← The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
Lawrence: Sen. Van Hollen outsmarted Trump today helping Abrego Garcia get a step closer to justice
00:46:18
Tonight on The Last Word: Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen and Kilmar Abrego Garcia meet in El Salvador. Also, Donald Trump threatens to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. And Trump suggests he can fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Andrew Weissmann, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and Rep. Brendan Boyle join Lawrence O’Donnell.
Loading summary
Transcript58 lines
- [00:01]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Now it is time for the Last Word with the great Lawrence O'Donnell. Good evening, Lawrence good evening, Rachel.
- [00:07]
Rachel Maddow
It was 24 hours ago that we were talking about Chris Van Hollen's mission to El Salvador. And I was thinking actually at the time yesterday, which I've thought every once in a while over the last decades, where would Martin Luther King be today? And, and when I saw Senator Van Hollen in El Salvador yesterday, I thought that's where he would be at least one day this week, as well as other places, not just there, but around the world where Donald Trump is doing so much harm and here in the United States. But that was a Martin Luther King like mission, going to El Salvador the way Senator Van Hollen did and achieving what he has achieved. Last night at this hour, Rachel, I didn't look into my guessing section of the brain and think, what's he going to be able to do tomorrow? I just lived very present tense with it and not knowing. And it's so stunning to see this development tonight with him actually making contact and I think in the process proving just how easy it is for an American government official to get access to this particular prisoner and how easy it would be to accompany that prisoner on a flight back to the United States.
- [01:32]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Yes, that's exactly right. And I feel like, as with all of these things and as with so much that's going on right now, you don't know in advance what's going to work and you do a lot of stuff that doesn't work. But the only thing you are guaranteed, the only thing you can definitely know for sure in advance is that if you don't try, it won't work. And Senator Van Hollendown there yesterday, I interviewed him last night down there today. We saw him at the prison gates trying to get in and being turned away. But he's there and he's trying and he's doing everything he can and that's how stuff gets done. That's how the world changes.
- [02:09]
Rachel Maddow
And when he files his complete report on this, I'm sure he'll do tomorrow publicly, we're going to know and the lawyers in the case are going to know what is involved in getting access to this prisoner who facilitates, to use the Supreme Court's word, who facilitates what, to get the United States senator from Maryland into that situation. With this person being held as a prisoner in El Salvador. There's a tremendous amount of legally relevant information that Senator Van Hollen now has.
- [02:45]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And after that 4th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruling today, that lyrical seven page ruling today, most of which I just read live on the air. I mean, there is no ambiguity in terms of the administration's responsibilities here. And it is affirmed by the Supreme Court. It is affirmed by the district court and reaffirmed by the district court and now affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in an absolutely salutary ruling. I mean, the legal clarity here now matched by logistics, clarity produced by Senator Van Hollen, forcing the issue by being there in person. This is how you get things done.
- [03:26]
Rachel Maddow
And, Rachel, your report on the polling, which I hadn't seen, that polling is extraordinarily negative. Polling on Donald Trump, on tariffs on the economy, his overall approval disapproval, terrible numbers. But the one about immigration seems relevant to what we're seeing tonight. Donald Trump's now losing on that issue in polling, which has normally been a strong issue for him, and it may very well be. We don't know exactly what's moving those numbers, but it appears that most Americans, a significant clear majority, do not like seeing people sent off to a prison in El Salvador as a mistake and then watch the president of the United States joke around with another president in the Oval Office about it and how there's nothing they can do about it.
