← The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
More resignations follow after the order to dismiss the case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams
00:41:42
Tonight on The Last Word: A DOJ lawyer eviscerates Donald Trump in their resignation letter. Plus, a new lawsuit against Elon Musk claims that his role and DOGE are unconstitutional. Also, U.S. Sec. of Defense Pete Hegseth says returning Ukraine to its 2014 borders is “unrealistic.” And Democrats win big in special election after Trump attack. Andrew Weissmann, Rep. Jamie Raskin, William Tong, William Taylor, and Ken Jenkins join Ali Velshi.
Loading summary
Transcript113 lines
- [00:03]
Sam Sanders
Hey, I'm journalist Sam Sanders.
- [00:05]
Saeed Jones
I'm poet Saeed Jones. And I'm producer Zach Stafford.
- [00:09]
Zach Stafford
And we are the host of a podcast called VibeCheck.
- [00:11]
Sam Sanders
On Vibe Check, we talk about everything, news, culture and entertainment and how it all feels.
- [00:17]
Zach Stafford
That's right, we talk about any and everything on our show, from real life issues like grief to music and movie critiques. And that barely scratches the surface.
- [00:26]
Saeed Jones
Yes, indeed, and it doesn't stop there. We have got a lot to say. So join our group, chat, come to.
- [00:31]
Ali Velshi
Life, follow and listen to Vibe Check.
- [00:33]
Saeed Jones
Wherever you get your podcasts, stay connected with the MSNBC app bringing you breaking news and analysis anytime, anywhere. Watch your favorite shows live, read live blogs and in depth essays and listen to coverage as it unfolds. Go beyond the what to understand the why. Download the app now@msnbc.com app now it.
- [01:02]
Rachel Maddow
Is time for the Last Word with Ali Velshi. Good evening, Ali.
- [01:05]
Saeed Jones
Good evening, Rachel. I'm trying to figure out how much of what people are mad about is the stuff that we knew that they would do because they all wrote it down in a 922 page book and the other stuff that nobody bargained for, the stuff that people who in good faith voted for Donald Trump did not expect would happen, including. I mean, having a bunch of people look at the government to find efficiencies is one thing, and it might even be laudable. The way this has unfolded is not laudable. The politicization of literally everything they do is not laudable. And I think that's triggered a whole bunch of people to say politics has consequences, but this isn't what we thought was gonna happen.
- [01:43]
Rachel Maddow
Yes, I think that's right, Ali. And I do think that it's not always predictable in the abstract what people are going to have strong reactions to. I think one of the things people have had the strongest reaction to, at least my anecdotal experience talking to people about it, is the fact that people who seemingly unvetted, in some cases seemingly untrained, and in many ways seeming unofficial, have access to people's very sensitive data that we don't have a choice about whether or not we hand it to the government. If you live in this country, you have to pay taxes, you have to interact with the government and pay taxes, you have to have a Social Security record, you have to give the government all of this data that is very personal, very sensitive, potentially very damaging if it was messed with, lost or exploited, and to have whatever this Elon Musk effort is. The president's top campaign donor running some effort where unvetted people are messing around with that stuff that I think has actually caused a very visceral reaction in a lot of people who might otherwise not be motivated about some of the policy things that so many other people care about. So I think it's unpredictable. I think we're in a really kinetic and volatile time, frankly.
- [02:52]
Saeed Jones
Well, that's. Yeah, those are words to describe it. Thank you again, my friend. You have yourself a great weekend. We'll see you Monday.
- [02:57]
Rachel Maddow
Thanks, Ali.
