← The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
Lawrence: There is only one word that matters in reports about the confirmation process, that word is ‘yes’
00:42:05
Tonight on The Last Word: Some Trump picks still don’t have the votes to be confirmed. Plus, Democrats reject Trump’s plan for more tax cuts for the rich. Also E.J Dionne and Jonathan Capehart join Lawrence O’Donnell to discuss the challenge of covering a second Trump term. Senator Amy Klobuchar and Robert Greenstein also join Lawrence O’Donnell.
Loading summary
Transcript131 lines
- [00:00]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Netcredit is here to say yes to a personal loan or line of credit. When other lenders say no, apply in.
- [00:05]
Alex
Minutes and get a decision as soon.
- [00:06]
Lawrence O'Donnell
As the same day. Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner.
- [00:09]
Alex
Banks and serviced by NetCredit applications subject.
- [00:11]
Lawrence O'Donnell
To review and approval. Learn more at netcredit.com partner NetCredit Credit to the people.
- [00:16]
Alex
Oh my God. It's the coolest thing ever. Hey guys, have you heard of Goldbelly? Well, check this out.
- [00:22]
Lawrence O'Donnell
It's this amazing site where they ship.
- [00:24]
Alex
The most iconic famous foods from restaurants across the country, anywhere nationwide. I've never found a more perfect gift than food they ship Chicago deep dish pizza, New York bagels, Maine lobster rolls, and even Ina Garten's famous cakes. Seriously.
- [00:38]
Lawrence O'Donnell
So if you're looking for a gift.
- [00:40]
Alex
For the food lover in your Life, head to goldbelly.com and get 20% off your first order with promo code gift. Now it's time for the Last word with Lawrence O'Donnell. Good evening, Lawrence.
- [00:52]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Good evening, Alex. I loved hearing Kevin McCarthy's thwarted attempt to rewrite history.
- [00:58]
Alex
You're welcome. And then she says, yeah, thank you. Whatever.
- [01:02]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Exactly.
- [01:03]
Alex
Yeah, play it on loop. On loop.
- [01:05]
Lawrence O'Donnell
On loop.
- [01:05]
Alex
On loop.
- [01:06]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Yep, it was great. Thanks, Alex.
- [01:08]
Alex
Have a great show.
- [01:09]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Thank you. Well, as we enter the confirmation hearing season, it is worth remembering that there is only one word that matters in reporting about the confirmation process. That word is yes. When a reporter asks a senator if that senator is going to vote for a nominee, if that senator does not say the word yes, that senator is not yet voting for the nominee, it is possible that that senator will eventually decide to vote for the nominee, especially Republican senators who are now being subjected to unprecedented levels of pressure and intimidation to vote for Trump nominees. There have been discussions on cable news this week and articles published that say, for example, Republican Senator Joni Ernst has changed her position on the Pete Hegseth nomination to be Secretary of Defense, the first nominee for a cabinet position in history who has pledged to stop drinking if and only if he is confirmed by the United States Senate. The New York Times published a report well sourced within the Trump transition team, but without any apparent sources in the United States Senate about what the headline calls the resurrection of support for Pete Hegseth's confirmation. But the only resurrection that that actually reports on is the resurrection of Donald Trump's personal support for Pete Hegseth. After Donald Trump's apparent attempt to abandon Pete Hegseth, The Times reports Mr. Trump was getting sick of hearing about it all and he told confidants he was serious about picking Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida to replace him. But within 48 hours, Mr. Trump had changed his mind. He was going to see if Mr. Hegseth could survive. Trump allies appear to compete in that article for credit in reviving the Hegseth nomination. JD Vance is obviously trying to be seen in that article as helping Hegseth, as is Steve Bannon and other Trump worshiping private citizens with microphones. But no access to United States Senators is reported in the article. This long, authoritative article describes the intense pressure being put on United States Senators by right wing media, paid for advertising by Elon Musk, and threats of a Republican primary challenge against any Republican senator who votes against Pete Hegseth. But the article does not describe the conversion of a single Republican senator to a yes vote. And even though Joni Ernst has not changed to a yes vote, the Times does describe what it calls Joni Ernst. Turnaround. That's the word they used for it. A turnaround for Joni Ernst would have been going from expressing concern about the nomination of someone accused of rape in a Monterey, California police report, someone who opposes women's search combat, which is understandably offensive to Joni Ernst, who served in combat herself. Joni Ernst is actually the first woman elected to the United States Senate who was a combat veteran. A turnaround for Joni Ernst would be telling the New York Times or anyone publicly that she is a yes vote for Pete Hegseth. Here is the way the Times describes the turnaround that turns out not to be a turnaround, but