- [04:16]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Yeah, I mean, there's two things where Donald Trump has historically done very well in polling, and one is on the economy. And right now, his economic polling numbers are absolutely underwater. He is absolutely tanking with the voters in terms of how they view his stewardship of the economy, for obvious reasons. And the other one is immigration. And the way he does best when you ask about Donald Trump and immigration is if you ask a generic big topic question like how do you think he's doing on immigration without getting into the specifics even on that, he's underwater on the, the big topic way that you can phrase that question. But there's other polling that's come out within the last week which shows that when you go granular, when you ask about the specific policies, the specific things he's doing in terms of going after international students, going after people who don't have criminal records, going after people who have been in this country for more than 10 years, you ask at a granular level. And his polling numbers are absolutely below the floor and dropping fast. I mean, they're terrible. They're as bad as they are for him on anything. And he is just tripling down on this immigration cruelty stuff because he instinctively believes that this is something that people like. And his polling numbers have turned completely around on this subject. And the more the people of this country learn about it, the more horrified they are, the more apparently activated they are to protest against him and resist him and say no to him. But also the more willing they are to tell pollsters that they specifically do not like this, which is the thing he most wants to be known for. And that's just, I mean, when your best stuff is the stuff that's most deeply underwater with voters, start over, man. Start over. Different tack.
- [05:54]
Andrew Weissman
Yeah.
- [05:54]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Yeah.
- [05:55]
Rachel Maddow
Rachel, thank you so much for that interview with Senator Van Hollen last night. That's really the last we heard from him before this breaking news tonight. And we can't wait to hear from him tomorrow, as I hope we will indeed.
- [06:08]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Thanks, Lawrence.
- [06:09]
Rachel Maddow
Thanks, Rachel. Thank you. Well, as you've heard, the breaking news of the night is that Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen has managed to visit the Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia being held in prison in El Salvador in what the Trump administration admits was a mistake. Senator Van Hollen broke the news on Blue sky posting, quote, I said my main goal of this trip was to meet with Kilmar tonight. I had that chance. I have called his wife Jennifer to pass along his message of love. I look forward to providing a full update upon my return. And of course, the president of El Salvador in his wise guy mode, mocked the meeting with this tweet saying, kilmar Abrego Garcia miraculously risen from the death camps and torture, now sipping margaritas with Senator Van Hollen in the tropical paradise of El Salvador. And then at 9:01pm tonight, President Bukele of El Salvador added this to his tweet saying, now that he's been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador's custody. Well, we will see about that. And of course, the president of El Salvador thinks tonight is a time to be mocking this prisoner that he's holding there and mocking this process. But his words are going to be used in court now in this case, as are Donald Trump's, and they are going to be helpful to Mr. Abrego Garcia, because what the president of El Salvador has demonstrated today is just how easy it is to get this person out of El Salvador, just how easy it is to control his movements in El Salvador and out of El Salvador. This will all be part of the case. J. Harvey Wilkinson III has 41 years of experience as a federal judge. He was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984. And in his 41 years of service, Judge Wilkinson maybe had a right to think he had seen it all. It must be difficult to shock the legal sensibilities of Judge Wilkinson at this point in his career. But he used the word shocking today, a word judges rarely use to describe what the Trump team has done to Kilmar Abrego Garcia after they snatched him out of his car with his autistic 5 year old child watching from the backseat and then sent him to a deliberately cruel and unusual prison in El Salvador where he may remain. Tonight, a three judge federal appeals court panel unanimously ruled against the Trump administration in the case today. Judge Wilkinson, writing the opinion, said, while we fully respect the executive's robust assertion of its Article 2 powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court's recent decision. It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter, but in this case it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process. That is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence, that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear. The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS.13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or mistakenly deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong right? Making what was wrong right was the very purpose in the founders creation of the American judicial system, which must always include due process of law. In today's unanimous ruling by the appeals court, Judge Wilkinson wrote, the executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport. But with powers come restraints. If today the executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? Here is what Donald Trump said on Tuesday about sending American citizens to that very same deliberately and proudly cruel and unusual prison in El Salvador.
- [11:53]
Donald Trump
Could we use it for violent criminals?
- [11:56]
Rachel Maddow
Our own violent criminals?
- [11:57]
Chris Van Hollen
I call them homegrown criminals. I mean the homegrowns.
- [11:59]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Yes, the homegrowns could be the ones.