- [02:58]
Saeed Jones
Thanks. Well, the crisis inside the Trump Justice Department over the dropped charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams got worse today, starting with another principled resignation. Six prosecutors resigned yesterday, including Acting U.S. attorney Danielle Sassoon, who released an eight page letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi. Today's resignation came from an assistant U.S. attorney who worked on the Eric Adams corruption case, a man named Hagan Scotten. His letter to Emil Bovey, Trump's former criminal defense attorney who is now the acting Deputy Attorney General of the United States, begins this I have received correspondence indicating that I refused your order to move to dismiss the indictment against Eric Adams without prejudice, subject to certain conditions, including the express possibility of reinstatement of the indictment. That is not exactly correct. The U.S. attorney, Danielle R. Sassoon, never asked me to file such a motion and I therefore never had an opportunity to refuse. But I am entirely in agreement with her decision not to do so, end quote. Well, that's pretty direct. But Hagen Scotten had only begun to eviscerate Amel Bovey. He also writes, quote, there is a tradition in public service of resigning in a last ditch effort to head off a serious mistake. Some will view the mistake you are committing here in the light of their generally negative views of the new administration. I do not share those views. I can even understand how a chief executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal with leverage as a good, if distasteful deal. But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way, end quote. Now, I want to jump in here before finishing that paragraph to point out that if language could set paper ablaze, these new sentences would be the ones to spark the flame. Scott, if no lawyer within earshot of the president is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward to file your motion. But it was never going to be me, end quote. It was never going to be me. Damn. And lest you think that Hagen Scotten is some dyed in the wood liberal Gothamist reports like Danielle Sassoon. Scotland has a conservative pedigree. He clerked for US Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. He also served in the US army in Iraq, winning two Bronze Stars before attending Harvard Law School. Danielle Sassoon clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. Hagan Scotten clerked for Justice Roberts. It might come as a surprise to Trump that federal prosecutors with some serious conservative credentials work for the Justice Department and that perhaps prosecutions are based on criminal investigations, not party affiliation. Something that came up at the confirmation hearing of another of Donald Trump's former criminal defense attorneys, Todd Blanch, to be the deputy attorney general where this narrative of corruption weaponization gets completely out of control. I do want to just make the point that there is another possible explanation, and the other possible explanation is that the guy committed the crimes. Well, I do very much disagree with that, Senator, as I expected you would as his lawyer. And I respect that, not just as his lawyer. Meanwhile, this morning there you had the indicted mayor at the center of all of this, Eric Adams on Fox sitting next to Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, to discuss their agreement to collaborate on the issue of immigration. Now, I want to stop again and underline that this appearance today comes after Danielle Sassoon put this into the public record yesterday in her resignation letter, quote, I attended a meeting on January 31, 2025, with Mr. Beauvais, Adams counsel and members of my office. Adams attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed. Mr. Beauvais admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion, end quote. Yesterday, Danielle Sassoon reported to the world what she believed to be a quid pro quo meeting between Eric Adams team and the Trump administration to help Trump with his immigration enforcement priorities here in New York City. And this morning, the border czar, Tom Homan, said this of Adams. If he doesn't come through, I'll be back in New York City and we won't be sitting on a couch.
- [08:10]
Andrew Weissman
I'll be in his office up his butt saying, where the hell is the agreement?
- [08:14]
Saeed Jones
We came to quid pro quo. We've come full circle from the first impeachment of Donald Trump for trying to extort Ukraine's then President elect Zelensky to hurt Joe Biden's successful 2020 presidential campaign in exchange for security assistance against Russia, which subsequently invaded the country. This week, all the Free World's national security leaders are at the Munich Security Conference, days ahead of the third anniversary of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. That's the setting in which Vice President J.D. vance decided today to lecture Europe about democratic values. I believe deeply that there is no security if you are afraid of the voices, the opinions and the conscience that guide your very own people. If you're running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people who elected me and elected President Trump. If it weren't so destructive, you'd almost have to admire it. Equal parts earn or unearned pomposity, an unmitigated gall. For the record, JD Vance is directing this lecture to the elected leaders of Europe, many of whom won by much larger margins than the ticket that he was at the bottom of. JD Vance met with the leader of Germany's Far Right party, which has risen in the polls but is still supported by a minority of German voters. France's Emmanuel Macron won his last election with 58%, a winning margin that a modern American presidential ticket couldn't even dream of, let alone the one that got 49% in November. But it's part of the old Nixon playbook that only the far right represents the true voice of the people. A lecture on democratic values from the number two to the president who pardoned the people convicted of attacking the Capitol and beating police officers on his behalf after he lost an election from an administration that was hauled to two different federal courts today, only over an unelected billionaire's joyride through the federal treasury from the administration in the middle of a stunning Saturday Night Massacre. Esque Resignations at the Justice Department Tonight, the Trump Justice Department filed the dismissal of the charges against Eric Adams. A veteran career prosecutor filed the motion. It's being reported that the prosecutor is close to retirement and stepped forward under pressure from Emil Bovey to protect the other career attorneys from being fired. Just a short time ago, seven former SDNY chiefs put out a statement in support of Danielle Sassoon, quote, as former U.S. attorneys for the Southern District of New York, we commend U.S. attorney Daniel Sassoon on her decision to resign. Her commitment to integrity and the rule of law reflects the finest traditions of the Southern District, United States Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice. The Department's announced intent to investigate Ms. Sassoon and some of the career prosecutors who served alongside her is a stark departure from those traditions. And that should concern everyone committed to the pursuit of justice without fear or favor. Leading off our discussion tonight is Andrew Weissman, former FBI general counsel and former chief of the Criminal Division of the Eastern District of New York. He's also an MSNBC legal analyst. Andrew, thank you for being with us. This is quite something. This is a story that started about Eric Adams, maybe a story a lot of Americans weren't really covering. Guy who got himself into a whole lot of hot water and was facing charges into a showdown about justice and fairness and politics. I have to say, this has blown up in the last 48 hours in a way that I didn't expect.