simply a semantic adjustment to deflect pressure. Quote a week ago, Ms. Ernst seemed as if she would not be able to get to yes on Mr. Hegseth. She said she would, that he would have his work cut out for him. But after a few days of intense pressure, her comments this week could not have been more different. Quote, As I support Pete through this process, I look forward to a fair hearing based on truth, not anonymous sources, Ms. Ernst said in a statement on Monday after a meeting with Mr. Hegseth. This article appeared in Thursday morning's edition, today's edition of the New York Times, and it's using a written statement put out by Joni Ernst on Monday. The Times could have used more recent statements made by Senator Ernst. They'd still be four days old. But these statements were made in real discussion with reporters, not just on a piece of paper. And they were made after Joni Ernst issued that written statement. The Times could have reported what Senator Ernst actually said after she issued that written statement saying that she supports Pete through this process. It would be absolutely fair for any New York Times reader of that article to believe that the phrase support Pete through this process means she is voting yes. Especially when the New York Times tells you that that comment, quote, could not have been more different, end quote, from what she had said last week. But in fact, it could have been a lot more different from what she said last week. Joni Ernst could have said, I am a yes vote for Pete Hegseth. Instead, all she seemed to be saying was that she supports the confirmation process. Every senator who's going to vote against Pete Hegseth's confirmation supports the confirmation process. Capitol Hill reporters who cover senators every day know what a senator sounds like when they support a nominee instead of supporting a process. In fact, here's what Joni Ernst sounds like when she supports a nominee. The very same day that she said in writing that she supports Pete through this process, Joni Ernst said, I know Cash, and that's why I think he's going to be great. We really do need people who will go in and shake up some of these organizations. So you can put Senator Joni Ernst down as a yes vote for Cash Patel for Director of the FBI as of now, as of tonight. But even that yes vote could become a no vote if Cache Patel has as bad a confirmation hearing as he is capable of having in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Joni Ernst has not said anything like that about Pete Hegseth. She has never said, I think Pete is going to be great. Reporters who have covered the confirmation process before know that the keyword to listen for is yes. That's the word you have to hear. And they all know that as of now, Pete Hegseth is not close to getting 51 yes votes in the United States Senate on Monday, after Senator Ernst released her written statement about supporting Pete through the process, in which she was obviously trying to deflect all of that intense pressure that Donald Trump's allies have been putting on her in her home state of Iowa. Reporters following her through the hallways of the Senate wanted to know what her written statement actually meant, because to them, it meant nothing. None of those experienced reporters believed that that written statement was a turnaround for Joni Ernst. When the reporters asked her what the written statement actually meant, she could have easily said, it means I'm voting yes to confirm Pete Hegsell. She did not come close to saying that.
- [09:13]
Alex
Absolutely. It means that we're having really good discussions, and we discussed several items that.
- [09:20]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Were really important to me.
- [09:21]
Alex
And I'll just refer back to my statement on those items. But what I appreciated very much about Mr. Hexagon came in.
- [09:31]
Lawrence O'Donnell
He really does respect the process, and.
- [09:34]
Alex
I'm grateful for that. But again, I'll refer you back to Ms. Dayton allegations. Do you believe those denials? I'll refer you back to this statement.
- [09:45]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Do you believe his denials about the sexual assault allegations? It would have been a turnaround for Joni Earns to say, yes, I believe his denials. She did not say that. She wants reporters and people in Iowa to focus only on her written statement in order to get the Trump pressure off her. And only the New York Times, only the New York Times decided to limit its reporting exactly the way Joni Ernst wants them to limit their reporting by quoting only her written statement. Experienced reporters in the Senate hallway wisely were not falling for the written statement. Will you have another meeting with him?
- [10:34]
Alex
That's to be determined, but thank you. You talked about your statement. What does that mean? Yes. And we talked through a number of issues that the Pentagon has right now.
- [10:43]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And it was very thoughtful and deep.
- [10:45]
Alex
Conversation about several items that I'd already talked to him about. And it was good to have a real thorough policy. Did the pressure of getting back home in the primary policy. We have been talking these same issues.
- [10:58]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Every meeting that we've had, and he had really thoughtful answers.
- [11:02]
Alex
So thank you.