- [12:01]
Chris Van Hollen
That grew up and something went wrong and they hit people over the head with a baseball bat we have, and push people into subways just before the train gets there, like you see happening sometimes. We are looking into it and we want to do it. I would love to do that.
- [12:19]
Rachel Maddow
Would love to do it. Here is what Donald Trump said today.
- [12:24]
Amy Klobuchar
We have a great relationship with the president of El Salvador. Will you ask him to release Abrego Garcia so that you can facilitate his reformation, return here to the United States? And do you believe he deserves due process here?
- [12:35]
Chris Van Hollen
Well, I must tell you, I have to refer again to the lawyers. I'll have to do what they asked me to do. I had heard that there were a lot of things about a certain gentleman. Perhaps it was that gentleman that would make that case be a case that's easily winnable on appeal. So we'll just have to see. I'm going to have to respond to the lawyers.
- [12:58]
Rachel Maddow
Today. Donald Trump also said this about Mr. Abrego.
- [13:03]
Chris Van Hollen
I've heard many things about him. And we'll have to find out what the truth is.
- [13:12]
Rachel Maddow
We'll have to find out what the truth is. That's the reason we have due process. That is exactly what the phrase due process means. We'll have to find out what the truth is. Leading off our discussion tonight is Andrew Weissman, 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. Andrew, I just want you to collect all of the breaking news developments along with the appeals court opinion today. Donald Trump just saying we'll have to find out what the truth is. We're going to hear that. I assume that line will be in legal filings made by Abrego Garcia's attorneys, saying, look, even the president of the United States says we have to find out what the truth is.
- [14:06]
Andrew Weissman
So I have been on air, Rachel Maddow has been on air. Now you're on air all talking about the Wilkinson decision because it's so remarkable. And I'm going to answer your question. But I just want to for a moment make sure that everyone understands where we are because, you know, there's lots and lots of bad news that we cover all the time. But I want to make sure people understand. We have talked about Judge Ludig speaking out, and he's done that for quite some time and in a heroic way. And then we've had the Wall Street Journal speak out about the Garcia case, the Abreco Garcia case. But now I want to make sure people understand Judge Wilkinson is a revered conservative Republican in a really conservative Community. He is clearly in a unanimous ruling, sending a clear clarion call about what is going on and the violation of law and the violation of this man's due process rights. It is matched by Jack Goldsmith at Harvard, John Yoo. I mean, there is a remarkable constellation. So it is not sort of what I'll call the MSNBC crowd. This is not people just saying the sky is falling. You're seeing this across the board here with people really understanding that the fundamental principles of this country are being violated. And yes, to your point, we are going to have in court the president's own statements where, which base, by the way, are directly responded to in the part of the decision that you read, where it's like the government wants to go ahead and prove that somebody is part of a gang and should be deported. That's the point you have. That's what the court of law is for. And it will be the court that decides that, not the President of the United States, that will be in the court proceeding and certainly the senator's trip will be in the court proceeding precisely for the reasons you note that the only reason that Mr. Abrego Garcia is there is because of Donald Trump, not because of the unilateral decision of El Salvador. Yeah.
- [16:36]
Rachel Maddow
And so we don't know exactly where the meeting took place. Apparently, it took place at a hotel in El Salvador, which means he was removed from the prison today to go to a hotel. They apparently gave him back the clothes that he arrived in and didn't have to, you know, got him out of whatever the prison uniform is. There's a government official there apparently standing, facilitating, this, that important word Supreme Court word facilitating. And in what we're seeing there, Andrew, this seems to be the pictures we're looking at now. These pictures seem to be extremely relevant to the Supreme Court's assessment of what is possible here. This is, you know, a senator gets this kind of treatment in any country they go to anywhere in the world. They get maximum cooperation from any government. Wherever a senator goes, a president of the United States has even more power than what you're seeing Senator Van Holland manage to exercise today in getting to meet and speak with this resident of Maryland who is now imprisoned in El Salvador. It seems to me the courts are going to be very, very interested in what the senator was able to accomplish versus what they would expect the president to be able to accomplish here.