- [12:02]
Zach Stafford
Well, absolutely. This is something that doesn't happen at the Department of Justice in any normal times. You just do not see the resignation of career person after career person after career person. Everyone has analogized this, I think correctly, to the Saturday Night Massacre. But one thing I'd like to focus on is that last piece that you read, which was the former heads of the Southern District of New York talking about the department's intent to do this investigation of Danielle Sassoon and other people. This is what I think is going to happen, or at least this is what I'm keeping my eye out for. The judge who has this case and now has the motion to dismiss has the power to hear from the parties. And there is a stark contrast between what Danielle Sansoon says happened and what Anil Beauvais happens. And that judge has the ability to call everyone in. He could even put them under oath. It is a crime to lie to a federal judge, as it should be. And he can if he makes a determination that Emil Beauvais has put forth fictitious and misleading reasons for what he is doing. And Danielle Sassoon is right, he would both be protecting her, rightly, from any investigation and getting to the bottom of what appears to be really a quid pro quo deal here. And so the judge has enormous power here to do the right thing and to get to the bottom and accord everyone their due process rights in doing that, because everyone has the ability to, you know, to, to be heard and to cross examine before the judge makes a decision.
- [14:00]
Saeed Jones
Explain to me at any point, prosecutors can choose not to prosecute something. The Department of Justice can decide not to do something. But there's some question about why this all came about. Emil Bovey's letter to, to Danielle Sassoon and team suggests that there was these charges were political in nature and they interfered in the fact that Eric Adams was running for election again and the things that he needed to do. Tom Holman suggests this is a deal to get an agreement, as he calls it, to get Eric Adams to do the administration's bidding as it relates to immigration. Talk to me about the legality of any of that. Under which circumstances would it have been fine for the Department of Justice to say, we're not prosecuting any anything this anymore versus what is not good about this?
- [14:49]
Zach Stafford
Sure. So, you know, you could have a case where a new administration comes in and says, you know what? We looked at the law. You're relying on and we disagree in your interpretation of the law. Second, a new administration or any new prosecutors could look at a case and say, you know what, we re examined the facts here and we don't think you factually can do can meet all of the elements of the crime. You can't. We don't think you can prove it. So that would be basing your decision on your assessment of the law and your assessment of the facts. We know that is not what happened here because Emile Beauvais in his letter to Danielle Sassoon and directing that this case be dismissed, said, I am not in any way disagreeing with your assessment of the law and the facts. By the way, that is the only thing that you should be looking at and whether this is this case should be brought and should be done. And of course, by the way, when you're indicting the mayor of the city of New York, you're going to be really careful about that. Instead, you have, I think, in my opinion, a lot of bogus reasons and also reasons that have changed over time given by Emile Beauvais as to what he, why he thinks this case should be dismissed. And it flies in the face of Danielle Sassoon's point, which is that this really is, as she says, tantamount to a quid pro quo. And that's the kind of thing that a judge can say, you know what? There's a conflict. I have two sides saying different things and that's what I'm here for. You want to dispute what she's saying, let's all come on in. You can swear under oath what happened and by the way, bring those notes that you were so concerned that her people were taking that you didn't want anyone to see, apparently. Why don't you keep those and give them to me so I can see what people wrote down Contemporaneously so. I think that's the thing I think people should keep an eye out for, because here you have a part of the government that is the judiciary, that is separate from the White House, that has an ability to be a real check on the kind of abuse of power that we are seeing going on at the Department of Justice.
- [17:06]
Saeed Jones
Andrew, thank you for your analysis tonight. It's really important. Andrew Weissman, former FBI general counsel, former chief of the Criminal Division and the Eastern District of New York. Joining us now is the Democratic Congressman, Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He's the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, good to see you. Thank you for being with us. I want to just pick up on this conversation. What, what Andrew is getting at is that on the law and the facts, nothing should have changed with respect to the prosecution of Eric Adams. He was, he had not had a trial yet, and if there were issues that he had to bring up about unfair prosecutions, he was going to have an opportunity to do that. This is motivated by politics. This is motivated loyalty to President Trump. It's the opposite. If you go against Donald Trump, they're investigating you. And if you actually are on Donald Trump's side for whatever he needs you for, investigations against you will disappear. Right.