- [11:04]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Did the pressure you're getting back home in the primary politics play into this? The obvious answer is yes. That pressure is what provoked her to deliver the written statement. But that pressure has not yet turned her vote into a yes vote. It might eventually. That pressure might eventually turn Joni Ernst into a yes vote for Pete Hegseth. But the correct way to frame Joni Ernst's position as of tonight is despite the most enormous pressure on an individual senator by her party in a Senate confirmation vote in history, Joni Ernst is still not a yes vote for Donald Trump's choice for Secretary of Defense. Joni Ernst could make all the pressure completely disappear tomorrow just by saying that one word, yes. And she has not said that word. The Times delivered very valuable reporting on inside the pressure process. The Trump world is dumping on Joni Ernst. But limiting that reporting to the vote of just one senator, which is still not a yes vote, ignores other Republican senators who are also not yet yes votes for Pete Hegseth, Senator Susan Collins, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Mitch McConnell, Senator Deb Fisher. There are a total of at least five Republican senators who are not Tonight, a yes vote for Pete Hegseth. And it only takes four. Only takes four Republicans to kill that nomination in the United States Senate. So the truth is, yes, there is an attempt to resurrect the Pete Hegseth nomination, but as of tonight, it hasn't worked. And Pete Hegseth still does not have the votes to be confirmed as Secretary of Defense. And Donald Trump's nominee for Director of the FBI, Kashup Patel, also does not yet have the votes to be confirmed in the United States Senate. You can be sure that in his confirmation hearing, Cache Patel will try to reverse his position on eliminating the intelligence unit of the FBI, which current FBI Director Chris Wray says has stopped several terrorist plots in this country.
- [13:26]
Alex
The FBI's footprint has gotten so fricking big, and the biggest problem the FBI has had has come out of its intel shops. I'd break that component out of it. I'd shut down the FBI Hoover Building on day one and reopening the next day as a museum of the deep state.
- [13:43]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And in his sound confirmation hearing, Cash Patel will probably try to claim that this was just a joke.
- [13:52]
Alex
We're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections.
- [13:58]
Lawrence O'Donnell
We're going to come after you, whether.
- [14:00]
Alex
It'S criminally or civilly.
- [14:01]
Lawrence O'Donnell
We'll figure that out. Leading off our discussion tonight is Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. She's chair of the Senate Rules Committee and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where you will be participating in the Cash Patel confirmation hearing.
- [14:15]
Alex
Correct.
- [14:16]
Lawrence O'Donnell
So here's what I want to know. It's very common in the hearings to read previous statements by the nominees. Might you show video this time, like those clips that we just had?
- [14:27]
Alex
Seems like a good idea. And I would want to point out, I thought your discussion about the ultimate vote on these nominees is so important. I was thinking the name of your show is the Last Word. And the last word that really matters is yes or no, how people vote. And in all of the cases of these nominees, my Republican colleagues are going to have to make a decision, because as you point out, Lawrence, it only takes four people to say either this person is not qualified or this person does not have the integrity, or this person is not going to fulfill the mission of the department. And that is why the Constitution says we must one, defend and support the Constitution of the United States, but also that our role is to advise and consent. So you see someone like in the Hegseth case, Joni Ernst, who has been a leader as a veteran and served our country bravely, and yet you have a nominee who has said that he doesn't think women should be in combat, no matter how he tries to roll it back now. And he said that recently. You have got someone who has some serious allegations, and yet you have, in Joni Orange, respect, you have someone who's been a leader on the issue of sexual assault. So my guess is here that she and many of my other colleagues are going to be at the hearings. They're gonna ask questions, and certainly Democrats have every right to ask questions. And we're gonna try to get out the truth and elaborate on some of these statements, like you just saw from Cash Patel. And hearings can make a difference. You yourself know, Democrat, Republican nominees, they have made a difference because it's our job to listen and make a decision as an independent senator for the state that we represent.
- [16:09]
Lawrence O'Donnell
You know, I feel in the age of Trump, we have to remind people about how this once was. I mean, there have been so many nominees that presidents have advanced for their cabinet who instantaneously had public unanimous support for 100 votes in the Senate unanimously, right away. Very common thing in the past. And whenever you got. If I. If I ever heard a senator who was in the president's party say, well, we'll wait for the hearing. If that was a Clinton nominee, say, or an Obama nominee and a Democrat said that, I would say, boy, that's in trouble. That nomination is in serious trouble because a Democrat is waiting for the hearing. These Republicans who are saying, we'll wait for the hearing on Pete Hegseth, they all expect it to be the craziest hearing they've ever seen.
- [17:03]
Alex
Well, I think that's why you see that we have demanded that there be actual hearings, and a number of our Republican colleagues have joined us in this demand that we not have recess appointments, that we have FBI background checks so that we can check and look at these things. And I think that's how this process is supposed to work. We've already seen one of the nominees, Matt Gaetz, get out because of things that have come out about him. But other things go through a hearing. And I think you'll see Democrats vote for some of these nominees. Not maybe the ones we've discussed today, but some of the other ones. And that's a good point.