- [18:02]
Andrew Weissman
Of course, I mean, this is one where, I mean, there's a reason that Judge Wilkinson described this, is that not subtly veiled thumbing of the Executive branch's noses at the court order. He knows exactly what's going on. And this really goes a long way to prove it. If you needed any more proof, I mean, for God's sake, we're paying to have that man kept in prison without any due process. But it's the fact that we're paying that is the reason he's there. If this was some unilateral act, action on the part of El Salvador, which there's zero evidence of that, and in fact, all evidence is to the contrary, there's no reason that they would be arranging a hotel meeting outside of the prison for anyone. They would be saying, you know, the United States has nothing to do with our sovereign nation. Instead, he's there only. Only because Donald Trump wants him there and is paying for him to be there. That is the key point. And that is why the administration is not even answering the. Have you asked for him to be returned? They have still not answered that question. And this man is in jail where the Supreme Court has said his rights have been violated by the Trump administration. As Judge Wilkinson said, if you've done something wrong, it is time to make it right.
- [19:33]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah. As we speak, I just want to do one more question, but I want to keep those pictures of Senator Van Hollen on the screen because it is so inspiring to see what he achieved and seeing what his intervention means here. Andrew, the President of El Salvador has now done this, typically for him. Wise guy tweet tonight. He's very Trumpian in his wise guy tweeting, thinking he's outsmarting everyone. And his latest tweet tonight says, now that you've seen that he's healthy, we're going to keep him here. And this is a specific. What this president of El Salvador is doing. I don't think he's aware of it, is he is specifically taunting the Chief justice of the United States, John Roberts. You can do nothing. You can do nothing here. You don't even have the power that Chris Van Hollen has.
- [20:28]
Andrew Weissman
So, you know, I totally agree with you that this is somebody who may think he's being cute, but his tweets have already been used in a court of law.
- [20:37]
Rachel Maddow
Law.
- [20:38]
Andrew Weissman
Judge Boasberg, in finding probable cause, that the Department of Justice and this administration has committed contempt. Just. Just for a moment, just. Let's just remember what I just said. A federal judge has found that this administration has committed contempt of his order. And one of the things he cites is the taunting tweet from the President of El Salvador where the planes that were supposed to have been turned around land. And the president of El Salvador says, oops, too late. Well, it wasn't too late. And that was used. And that is the kind of thing that's the reason. You see Judge Boasberg, the appellate courts, the Supreme Court in not one but two decisions, a district court in Maryland and now a conservative panel in the 4th Circuit with Judge Wilkinson writing a truly scathing opinion. I highly, highly recommend people read it. It's seven pages. It's written for the public to understand what's going on here. And it's apolitical. And there's no way to trash this as some deep state judge who should be impeached. It's so important for people to understand how bipartisan the uproar is here about the sort of lawlessness and callousness of what is going on.