- [17:57]
Jamie Raskin
Well, Mayor Eric Adams went down to Mar a Lago on January 16th and 17th, and that's where they struck their corrupt bargain. Remember, Eric Adams is the subject of a criminal indictment in New York. The U.S. attorney assembled an overwhelming case of corruption against him in terms of his dealings with the Egyptian government. And a grand jury, based on probable cause, handed down an indictment against him. And the Department of Justice, working directly at the behest of Donald Trump, said, we will withdraw this indictment. We will get this indictment killed using our power to do so. And you just join our political team and you go along with what we want. And that is a corrupt and illegal bargain. And it's saturated with corruption because the case is about corruption. It was a corrupt bargain that was made to kill it. And then they had to go through the Department of Justice, where they ended up forcing out all of these prosecutors who resigned, including the very conservative U.S. attorney in the Southern District, who was a Scalia clerk, a Federalist Society person, and, you know, the head of the criminal division of doj. All of these lawyers saying, this is absolutely antithetical to our oath of office. But the thing that gets me, Ali, is that this is completely reflective and emblematic of what's going on in this administration. Although they're mouthing all these pieties about going out to find waste, fraud and abuse. That is just an utter illusion and an irrelevant distraction from what's really going on. The whole administration is about promoting corruption. The first thing they did was they got rid of 17 inspector generals in the federal departments and agencies. These are the anti corruption fighters. And they have staffs of hundreds of people who are actually working to ferret out waste and corruption and self dealing and bribery and abuse. And last year they saved us $93 billion. Elon Musk hasn't saved us $93 in waste, fraud and abuse. What he's doing is firing people, civil service workers like air traffic controllers, like FBI agents who did their jobs with respect to the January 6th investigation, like food and drug safety inspectors. That's who they're going after. That's not corruption. That's not waste, fraud and abuse. So that thing is a fraud. They continue to wipe out the anti corruption infrastructure of government. For example, they said they're not going to enforce the Foreign Corrupt Practices act anymore. They've attacked the Public Integrity Division in the Department of Justice. The first thing they did was to fire the person who was in that office. And so you go agency by agency, department by department. What they're doing is demolishing the anti corruption infrastructure so they can insert corruption where it once was.
- [21:00]
Saeed Jones
And it's as you know, as a lawyer, Eric Adams has denied the charges. He says he's not guilty of that. As Andrew Weissman says, if you're going to pursue charges against a mayor, the SDNY was gonna make sure that they had as solid a case as they could. But no one's been to a trial yet. They would actually have to prove this in trial. So if Eric Adams big beef was that these charges were unfair, which a lot of people who are charged say he would have had his day or days in court. I think it's interesting to see that these lawyers, lawyer after lawyer after lawyer, these prosecutors, federal prosecutors, again, these are conservatives, are prepared to go ahead with stepping down, with resigning and writing these scathing letters to say this is not right, this is not what our system is supposed to be. In a world where we're all looking for our footing on how to fight back against this. I think that was pretty encouraging.
- [21:53]
Jamie Raskin
Well, look, these people are real lawyers and they're very solid and honorable prosecutors because they said what we base a prosecutorial judgment on is the facts of the case and then what the law is. And they went through all of that and they said that it met the very stringent test of probable cause, the same test that a grand jury in New York used to hand it down. So what changed? There were no new facts. There was no new law adopted. The law didn't change. What changed was Donald Trump's interest in the case and bringing over Mayor Adams to his side politically. And he was willing to trade off the justice system in the United States. And these people are saying no way. But I just want everybody to see this is what is taking place across the government. Now, they claim they are opponents of corruption. They are all agents of corruption. And corruption has always been at the heart of authoritarianism. Can either have government that is gonna be an instrument for the common good for everybody and for democratic institutions, or it's gonna be an agent of corruption for small groups of people, like the unelected billionaire bureaucrat who's been busy squashing cases against him in numerous federal agencies and departments because a lot of them had investigative actions going against Elon Musk. And he's been able to take over those departments and, well, you know, they disappear while he continues to rake in billions of dollars from federal taxpayers. Government contractor.
- [23:18]
Saeed Jones
This is an interesting point you make. The New York Times has done some excellent reporting on this. The number of government agencies that Elon Musk and his friends now have access to that had investigations into business interests and things that Elon Musk was doing. That's a bit weird. Congressman, good to see you. Thank you for being with us. Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. All right, coming up, Elon Musk's incursion into the federal treasury was the subject of two federal court hearings today. We'll tell you about that next. Next.
- [23:48]
Patrick Adams
Hi, my name's Patrick Adams. You may know me as Mike Ross on the TV series Suits.
- [23:52]
Sarah Rafferty
And I'm Sarah Rafferty and I play Donna Paulson on Suits.
- [23:55]
Patrick Adams
And we have a podcast called Sidebar where every week we watch and discuss an episode of the show.
- [23:59]
Sarah Rafferty
Because here's the thing, neither of us have really watched it.
- [24:02]
Patrick Adams
That's true. At least until now.
- [24:04]
Sarah Rafferty
So we're gonna cover all nine seasons.
- [24:06]
Patrick Adams
Share behind the scenes stories, and talk.
- [24:07]
Sarah Rafferty
To our co stars and friends like Gina Torres, Aaron Korsh.
- [24:10]
Patrick Adams
So look, if you love Suits Amazing, this podcast is for you.
- [24:14]
Sarah Rafferty
And if you've never watched Suits, also Amazing, you can join us and we'll watch it together.
- [24:19]
Patrick Adams
I think we're going to have a lot of fun.
- [24:20]
Sarah Rafferty
Listen to sidebar wherever you get your.
- [24:21]
Patrick Adams
Podcasts and don't forget to follow the show so you never miss an episode. Psoriatic arthritis symptoms can be unpredictable.
- [24:31]
Jamie Raskin
I had joint pain and I couldn't.
- [24:33]
Saeed Jones
Move like I used to. I needed relief.
- [24:37]
Patrick Adams
I got Cosentyx.