- [17:37]
Lawrence O'Donnell
I mean, Chuck Schumer has been complimentary about. I know one of the nominees already. So it's not at all unusual for members of both parties to be publicly at. Yes. Long before Confirmation hearings.
- [17:51]
Alex
That's correct. And I voted for a number of the Trump nominees from way back. Speaking of one, Christopher Wray, which I note every single Republican voted for when we had that vote for FBI director, as well as voting for him when he was up for a head of criminal after 911 under George Bush. And so there's an example of someone that had broad support and now when Trump turns on him, as you could hear some of my colleagues saying things that I think were pretty outrageous given that he has served our country very well.
- [18:22]
Lawrence O'Donnell
So the resignation of Christopher Wray, it raises such an interesting question about what does that mean? Should he have waited and forced Trump to fire him? Many FBI directors appointed to 10 year terms did not serve the entire time. Louis Freeh, for example, left after about seven years. It was his own choice. He decided he wanted to get on with his life in a different way. So resigning has happened before. It's never happened under presidential pressure of the incoming president. What is your reaction to the resignation and the question of should he have waited and forced Donald Trump to fire him?
- [19:00]
Alex
So first of all, I wish he could have served out his entire term. I think. What's the FBI motto? Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity. I think that he exemplifies that with the work that he's done. He's increased the number of people applying to be in the FBI. Morale is increased. The field offices are doing well. They're arresting 50 violent criminals a day. Plus the work he's done preparing the bureau for not what was happening 100 years ago, but what's happening now with cyberattacks and the like. That all being said, the writing was on the wall and I think from his perspective, he had to. He supervises over 30,000 people. I don't think he wanted, in his words, to get in the fray anymore for the department. He wasn't talking about himself, he was talking about the department. He's certainly been in the fray himself for quite a while. And so he has month to be able to plan the succession within the FBI, to be able to make sure that the bureau is going well. And you know, I am very concerned about Cash Patel as a nominee and we will be holding our hearings.
- [20:07]
Lawrence O'Donnell
So on the Patel hearings, there's all sorts of information about him that you don't yet know and might not be able to know. This has been a, it's a strange nominee. And the nomination process is set up for people who've lived their lives in a way that leads seamlessly to a confirmation process. They've kept good records generally. You know, there are people who've been very careful most of the time, and you can find out pretty much every relevant thing about them Most of the time, not all of the time. This seems to me to present novel challenges for the committee and the committee staff trying to figure out a guy like this maybe.
- [20:50]
Alex
Although I bet we've never had a nominee that says they want to close down the intelligence gathering of the FBI and turn it into a museum. Okay, I don't think we've had that before. So he's had said a number of public things and has some very strong views. And when the Republicans ran in this election, they ran a lot on we want to keep people safe. And one of the ways you keep people safe is look at these incredible threats that we see all the time. Just the recent threat from China when it comes to cyber, the threat that we've seen from potential terrorist acts. These are all out there all the time. And the fact that you have a nominee that appears to be going in on a revenge agenda is very, very concerning for our country.
- [21:33]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Senator Amy Klobuchar in the important seat in the Senate confirmation hearings. Thank you very much.
- [21:39]
Alex
Looking forward to it. Thank you, Lawrence.
- [21:41]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Coming up once again today, Donald Trump refused to endorse any of Elon Musk's ideas for drastic federal budget cuts. Federal budget expert Bob Greenstein joins us next with some lessons for Elon Musk. Netcredit is here to say yes because.
- [22:00]
Alex
You'Re more than a credit score. Apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner banks and service by Netcredit.
- [22:07]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Applications subject to review and approval. Learn more@netcredit.com partners net credit credit to the people. Hey friends, Ted Danson here and I want to let you know about my new podcast. It's called Where Everybody Knows yous Name with me, Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson. Sometimes doing this podcast is a chance for me and my good bud Woody to reconnect after Cheers wrap 30 years ago.
- [22:33]
Alex
Plus, we're introducing each other to the.
- [22:34]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Friends we've met since, like Jane Fonda, Conan O'Brien, Eric Andre, Mary Steenburgen, my wife and Flea from the Red Hot Chili Peppers. And trust me, it's always a great hang when Woody's. So why wait? Listen to where everybody knows your name, wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, have you heard of Gold Belly? It's this amazing site where they ship the most iconic famous foods from restaurants across the country, anywhere Nationwide, I've never found a more perfect gift than food.
- [23:09]
Alex
They ship Chicago deep dish pizza, New.
- [23:12]
Lawrence O'Donnell
York bagels, Maine lobster rolls, and even.
- [23:15]
Alex
Ina Garten's famous cakes.
- [23:17]
Lawrence O'Donnell
So if you're for a gift for the food lover in your Life, head to goldbelly.com and get 20% off your first order with promo code gift. Donald Trump had a chance today to endorse Elon Musk's ideas about massive federal budget cuts. But once again, he refused to do that.