- [22:07]
Rachel Maddow
Andrew, please stay with us because I now need to squeeze in a commercial break in the middle of our breaking news here. And when we come back, I want to consider a question we've considered before, but this is now for a new reason. And that question is, did Donald Trump violate the law? We're going to squeeze in a break right here. We'll be back. And so once again tonight, the country faces the Did Donald Trump violate the law? After America's first criminal president, Republican Richard Nixon, used the Internal Revenue Service to order audits of his enemies, including the names of people in the news media and other fields who were actually on the Nixon's enemies list, which was a real piece of paper, the president of the United States actually kept a written list of enemies. And it became eventually in history a badge of honor to be on that Nixon list of enemies. And like most of the madness inside the Nixon White House, that list eventually did become public. And after the House of Representatives in a committee approved articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, and the United States Supreme Court ordered Richard Nixon to turn over audio tapes that proved he committed crimes in the White House. Richard Nixon was forced to resign the presidency, the first and only person to do that. Washington then spent years trying to wipe away the stench of the criminally corrupt Republican administration of Richard Nixon. And one of the things that Congress did was pass a law signed by President Jimmy Carter making it illegal for the president to either directly or indirectly request an IRS investigation or audit of any specific individuals, businesses or institutions, directly or indirectly. I leave it to you to judge whether Donald Trump, directly or indirectly or both, requested an IRS investigation to remove Harvard University's tax exempt status as a nonprofit institution. When on Tuesday Donald Trump posted on social media, perhaps Harvard should lose its tax exempt status. That's not picking up the phone like Richard Nixon did and telling his acting IRS commissioner to investigate Harvard so that they can remove the tax exempt status. It's doing it publicly. Donald Trump knew that that social media post was available to his IRS commissioner. Donald Trump knows that every one of his loyalists working in his administration reads every one of his social media posts. So Donald Trump had to know that that social media post was going to come to the attention of the commissioner of the irs, either directly or indirectly or both. In order to revoke Harvard University's tax exempt status or any institution's tax exempt status as a nonprofit, the Internal Revenue Service must conduct a massive and extensive and thorough investigation for which Republicans have made sure the IRS actually does not have adequate personnel to do so. Harvard University could easily fight and win in court automatically if the IRS ever attempted to revoke its tax exempt status. And Harvard would win that case on the actual merits of what the institution actually does do in its day to day operations as a nonprofit educational institution. And every single judge looking at such an appeal by Harvard would know that Harvard has been a high functioning educational institution, a world class educational institution for 389 years, more than 150 years longer than there has been in the United States of America. Harvard University would easily crush any attempt to revoke its tax exempt status in court. And the case would move very quickly. But Donald Trump's social media post saying perhaps Harvard should lose its tax exempt status would be the smokiest gun in the case against any Trump IRS commissioner ever trying to do something so legally deranged. And so it's not going to happen. Harvard University is going to remain a tax exempt nonprofit institution for another 389 years and another 389 years after that. That's the time horizon for an institution that has been here longer than the United States of America. And that is why Harvard University has built and brilliantly invested an endowment over the centuries that is now worth $53 billion. Because their economic time horizon is multiple centuries. So that money doesn't look so big when you try to spread it over another 389 years. Most of that endowment includes rest on how that money can be spent that were imposed on the endowment by the people who made those donations. They made those donations for a specific reason, can't be used for anything else. Only about $10 billion of the Harvard endowment can be used in whatever way Harvard University finds necessary and here's one of the most important ways Harvard University uses that endowment, uses the generosity of its contributors. Harvard is actually not the place that many people think it is. It has certainly earned the image over the centuries of being an institution heavily populated by some of the heirs of the greatest fortunes in this country's history, beginning in colonial times. The rich preppy is the typical cliche image that Harvard likes to give to the typical Harvard student, but that is actually not close to the typical Harvard student. The typical Harvard student is a public high school graduate who cannot afford to go to Harvard. The truth is that for at least the last 70 years or so, 2/3 of Harvard students, 2/3 of them, are graduates of public high schools, and 2/3 of Harvard students cannot afford to attend Harvard. So Harvard simply grants them whatever amount of money they need to cover their tuition, room and board, which is now over $90,000 a year. As it is, unfortunately, at many other colleges in America, each Harvard student's financial need is different. Some only need help with about 10% of that bill or less. Some cannot afford to pay a single penny. And Harvard covers that for them. Everything, including transportation and winter clothes for students from Alabama who show up in that northern cold climate without winter clothes. And that student from Alabama who needed those winter clothes and needed that transportation needed, all that help can graduate from Harvard with zero student debt. None. And the students who are paying the full fare are not actually covering the full cost of what Harvard provides them, the full cost of what they impose on Harvard. And so even some of their costs in the college are being covered by the strength of that Harvard endowment. Donald Trump knows none of this. He knows nothing about how any university anywhere in the world actually functions. Donald Trump's Attorney General is now threatening to investigate every foreign student enrolled at Harvard University and to deny all of their student visas. Andrew Weissman is back with us. Andrew, two points. I think the tax case just couldn't be simpler. There is now an active question of did Donald Trump violate the law with that social media posting.