- [24:39]
Andrew Weissman
It helped me move better.
- [24:41]
Saeed Jones
Cosentyx Secukenumab is prescribed for people 2 years of age and older with active psoriatic arthritis.
- [24:47]
Rachel Maddow
Don't use if you're allergic to Cosentyx.
- [24:49]
Saeed Jones
Before starting, get checked for tuberculosis.
- [24:51]
Rachel Maddow
An increased risk of infections and lowered.
- [24:53]
Saeed Jones
Ability to fight them may occur.
- [24:54]
Rachel Maddow
Like tuberculosis or other serious bacterial, fungal or viral infections.
- [24:58]
Saeed Jones
Some were fatal. Tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms like fevers, sweatshirts, chills.
- [25:03]
Rachel Maddow
Muscle aches or cough, had a vaccine or planned to, or if inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, serious allergic reactions and severe eczema like skin reactions may occur.
- [25:13]
Saeed Jones
Learn more at 1-844-cosentyx or cosentyx.com.
- [25:22]
Zach Stafford
Ask your rheumatologist about Cosentyx.
- [25:28]
Sarah Rafferty
My brother in law died suddenly and now my sister and her kids have to sell their home. That's why I told my husb we could not put off getting life insurance any longer. An agent offered us a 10 year $500,000 policy for nearly $50 a month. SelectQuote found us identical coverage for only $19 a month.
- [25:47]
Saeed Jones
SelectQuote could save you more than 50% on term life insurance. For your free quote, go to selectquote.com that's selectquote.com Details on sample rate at selectquote do Today, two federal courts heard lawsuits brought by state attorneys general over Elon Musk's incursion into the Treasury Department. In the first lawsuit, a federal judge extended the temporary restraining order keeping Musk and Doge out of the Treasury's central payment system. The second lawsuit, filed yesterday, asks nothing less than an order that declares Doge and Elon Musk's official government role as unconstitutional because they were not authorized by Congress. Elon Musk, in his official capacity, is listed as a defendant. The lawsuit begins, quote, there is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single unelected individual. Although our constitutional system was designed to prevent the abuses of an 18th century monarch, the instruments of unchecked power are no less dangerous in the hands of a 21st century tech baron. In recent weeks, defendant Elon Musk, with President Donald J. Trump's approval, has roamed through the federal government, unraveling agencies, accessing sensitive data and causing mass chaos and confusion for state and local governments, federal employees and the American people. End quote. Now this afternoon In Washington, Judge Tanya Chutkan, who presided over Jack Smith's case against Donald Trump for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, held a hearing on a possible restraining order against Musk himself as well as Doge. The states are demanding, quote, Mr. Musk to identify all ways in which any data obtained through unlawful agency access was used, including whether it was used to train any algorithmic models or create or obtain derivative data orders. Musk. Mr. Musk. To destroy any copies of any derivative data from such unauthorized access in his or Doge's possession, custody, or control and bars Mr. Musk and personnel associated with Doge from A. Ordering any change in the disbursement of public funds by agencies. B, extending offers on behalf of the United States that would bind the government to an appropriation that has not been authorized by law. C, canceling government contracts and more. In today's hearing, Judge Chutkan appeared somewhat skeptical, saying to the state's lawyers, quote, you are asking me to stop what Doge and Elon Musk are doing because we do not know what they're doing, end quote. Judge Shutkin has given the states until 5pm tomorrow to submit a more targeted restraining order. Joining us now is the Connecticut Attorney General, William Tong, whose state is a plaintiff in both of the lawsuits that went to court today. Attorney General Tong, good to see you again. You and I are talking an awful lot about these things these days. Let's just talk to what Tanya Chutkin said. This is always a problem in a lawsuit as it relates to discovery and information. We know that Doge and Elon Musk's people are in these systems, but because we're not in the systems with them, we don't know exactly what they're doing. And that is something that Judge Chutkan has asked you and your fellow attorneys general to address. What do you say to that?
- [29:10]
Sam Sanders
Actually, we do know what they're doing. I was in federal court today with Tish James, a New York attorney general, to stop an unelected billionaire, Elon Musk, and his army of hackers and wannabe Stormtroopers from tearing up the Treasury Department. We know they're now an IRS and committing what we all know is the largest data breach in American history. So what's happening is unelected people, not just Elon Musk and his army of hackers, but also Tom Kraus, the CEO of Citrix. These tech barons are in the central payment system of the Treasury Department. They're seeing ratting information, bank account information. They're seeing how payments get made to states. They have access to Social Security numbers, financial information about people living in our states. And so we need to take a step back and understand this is the largest hack, the largest data breach in American history that's been allowed by President Trump. And I think it, I think there's a temptation to make this overly technical. So let's put it this way. It's as if Donald Trump, let's chase it. Let's just see. Came down to this studio right now, you know, and he said, hey, Ali, you're a good guy. I'm going to pluck you out of the studio and put you in the middle of the most secure nuclear weapons facility in the United States right now.