- [23:42]
Alex
Now, I do want. I know we've got some other people here, but I don't see Elon Musk. I was hoping, because he's been a good, let's say a good aide to you in a lot of different things, whether it be crypto or whether it be GOP one drugs. I mean, there's a lot of different ideas.
- [23:53]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Well, he's got a lot of ideas. He's a great guy. He's a really good guy, too. And I guess his stock has done pretty well.
- [23:59]
Alex
He's been. Everybody's stock has done well since the election.
- [24:04]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Donald Trump made no promises about spending cuts today, but he did promise more tax cuts. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden has said the Republican tax plan is to double down on Trump's handouts to corporations and the wealthy, run the deficit into the stratosphere, and make it impossible to save Medicare and Social Security or help families with the cost of living in America. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse said, remember the Trump tax scam, cutting taxes for billionaires and big corporations. Now they're set on extending those tax cuts even though it would blow up the deficit. With their impending expiration, we have a chance to undo the damage, fix our corrupted tax code, and have big corporations and the ultra wealthy begin to pay their fair share. Joining our discussion now is Robert Greenstein, founder and President emeritus of the center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He's also a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. Bob, thank you so much for being with us tonight. I want to get your view of what could happen within the Elon Musk dreamscape of massive federal budget cuts, all of which, according to my understanding, have to be executed by Congress. They have to be legislated by Congress. Is there any other way? Because, you know, Elon Musk and Donald Trump seem to think there are magical things a president can do alone. Well, of course, I'm not very impressed with Musk's knowledge of the budget. He keeps talking about finding $2 trillion a year in cuts at the same time they're saying they're not looking at Social Security and Medicare benefits, defense, vet, veterans programs, interest payments, and only a little more than 2 trillion remains. Are they going to eliminate education, the national parks, protecting the safety of the food supply? I think the bigger issue will be what budget cuts Trump proposes to Congress because this Congress might pass them. In Trump's first term, he proposed cuts, particularly in programs for people in need, including millions of hard pressed working families, people who, many of whom voted for him. This time he proposed more severe cuts in programs for people in need than any prior president ever had. Huge cuts in programs like Medicaid, health insurance. He might have a better shot at them through Congress this time. But they're also looking at another angle, as you know, impounding funds, ignoring that Congress has provided funds by law and refusing to spend. Let's listen to what Donald Trump's choice for budget director actually says about that. Let's listen to this.
- [26:58]
Alex
Bringing back the notion of impoundment. And this is something that.
- [27:01]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Of what?
- [27:01]
Alex
Of impoundment. The ability to not spend money. For 200 years, presidents had the ability to not spend a congressional appropriation. The constitutional principle is certainly power of the purse means that Congress gets to set the ceiling. You can't spend without a congressional appropriation, but you weren't ever meant to be forced to spend it.
- [27:24]
Lawrence O'Donnell
So he's saying that the presidents have the ability to not spend a congressional appropriation. Let's be clear about this. What he is saying is that he and President Trump will ignore federal budget laws and court rulings that prohibit impounding funds, prohibit the president refusing to provide funds that Congress by law has passed. Courts have ruled on this. They insist, Lawrence, that the federal budget laws that prohibit it are all unconstitutional, that the court rulings that bar it were all wrongly decided. And there's a precedent here. Remember, in 2019, it was actually Trump involved who impounded withheld funds that Congress had provided for Ukraine, holding them hostage. While Trump pressured Zelensky to try to dig up dirt on the Biden family. And that was the gao, the Government Accountability Office ruled that what they did in pounding those funds was flatly illegal. But they did delay that funding. They were able to delay it. And when you live in a world where the Supreme Court has basically said it's impossible for Donald Trump to violate the law if he's doing anything in the Oval Office, it sounds like the Supreme Court has, in effect, encouraged him to try this kind of thing again. My concerns go even beyond that. I think that he will impound funds, that he'll be sued over that, that it'll go to the Supreme Court. And if the Supreme Court reverses the prior rulings, the precedents and rules that a president does have. Impoundment author I expect Donald Trump to use that power to threaten members of Congress whose votes he wants on other issues like confirmation, saying to them, if you don't fall in line and vote the way Trump wants on those other issues, he will impound funds for key projects in your states and districts, including projects they might feel are important to their reelection. So I think the impoundment issue is one beyond its impact on budgets and expenditures, it is a step down the road toward a more authoritarian kind of rule. Yeah, it's a new version of line item veto, which was also ruled to be unconstitutional. Bob Greenstein, thank you very much for joining us. And coming up once again today, Donald Trump demonstrated that it seems impossible for him to talk about anything from apples to taxes without lying about something, which presents a continuing challenge that the American news media has not yet figured out how to address. That's next.