- [29:47]
Andrew Weissman
This is, in my view, a sort of extortion racket through various means, whether it's saying we're gonna go after international students, whether we're going try and revoke your IRS status and through an illegal means, whether we're going to just pull all of your funding for your medical school, and we're doing that in violation of the First Amendment. So when you were sort of asking, has the law been broken? My first response was, well, many. There are just so many ways to look at This I am so reminded of the first impeachment, which was an illegal means of withholding congressionally mandated funding from Ukraine in order to get them to open a fraudulent investigation so that Donald Trump could say there was criminal investigation into his political rival, Joe Biden. So many pieces of it were improper and or illegal. And that is exactly how Harvard is going to be portraying this. But they really are a victim of an extortion. And the reason, the purported reason is because of Donald Trump's supposed hatred of antisemitism. And I don't notice his saying a word about the attack on Josh Shapiro and his family on Passover. That is just one example of belying that purported reason for attacking Harvard.
- [31:23]
Rachel Maddow
Andrew Weissman, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Thank you. You're welcome. And coming up, Senator Amy Klobuchar will join us with her reaction to the breaking news of her colleague, Senator Chris Van Hollen, meeting in el Salvador with Mr. Abrego Garcia. His mission has been accomplished there. Senator Klobuchar joins us. The breaking news of the night is that Senator Chris Van Holland of Maryland has accomplished his mission in his trip to El Salvador. We have photographs to show you of him meeting with Mr. Abrego Garcia, who he went to El Salvador with nothing arranged ahead of time, nothing but his hope of being able to, as a United States senator, be recognized by the visiting government as someone who has a right to visit anyone he wants to visit in that prison where Mr. Abrego Garcia is being held in what the Trump administration admitted was a mistake in sending him there. And there is Senator Chris Van Hollen on day two of his mission with mission accomplished. He is also showing in these photographs just how easy it is for Donald Trump and the Trump administration, attorney general, for the secretary of state to immediately have Mr. Abrego Garcia immediately returned to the United States. He was obviously delivered to apparently what is a hotel in El Salvador for that meeting with the senator. You could just keep moving him to the airport and back to Maryland. Joining us now is Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. She serves on the Senate Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee. Senator, thank you very much for joining us tonight. This is a real breakthrough achieved by your colleague. It is in El Salvador. Tell us about what you think this means to where this story is now going.
- [33:34]
Senator Amy Klobuchar
You know, I think Chris would be the first to tell you, and I'm sure he will share this in his own words, that his mission is not yet accomplished. But what an act to go down there on behalf of Someone lived in his state, family in his state. And he has told the rest of us, the other senators before he went down there that he felt this was his mission. And he did it. He went down there, he wouldn't leave. And he had the right as a senator, he's a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, to make sure that Mr. Abrego Garcia was healthy. And he did that. And I'm sure his next move will be due to everything to bring him back to his family. But the factand I love the earlier interview with Mr. Wiseman about Judge Wilkinson, that a conservative judge who basically said today, with a three judge panel leading it, saying, you know, when something's gone wrong, you've got to make it right. Supporting the district court judge's decision. This is the administration's major, major among many, violation of the law. They are flaunting the law. They're basically saying, come and get me while the judges are standing up. And I predicted this a while ago. A lot of people thought, are you Pollyanna? The judges are standing up. And I would predict that at some point this administration is either going to bring them back or they're going to be held in contempt because this is a man that should not have been deported and they violated American law.
- [35:13]
Rachel Maddow
This is a case where Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it raises the question of what happens if the Trump administration, as they would put it by mistake, were to send an American citizen, a native born American citizen who has not committed a crime to that prison, if that was one of the mistakes they could make. And that has left a lot of people afraid in this country. I want to listen to what Senator Murkowski, your Republican colleague, said to her constituents in Alaska about she herself being afraid. Let's listen to this.