- [30:28]
Jamie Raskin
And have at it.
- [30:30]
Sam Sanders
Do whatever you want. Anybody be okay with that?
- [30:33]
Saeed Jones
So, and Rachel pointed this out at the top of the show. She was saying, we, we have to give the government our information. We have to pay taxes. They need. They are. They issue our Social Security number. They have that information. Whether you like the government or you don't like, you like the amount of tax, taxes you pay is secondary fact that you participate in that compact. You know that that happens. You know they have it, and you trust that they will do their utmost to keep that information safe. But is that the point of the lawsuit? In other words, is. Is the data breach itself central to what this, this lawsuit's about?
- [31:03]
Sam Sanders
Yes, that's the harm. And, and it's not just that they trust that we're going to keep that information secure. The law says you must keep it secure. The law says that very few people can have access to the Bureau of Fiscal Services, the BFS system. The law says that we have to limit the amount of access, and we can't have unelected people from outside of the government rooting around and not just reading these systems, but having read, write access to these systems. And the other thing that was important about today's hearing, and you heard from Congressman Raskin before, they say they're going in to prevent waste, fraud and abuse, but nothing that they're doing suggests they're trying to attack waste, fraud and abuse. They're trying to build systems, maybe algorithmic systems. Right.
- [31:54]
Saeed Jones
That.
- [31:54]
Sam Sanders
That can identify funding that they don't agree with on an ideological basis, and then to stop that funding and to block that funding.
- [32:01]
Saeed Jones
Attorney General William Tong, good to see you as always. Thank you. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong. All right, coming up, we're going to investigate who could possibly be behind Pete Hegseth's warped thinking about Russia and Ukraine and how that war started. That's next.
- [32:16]
Patrick Adams
Hi, my name is Patrick Adams. You may know me as Mike Ross on the TV series Suits and I'm.
- [32:21]
Sarah Rafferty
Sarah Rafferty and I play Donna Paulson on Suits.
- [32:23]
Patrick Adams
And we have a podcast called Sidebar where every week we watch and discuss an episode of the show.
- [32:28]
Sarah Rafferty
Because here's the thing, neither of us have really watched it.
- [32:31]
Patrick Adams
That's true, at least until now.
- [32:32]
Sarah Rafferty
So we're gonna cover all nine seasons.
- [32:34]
Patrick Adams
Share behind the scenes stories and talk.
- [32:36]
Sarah Rafferty
To our co stars and friends like Gina Torres and Aaron Korsch.
- [32:39]
Patrick Adams
So look, if you love Suits, Amazing, this podcast is for you.
- [32:43]
Sarah Rafferty
And if you've never watched Suits, also Amazing. You can join us and we'll watch it together.
- [32:47]
Patrick Adams
I think we're going to have a lot of fun.
- [32:48]
Sarah Rafferty
Listen to sidebar wherever you get your.
- [32:50]
Patrick Adams
Podcasts and don't forget to follow the show so you never miss an episode.
- [32:55]
Jamie Raskin
Auto insurance can all seem the same.
- [32:57]
Saeed Jones
Until it comes time to use it. So don't get stuck paying more for less coverage.
- [33:01]
Jamie Raskin
Switch to USA Auto insurance and you could start saving money and no time.
- [33:06]
Saeed Jones
Get a quote Today restrictions apply.
- [33:08]
Sarah Rafferty
USAA this is an ad from BetterHelp Online Therapy we always hear about the red flags to avoid in relationships, but it's just as important to focus on the green flags. If you're not quite sure what they look like, therapy can help you identify those qualities so you can embody the green flag energy and find it in others. BetterHelp offers therapy 100% online and sign up only takes a few minutes. Visit betterhelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp. H E L P.com.
- [33:45]
Saeed Jones
During a speech this week at NATO headquarters in Brussels. The Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, made what was described as a rookie mistake in that speech Wednesday to the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which is a group that consists of 57 countries that only exists because Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine nearly three years ago. Pete Hexis said the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Hegseth also said it was unrealistic for Ukraine to return to its pre2014 borders. That's before Russia claimed Crimea and began a smaller scale invasion in eastern Ukraine. Hegseth then proceeded to hector NATO and the other Ukrainian allies about, you guessed it, paying. Hegseth left the impression that America's interest in NATO and Ukraine is primarily about helping Europe deal with a security problem that is theirs, not ours, not shared, but theirs which is ironic because the one and only time the mutual defense clause of NATO has ever been invoked was when the United States was attacked on 9 11. Hegseth's concessions to Russia got the attention of the Senate Armed Services Chairman, Roger Wicker, who told Politico Hegseth made a rookie mistake in Brussels. I don't know who wrote the speech. Is it some kind of thing Tucker Carlson could have written? And Carlson's a fool. There are good guys and bad guys in this war, and the Russians are the bad guys. They invaded contrary to almost every international law, and they should be defeated. And Ukraine is entitled to the promise that the world made to it, end quote. So here's Donald Trump today, not knowing who the bad guys are in this story.