- [30:25]
Alex
Netcredit is here to say yes to.
- [30:27]
Lawrence O'Donnell
A personal loan or line of credit when other lenders say no, apply in.
- [30:31]
Alex
Minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day.
- [30:34]
Lawrence O'Donnell
If approved applications are typically funded the next business day or soon. Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner.
- [30:41]
Alex
Banks and serviced by NetCredit applications subject.
- [30:44]
Lawrence O'Donnell
To review and approval. Learn more at netcredit.com partner NetCredit credit to the People hey friends, Ted Danson here and I want to let you know about my new podcast. It's called Where Everybody Knows yous Name with me, Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson. Sometimes doing this podcast is a chance for me and my good bud Woody to reconnect after Cheers wrap 30 years ago.
- [31:13]
Alex
Plus, we're introducing each other to the.
- [31:14]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Friends we've met since like Jane Fonda, Conan O'Brien, Eric Andre, Mary Steenburgen, my wife, and Flea from the Red Hot Chili Peppers. And trust me, it's always a great hang when Woody's there. So why wait? Listen to where everybody knows your name. Wherever you get your podcast casts.
- [31:35]
Alex
Oh my God, it's the coolest thing ever. Hey guys, have you heard of Gold Belly? Well, check this out. It's this amazing site where they ship the most iconic famous foods from restaurants across the country anywhere nationwide. I've never found a more perfect gift than food. They ship Chicago deep dish pizza, New York bagels, Maine lobster rolls, and even Ina Garden's famous Cakes Seriously.
- [31:57]
Lawrence O'Donnell
So if you're looking for a gift.
- [31:59]
Alex
For the food lover in your Life, head to goldbelly.com and get 20% off your first order with promo code gift.
- [32:09]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Here's Donald Trump lying to Wall street today about the capital gains tax. And everyone who heard this on Wall street knew that he was lying.
- [32:21]
Alex
And how about every working person who's watching would love to be able to see dividend tax, maybe much lower capital gains, much lower.
- [32:28]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Well, we're going to be talking about that, and we're really talking about lowering taxes. Last time, as you know, we took it probably from close to 44, 45% down to 21. Everyone said that was impossible.
- [32:39]
Alex
Now, it was always my, I really wanted to get it down to 15. And we'll be able to do that.
- [32:46]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Okay. It was definitely impossible to take the capital gains tax from 45% down to 21% because the capital gains tax was, as everyone there knew, 35% when Donald Trump got it reduced to 21%. And that's just one of the proofs that it is impossible for Donald Trump to talk about any subject without in some way lying about it. Joining our discussion now is E.J. dion, opinion columnist for the Washington Post. He's also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a government professor at Georgetown University. And Jonathan Capehart, associate editor of the Washington Post and host of the Saturday and Sunday show with Jonathan Capehart right here on MSNBC. And E.J. i know this sounds like nitpicking. For me to identify 45% when it was really 35% as a Trump lie is to literally pick the smallest lie he's told in as long as we can remember, because the rest of it's true. He did reduce it. He reduced it to 21. But he's got a good story to tell. He's got a good story to tell. I took it from his perspective from 35 to 21, and he can't tell it. He has to lie about it and push it up, which presents this ongoing challenge to us of how to deal with this avalanche that just never stops. You know, I think in the Time magazine interview, he said he had the best election in hundreds of years.
- [34:16]
Alex
You know, I mean, that there's the exaggeration, and all of that is part of him. And I think it's a fundamental problem.
- [34:23]
Lawrence O'Donnell
For the media because none of the traditional rules for covering a candidate apply. You've never had a candidate who lied as frequently and regularly as he who exaggerated as regularly as he who threatened his opponents for putting him in jail without even mentioning a trial, for goodness sake. You've never had somebody like that.
- [34:45]
Alex
And so the media sort of wants tothe mainstream media wants to apply some.
- [34:50]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Of the old rules and yet knows they can't. And I think the other problem we got is that that mainstream media just doesn't have the influence it had anymore. And so many people get their information kind of at random, often from very partisan sources. And the conservatives at the moment have a much stronger information system. So it's harder to catch him, it's harder to cover him. And a lot of people don't hear it. Right. And Jonathan, the muscle reflex reaction remains in the press, and they prove it. Because if someone like Joe Biden were to say 45 when the truth was 35, they would jump on that because they know how to jump on that. And with Donald Trump, it seems like in many ways they've given up. But also, I have to say, pulling that out of today as something to talk about as being untrue is not an easy thing to do because there's so much of it to deal with.