- [35:55]
Donald Trump
We are all afraid. Okay? So I'm saying we're in a time and a place where I don't know. I certainly have not. I have not been here before. And I'll tell you, I'm oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real and that's not right.
- [36:34]
Rachel Maddow
The audio for that, my earpiece anyway, was not easy. But her very first words were, we are all afraid. What are you hearing as you speak to your constituents in Minnesota, which I know you're doing right now in that, that standard way that you always do about agricultural issues and all these other issues. But then there are these larger issues.
- [36:58]
Senator Amy Klobuchar
There are. And there's a lot of people that are afraid. And I appreciated Lisa's honesty there. She's basically Saying this administration has retaliated. You just pointed out, threatening to take away Harvard's tax exempt status, going after Chris Krebs, who had the audacity to say the 2020 election was safe, taking away people's security clearance, going after law firms because he doesn't like who they represented. This is all bullying fear, and people have to stand up. So what my constituents are afraid of and maybe what they're hoping is, hey, Donald Trump, some of them voted for him that have come to my forums and town halls and they've told me that. And they basically said in theirmaybe a different way, not an activist way, but they said, I thought he was going to do something about bringing prices down. I thought he was going to do something about rural housing or childcare. That hasn't happened. Instead, it is daily chaos and attack on our democracy and particularly the small businesses and the farmers. All day today, I was at eight different spots, stood up and came to me and said, oftentimes out of the ear of the media, I will say and said, I don't think I'm not going to have a market for my soybeans anymore. I don't know how I can stay in business. I'm already on small margins or another one. I already dealt with avian flu. And if this market closes off for me as it looks like it's doing, I'm not going to have a place. I'm going to have to sell my farm. I'm going to have to give up my small business. Said a woman today to me in Owatonna, Minnesota, because she relied on imports to sell things for her business that has been really successful for a small business owner. On and on and on. And I know we see the pictures of the, the constituents standing up at these town halls, angry. These people are angry, too, but they're not activists. They are people that are just going to work every day trying to get by, and they are as scared as everyone else. And those are the voices that I think are most interesting. They may not be the loudest voices at the microphone and standing up right now, maybe doing everything from getting someone out of El Salvador to actually standing up and getting out of their skin and coming to a meeting and saying, this is wrong. I've been a Republican all my life, but this is wrong. It's wreaking havoc on our economy. My neighbor can't get into the Social Security office, I'm afraid my mom's in a nursing home. That's what I'm hearing out there. And those Quieter voices are just as, if not more important than the loudest voice.
- [39:36]
Rachel Maddow
Senator, before you go, let me just ask you one final question about your friend Chris Van Hollen and what he accomplished so far in El Salvador. You know him. What can you tell us about the personal qualities that he brought to his interventions with members of the government of El Salvador? That's who had to decide to do this, what persuasive qualities? What is it about this person that made that enabled him there to achieve that breakthrough?
- [40:07]
Senator Amy Klobuchar
I'm smiling because my number one word I thought of was tenacity and a guy that is not going to back down, let's say other issues in the Senate when we're debating things behind closed doors, if he has a few, he's going to make it very clear. He'll listen to other people, but he's going to make it clear. And I personally know that leading up to this, he was not going to take no for an answer. He was going to go there. He felt an obligation to the family back in Maryland. He felt an obligation to Mr. Garcia, and he was going to go and meet with them no matter what. I don't know how many days he would have stayed there. And I think that they knew that and that was one of the reasons he got that meeting.
- [40:50]
Rachel Maddow
Senator Amy Klobuchar, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
- [40:54]
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Thank you. Great to be on. Lawrence.
- [40:56]
Rachel Maddow
Thank you. Thank you. Coming up, Donald Trump keeps finding new ways to scare the stock market, as he did again today. Congressman Brendan Boyle, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over tariffs, joins us next. Once again, Donald Trump has found a new way to rattle the stock market, publicly challenging the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Republican Jerome Powell, who was first appointed by Donald Trump and who is regarded by Wall street as the most valuable player on the economy in the federal government.
