but that his lies track perfectly with the talking points of Vladimir Putin. So if you go back to remember Trump Russia, the Mueller report said there was Trump Russia. Bipartisan Senate support said there was Trump Russia. Repeated trials brought in evidence showing there was Trump Russia. There was, is, and ever shall be Trump Russia. This is Trump Russia rearing its ugly head again. And I think a lot of my colleagues on the Republican side are going to be pushing back hard behind the scenes on the White House in the days ahead.
- [35:24]
Rachel Maddow
Senator Whitehouse, I just tried to write the word Trump servience without looking down so I could keep my eye contact with the camera and actually came out pretty good on my notes. But now I'm going to write it more carefully. Thank you for that word. You'll be hearing it here. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
- [35:42]
Sheldon Whitehouse
Thank you.
- [35:44]
Rachel Maddow
Coming up, the Republicans are very close to putting in writing exactly how much they want to cut from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, even though Donald Trump has promised never to cut those programs. That's next. Today in a social media post, Donald Trump said we need both chambers to pass the House budget to kickstart the reconciliation process and move all of our priorities to the concept of one big beautiful bill. The Republican controlled House is scheduled to vote on their Trump endorsed budget resolution next week. That resolution calls for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and orders trillions dollars of spending cuts. The budget resolution orders the committee that has jurisdiction over Medicaid to reduce spending by $880 billion. It's impossible to cut the amount of spending Republicans are talking about without cutting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. But last night, Donald Trump said this Social Security won't be touched other than it's 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. Joining us now is congressional historian Norm Orenstein. He's an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. And Norm, as you know, and the audience might not know that the budget resolution is just a set of instructions to committees telling them how much money they want them to cut, raise, whatever. And so it's hard for a citizen to read that and make sense of it. It's never going to say cut Medicaid, but you have to know when it orders that committee to cut $800 billion, Medicaid's the only thing they have to do it. And so we'll get to much more specifics at the next stage, which is the reconciliation bill, where all those cuts get specified. So we're, we're marching up toward the specifics now.
- [37:43]
Norm Ornstein
And there's one other thing to keep in mind, Lawrence, which is that spending runs out on March 14th. So they have to do at least a stopgap spending measure, even as they do this budget resolution, deal with appropriations and then their big reconciliation bill, which we should note, they've said they want to increase the debt ceiling by $4 trillion as well. You and I have been around long enough, you at your time at the Finance Committee, me even longer around the House and Senate to see farcical budget debates take place. This one is going to take the cake, I believe. And what we know is that the primary reason, as we saw in his statement that Donald Trump endorsed this House budget resolution even though it will violate his pledge, is because the Senate one with Lindsey Graham is going to give money to Ukraine and the House one does not. So he'll abandon everything else so that he can continue to abandon Ukraine. And we're going to see whether, as Sheldon Whitehouse has said, Republicans will talk tough, not just behind the scenes, but in their votes, and whether the House will be able to get Republican votes. And frankly, given this farce, any Democrat in the House or Senate that votes to save the bacon of these Republicans going through this horrific exercise would be nuts.
- [39:10]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah. And Obviously, the reconciliation package they will present will greatly increase the deficit and the debt. And I suspect that what their argument is going to be is ignore the budget projections because Elon is going to give us trillions more in spending cuts when he gets finished with his work. So just ignore what the Congressional Budget Office says about how much this is going to increase the debt.
- [39:39]
Norm Ornstein
The other thing that's going on here a little bit in their discussions behind the scenes, as you know, with reconciliation, there's a kind of a farce. You're not allowed to increase the debt after 10 years. So they pass these ridiculous budget cuts. Bush did it and Trump has done it in 2017. Enormous cuts for the wealthy that expire after 10 years. What they're doing now is continuing those ones starting next year, ostensibly for another 10. But you've got a bunch of Republicans in the House and Senate saying let's just ignore those rules, we'll rule over the parliamentarian and make them permanent. Cuz we don't wanna risk having them go away even after another 10 years, ignoring their own rules, blowing up the budget, lying about where they're gonna make the cuts. I mean, this is unlike anything that I have seen in more than 50 years of being around these institutions. And I've seen plenty.
- [40:37]
Rachel Maddow
Lawrence yeah, Norman, that's why I think the Musk thing integrates with this, because it's giving people the idea that there are these magic cuts that can happen. That's never been in the mix here before in one of these reconciliation packages.
- [40:54]
Norm Ornstein
No. And you know, what we have seen often in the past is Republicans talk a good game about cutting government and then they find that all of these programs actually work for their own constituents. What's going on now? All of these Republican House members and senators plaintively pleading to Donald Trump not to let Elon, Musk and Doge go through with these cuts for their constituents. And we're gonna see, I think, the same sort of thing happen down the road. Let them decide their own fate and fail at it. And let's make sure that it's on the backs of those Republicans and Trump and Musk.
- [41:34]
Rachel Maddow
Norm Ornstein, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
- [41:37]
Norm Ornstein
Thanks, Lawrence.
- [41:37]
Rachel Maddow
We'll be right Tonight's last word, thanks to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is Trump Servience.