- [35:51]
Alex
Right? You have to pick and choose your battles. Look, the moment you played that and you then said it was actually 35, not 45, I instantly thought, Joe, if President Biden had made that kind of error, it'd be breaking news, whole panels about his mental acuity, and all those stories that we lived through, we lived through that six months ago. And yet Donald Trump, Trump gets to skate now. And I hear you, EJ about the old rules don't apply. However, I think our problem is there aren't enough. And this is not. I'm not saying this simply because you're in Washington and you're sitting here at this set in front of me, Lawrence. But we need more people like Lawrence. We need more people who are willing to say, he said this. This is a lie. They're willing to do it to President Biden, they're willing to do it to Vice President Harris, they're willing to do it to Democrats, but when it comes to him, they won't. And I think that our fellow journalists need to show some courage and some spine and to not normalize the idea that Cash Patel is going to be the head of the FBI. Assuming he gets confirmed. We should be hair on fire every moment of every day about every one of these nominees. But there's not enough. There's not enough time in the day. I think there's not enough patience either from the readers, the listeners, the viewers, the editors, the producers, but also the American people. There's only so much hair on fire you can take. That being said, we are in a situation where every day there's a new announcement where I see, you know what, they've just taken another sledgehammer to American democracy. And it just seems like people are willing to just go along with it and we can't.
- [37:45]
Lawrence O'Donnell
All right, you know what? We've got to solve this for the American news media tonight, which means we're going to have to do another segment, which means we're going to have to squeeze in a commercial break right here. And when we come back, we're going to hear Donald Trump lying about apples. We'll be right back. Another example of Donald Trump's need to lie about anything. Here is Donald Trump today lying about.
- [38:15]
Alex
I tell the story about a woman who, an old woman, an old woman, no money, went to a grocery store, had three apples. She put them down on the counter and she looked and she saw the.
- [38:27]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Price and she said, would you excuse me?
- [38:29]
Alex
And she walked one of the apples back to the refrigerator and came back.
- [38:33]
Lawrence O'Donnell
To pay for the two apples.
- [38:34]
Alex
Apples. And she left with two apples.
- [38:36]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And the woman at the counter said.
- [38:38]
Alex
That was so sad. And when I heard about the story, I said that should never happen in America. And it's not going to happen in America.
- [38:47]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And it didn't happen in America. Donald Trump doesn't know that apples are not refrigerated in grocery stores. He'd have to go into a grocery store to discover that, which is actually the smallest lie he's telling in that story about a woman who obviously does not exist. E.J. dion, what do we do about it? Well, you know, I've said for a long time, Trump is the only politician who covers up one scandal with a new scandal.
- [39:12]
Alex
And I think, you know, so therefore, the apple scandal goes away instantly and.
- [39:16]
Lawrence O'Donnell
He covers, you know, big scandals. I think it's the firehose nature of what Trump does.
- [39:23]
Alex
And you can correct and correct and.
- [39:25]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Correct, but there's a limit to how.
- [39:26]
Alex
Much, how much of that can happen. And as we were saying at the break, I think there's also just a lot.
- [39:34]
Lawrence O'Donnell
There are a lot of people out.
- [39:35]
Alex
There who consume information, who consume different.
- [39:39]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Information from each other and who kind.
- [39:42]
Alex
Of consume partisan information that won't even say anything about apples or much bigger things and won't really tell you what.
- [39:52]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Cash Patel has said historically about all.
- [39:55]
Alex
The crazy things he believes about QAnon.
- [39:58]
Lawrence O'Donnell
People just won't hear that.
- [40:00]
Alex
And I think that's very different from.
- [40:02]
Lawrence O'Donnell
A media culture where there is at least some shared ground of information. Jonathan, how did we get to this spot where Donald Trump and other Republicans, by the way, in Republican media get away with saying that or allowed to say that kind of thing, and someone like Joe Biden and Democrats will be pounced on if they ever tried to tell a story like that?
- [40:24]
Alex
Because there are no consequences for Republicans when they do what you're talking about because they live in a.
- [40:31]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Why has the media given up on trying to police what those people say?
- [40:36]
Alex
Well, this gets to the larger point I'm making. So Republicans lie and then their media environment reinforces the lie. So Fox News, you throw Twitter in there, where the owner of Twitter is the first buddy, Elon Musk, who can rearrange the algorithms in such a way that pro Trump stuff gets out there, negative Democratic stuff, negative Biden, negative Harris things get out there. And that is what drives the environment that we're in. That is what part of the reason why it makes it so difficult for us in the media to say to people, you know he's lying about apples, you know he's lying about the estate tax. You know he's lying about his plans for immigration. You know he's lying. And yet they don't, because that is by design. But you know what? Some of it is defining deviancy down Senator Moynihan's famous line. I mean, there are a lot of mainstream journalists who write about his lies.