- [41:36]
Amy Klobuchar
You said that the termination of Jerome Powell cannot come fast enough. He says he won't leave even if you ask him to.
- [41:43]
Chris Van Hollen
Oh, he'll leave if I ask him to. He'll be out of there.
- [41:45]
Andrew Weissman
But do you believe.
- [41:46]
Chris Van Hollen
I don't think he's. I don't think he. Oh, if I want him out, he'll be out of there real fast, believe.
- [41:52]
Rachel Maddow
Me me, on CNBC today, Senator Elizabeth Warren said what everyone else is thinking.
- [42:00]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Understand this. If Chairman Powell can be fired by the president of the United States, it will crash the markets in the United States.
- [42:11]
Rachel Maddow
Joining us now is Congressman Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania. He's the top Democrat in the House Budget Committee. He's a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over tariffs, that Donald Trump has been playing with to the annoyance of the entire world. Carson Boyle, this idea of firing the chair of the Federal Reserve, there's no legal way a president can do that.
- [42:34]
Brendan Boyle
Yeah, that's exactly right. The law is quite clear. Jay Powell gave very solid, terse responses when he was asked about it at his press conference yesterday. Frankly, this just would not be a close call for the courts. But make no mistake about it, if President Trump actually attempted this, what Senator Warren said is right, and that is an opinion that is shared across the ideological spectrum on Wall street. It would absolutely crater the markets because for the first time in over 100 years, the independence of the Fed would be called into question.
- [43:12]
Rachel Maddow
Munagar talked to you about the Republican budget bill after, I think it was yesterday, 12 Republican House members coming out and saying, we cannot go along with your Medicaid cuts. We cannot do that. And, of course, that's enough to kill the Republican budget plan.
- [43:29]
Brendan Boyle
Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it, because here's the reality. Every one of those House Republicans have now voted twice for the biggest Medicaid cuts in American history, $880 billion worth. That's already in their budget resolution, which passed the House. It was slightly altered in the Senate, though, not that part, and then had to be passed the second time in the House of Representatives just a couple weeks ago. So I will prefer to believe their votes as opposed to what they say back home when they're with their constituents. And, you know, if you think about eight years ago, the big fight was to save the aca, the Affordable Care act, that provided health care for more than 20 million Americans. Americans. When we're talking about Medicaid, we're not talking about 20 million Americans. We're talking about over 82 million Americans, including 44% of the people in my congressional district here in Philadelphia.
- [44:23]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah, well, I mean, the Affordable Care act incorporated Medicaid, and that was one of the ways it delivered and expanded who's eligible for Medicaid, making it a much more modern version of the program.
- [44:37]
Brendan Boyle
Yeah, that's exactly right. One of the best bangs for our buck, so to speak, that we got out of the ACA was the Medicaid expansion, which really targets the working poor. It's the shift worker who's working 40 hours a week, maybe at Walmart, even making $15 an hour, but was making too much to qualify for traditional Medicaid, but not nearly enough in order to actually pay for private and health insurance insurance. It's exactly those kind of workers, the working class of this country, that will be dealt a devastating blow if Republicans succeed in going through the final stages of passing their debt. Absolutely devastating Medicaid cuts. And why do they want to do it? To pay for trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the top 1%.
- [45:26]
Rachel Maddow
Congressman Brendan Boyle, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
- [45:30]
Brendan Boyle
Thank you.
- [45:31]
Rachel Maddow
Thank you. Earlier in the hour, Andrew Weissman said that he hasn't heard Donald Trump say anything about the arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's home during Passover. And I thought I remembered Trump saying something. And so I looked it up. Here's what Donald Trump actually said about that attack on the Jewish governor of Pennsylvania during Passover. Donald Trump said these are his words. The attacker was not a fan of Trump. I understand. Just from what I read and from what I've been told, the attacker basically wasn't a fan of anybody. He's probably just a whack job. And certainly a thing like that cannot be allowed to happen. That's what he said. That is tonight's last word.