- [35:24]
Sam Sanders
Yesterday you mentioned that you thought Ukraine's NATO aspirations were one of the main reasons that the war broke out. Who do you blame for the war, Ukraine or Russia?
- [35:33]
Saeed Jones
Well, I think this, I think that there were a lot of people to blame, a lot of people to blame. Vladimir Putin, who invaded contrary to what the Republican Senator Roger Wicker said is almost contrary to almost every international law and who he says should be defeated. What does Trump say about him? Quote, we agree to work together very closely, including visiting each other's nations. I want to thank President Putin for his time and effort with respect to this call. End quote. It's not just that Trump is unwilling to defend Ukraine against an invasion or the principles of NATO. It's not clear that he understands or believes in the value of what has become the most important military alliance in the world. There was a basic agreement among nations, at least free nations after two devastating world wars that countries cannot invade other sovereign countries. America did not want to be involved when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. But we quickly learned that invading armies and invaders ambitions don't stop. Ultimately, America did get involved to end World War II. And after we helped create the international systems to try and stop it from happening again. In fact, America was so central to this international order that the period post 1945 was called Pax Americana. And at times we have wondered and worried about whether the United States would be strong enough or continue to have the resolve to hold this new world order up. But what I didn't have on my bingo card was that Americans might be the ones trying to destroy the post war world order. How did we get to this? Are we Americans? As I mentioned, the only NATO members who were ever direct beneficiaries of the collective defense agreement that is NATO's Article 5 are we going to be the ones to spike it? The great irony of this is that Trump, a politician who is obsessed with borders, at least the ones in this country, seems not to care much about the sanctity of foreign borders or invasions. That almost matches the tactical genius of Russia, who supposedly launched this war on Ukraine to counter NATO. And now NATO is larger than it was three years ago. There's more NATO on Russia's border than ever before after Finland and Sweden joined, after Putin invaded Ukraine. Joining us now, William Taylor, who served as the United States ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009. Bill, it's been almost three years we've been talking about this invasion. And this was one of the small basket of reasons Vladimir Putin stated for starting this war, right, that Ukraine, having faced east and faced Russia for all these decades, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, wanted to face West. They wanted to join the EU and wanted to join NATO. It was not going to be an immediate matter, but it was something they wanted to do. That's Russia's reasoning in part for this invasion.
- [38:20]
Andrew Weissman
Exactly, Ali. And what really you just pointed out that it's not NATO that he worries about. It's not Ukraine going into NATO because, as you say, Finland joined and he and Putin shrugged and that's a long border, as you just said. But no, what Putin wants is to dominate Ukraine. He has wanted this for a long time. Some of his predecessors, you know, czars and Soviet commissars, general secretaries, they have all wanted to dominate Ukraine. This is not just Putin. But he wants, Putin wants to wipe Ukraine off the map. It's what he said, Ali. He's written and said that there's no such thing as Ukraine. He told George W. Bush this. He said, you know, George, there's no real Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't exist. And he wants to go down there and wipe it out, take it and so it absorb it back in the ground. So it's not NATO. It has nothing to do with NATO.
- [39:22]
Saeed Jones
Let's talk about what NATO does have to do with. We're in the middle of a very unstable world. NATO is now bigger than it was when the war started. Whether Ukraine wins this war or not, joining NATO is not an automatic thing. But NATO continues to be the most valuable and important military alliance on earth in the world. Lots of countries would like to join NATO. You have to actually do a lot of things to become part of NATO. Hurting NATO is not in America's best interest.
- [39:54]
Andrew Weissman
It clearly isn't. Clearly NATO is in our interest. Because it helps solidify the order that you pointed out that's existed since the end of World War II. And as you say, nations, when they became free, when they became out from the under the domination of the Soviet Union in 1991. So during the 90s, they looked to try to get into this defensive alliance.
- [40:20]
Saeed Jones
Why?
- [40:21]
Andrew Weissman
Because they're worried about their security facing Russia. So that's why the Czechs and the Poles and the Hungarians wanted to get in. That's why the Finns and the Swedes and Latvians, Estonians, that's why they all wanted to get in NATO. And as you say, they have to do things. They have to get ready to join. They have to be compatible. Their militaries have to work together. Once they're able to do that, then both sides agree and they can come in. And that's what Ukraine wants. Ukraine wants a security guarantee. It wants to be able to say that it will not be invaded again by Russia. Russia won't invade again because Ukraine will be in that security alliance. NATO.
- [41:05]
Saeed Jones
Bill, good to see you again. Thank you for being with us. Former Ambassador William Taylor. All right, coming up, the Democrat who beat Donald Trump at the ballot box this week. You might not have heard this story, but trust me, you'll want to. That's next. Donald Trump is way behind on his first day in office. Promises stop inflation.
- [41:25]
Andrew Weissman
I will immediately bring prices down starting.