- [41:32]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Who do fact checks about his lies.
- [41:34]
Alex
It's out there.
- [41:35]
Lawrence O'Donnell
But it has almost become accepted that Trump says all this stuff and it's become normal. And that's where the term sane washing came from. That's the way he talks. We're gonna have to leave it there. EJ Remembers when the Republican president of the United States, George H.W. bush, got into a lot of trouble because he wasn't sure what the price of a quart of milk was. I'm afraid he's old enough to remember that that was that.
- [42:00]
Alex
E.J.
- [42:00]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Dion and Jonathan Capehart, thank you both for joining us. Tonight's Last word is next. Tonight's last word is joy. Every year I am in awe of your generosity to the Kind Fund Kids in Need of Desks, a partnership that I created with MSNBC and UNICEF to deliver desks to schools and Malawi, where most of the primary school students there still do not have desks and have never seen one in a classroom. We also created scholarships for girls to attend high school in Malawi, where public high school is not Free. You bring joy to thousands of students in Malawi every year, as does my friend Joy Reed, who has always been a big supporter of the kind fund, which we discussed on her show earlier this year. Evening.
- [42:49]
Alex
My name is Joy. But you're the one who actually brings the joy, Lawrence. You're the one who brings the joy. You're also bringing joy to people in Malawi. And I have to. I do want to make sure that we have time for this and have good time for it. You've been doing this kind is it 14 years?
- [43:00]
Lawrence O'Donnell
It is.
- [43:00]
Alex
I cannot believe it's been 14 years. I have been watching you do it from the very beginning when you first launched it. It's so important that the global south be paid attention to. We're fighting starting to do it. But you've been paying attention to the need of children to have desks. Explain for the two people who don't know what the kind fund is.
- [43:17]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Well, this is something I started at the very beginning of my show. We call it the kind fund. Kids in need of desks. I went to Malawi and discovered the situation in schools there. And I came back here thinking, how can we get desks into these schools where the kids have never seen desks? And so I talked about it on my show one night 14 years ago. And I had set up a fund with UNICEF in case, just in case the audience wanted to contribute. UNICEF was ready to process it for us. And UNICEF works as our infrastructure on the ground in Malawi. They're absolutely fabulous. And you know, overnight choi that first night, contributions just poured in because it's such a clear concept. It's just a question of getting kids to a desk in a classroom. We then expanded it to include scholarships for girls to attend high school in Malawi because as in many places in the world, but certainly many African countries, public elementary school is free, but public high school is not. It's kind of like college here, where college is not free here. And so public high school is not. And you know, even, you know, in some cases, $70, $80 for tuition for a year of high school is way too much for a family to pay. And then some of the boarding schools that we send girls to are a few hundred dollars. That's way out of the cost possibilities for most families. And so we help out with that too.
- [44:37]
Alex
Let me. I have a clip. Let's. Let's play clip really quick. Take a look. I started receiving can find scholarship in 2021 when I was informed three face the kind fund. Scholarship was so important to me because it provided me with many basic needs such as school bags, school uniforms, school shoes and exercise book. And also the kind of scholarship paid my school fees. You know, especially for girls in parts of the world, educating them changes the entire economy. It makes life possible for the whole country, right, to emerge from poverty.
- [45:17]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And we have girls in college now because we've been doing it long enough. So girls in college. There's a girl in medical school right now. Last time I was there, we gathered, a bunch of us gathered. There's about 25 of the girls. And I met a lot of these kids when they were in sixth grade, when we were halfway through high school. And you're just seeing lives changed. It really works.
- [45:39]
Alex
It has become part of Jason and I and our family's annual giving. We are part of your team. So I thank you so much. I've already done mine today, everyone. Lawrence O'Donnell, thank you so much. Please be sure to scan your QR code on your screen right there, that cute little QR code, and call or call 1-800-for UNICEF to donate to KIND. It is so worth every penny. As I said, our family does it every year and I've already done mine today. So catch up with me and do it. All right? Thank you, Lawrence. Netcredit is here to say yes to.
- [46:09]
Lawrence O'Donnell
A personal loan or line of credit. When other lenders say no, apply in.
- [46:13]
Alex
Minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day.
- [46:16]
Lawrence O'Donnell
If approved, applications are typically funded the next business day or sooner. Loans offered by Netcredit or lending partner.
- [46:23]
Alex
Banks and serviced by Netcredit Applications subject.
- [46:25]
Lawrence O'Donnell
To review and approval. Learn more@netcredit.com partner netcredit credit to the people.