- [41:27]
Saeed Jones
On day one, before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will take me no longer than one day. He hasn't brought down inflation. He hasn't brought down prices. He hasn't settled the war in Ukraine. Despite that, Donald Trump did find time this week to insert himself into a special election for the county executive in Westchester, New York, and not with a standard endorsement for the Republican, but to scream words like criminal, illegal, corrupt at the other side. Why does Donald Trump care about Westchester County? Well, it's where his $454 million judgment that he owes to New York State after being found liable of civil fraud is registered. Trump is appealing that. But in the meantime, the Democrat Ken Jenkins, who became Westchester County's first black county executive in January when George Latimer was sworn into Congress, will remain the Westchester county executive after winning 64% of the vote on Tuesday. In this time when many people are.
- [42:29]
Ali Velshi
Feeling disheartened and they're disturbed by that chaos in Washington, we built a winning campaign by offering hope and stability and results. My administration is going to be compassionate, sensitive to all people's rights and will strive to improve the rights and lives of our hard working Westchester people.
- [42:52]
Saeed Jones
Right.
- [42:55]
Ali Velshi
We're going to be steady and even handed.
- [42:59]
Saeed Jones
All right. Joining us now is Westchester County Executive Kenneth Jenkins. Congratulations, sir, and welcome to the show. Talk to me about this. Tell me what about your campaign resonated so much because obviously we're watching all campaigns very closely after, after this last federal election.
- [43:17]
Ali Velshi
Well, thank you, Ali, for having me. And again, I think the work that we've done over the past seven years, I was deputy county executive with George Latimer before he became Congressman. George Latimer for this past seven years, we've been having a stability. We've been able to lower taxes as Democrats, invest in our public services, our infrastructure, make sure that we are driving down crime across Westchester county and actually having a conversation with everyone, whether they're Democrats, Republicans or nonpartisan parties, to be able to get things done for the people of Westchester. Again, that's been our hallmark and we continue to do that work.
- [43:54]
Saeed Jones
There's been a real sort of confusion of things that local people do, cities and counties do versus what state does versus what federal politicians do just because everybody's talking about the same issues. As you were out there campaigning, what were people telling you? Obviously this is the first chance that they've had to cast a ballot after the, after the presidential election. What were they telling you they want you to do?
- [44:19]
Ali Velshi
Well, they wanted us to continue to make sure to find solutions to problems and not just be screaming at each other. The reality is that we've been able to do that here in Westchester and have that kind of movement to continue to make sure that we're showing results and whether they're on challenging problems like migrants that were being brought to us in Westchester county. We had three hotels right from the very beginning for the folks that were being displaced from Texas up to New York. And we had zero problems in those hotels. Hotels over the years. They want to see competent government and whether it was doing during the pandemic and being able to find solutions and be able to tell people when we did not know information and we were going to work together to get things done for the people. Again, that's been the hallmark of our administration and we're going to continue to do that work. But that's what the people were telling us. They were hearing obviously the challenges of things like sanctuary counties, which Westchester is not. And we told folks we work with our federal law enforcement, but we work in a certain manner. And that started for us in 2018 under Trump 1. And so all of the things that were in that particular post that you posted earlier, people just knew that that wasn't true. But that energized our base of people that said, you know what, we got to make sure our voices are heard because people may have been taking the election for granted because it was a special election in the middle of February, but the reality was that people had a chance to get engaged and get involved. And they did. And they certainly showed that at the ballot box.
- [45:49]
Saeed Jones
Westchester County Executive Ken Jenkins again, congratulations. Thank you for joining us tonight.
- [45:54]
Ali Velshi
Thank you, Ali.
- [45:55]
Saeed Jones
Tonight's Last Word is next. All right, quick programming note. Tomorrow's Valshi Band Book Club is every bit a cultural phenomenon. Critical success and longtime bestseller. It's a complex look at marriage, morality and the pressure that women face every day. And one's true identity versus the one that we show the world. I'm talking about Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn, who will join me? That's tomorrow at 10:00am Eastern on Velshi. I hope you'll join us.
- [46:21]
Patrick Adams
Hi, my name is Patrick Adams. You may know me as Mike Ross on the TV series Suits.
- [46:25]
Sarah Rafferty
And I'm Sarah Rafferty and I play Donna Paulson on Suits.
- [46:28]
Patrick Adams
And we have a podcast called Sidebar where every week we watch and discuss an episode of the show.
- [46:33]
Sarah Rafferty
Because here's the thing, neither of us have really watched it.
- [46:35]
Patrick Adams
That's true. At least until now.
- [46:37]
Sarah Rafferty
So we're gonna cover all nine seasons.
- [46:39]
Patrick Adams
Share behind the scenes stories and talk.
- [46:41]
Sarah Rafferty
To our co stars and friends like Gina Torres and Aaron Korsch.
- [46:44]
Patrick Adams
So look, if you love Suits, Amazing, this podcast is for you.
- [46:47]
Sarah Rafferty
And if you've never watched Suits, also Amazing, you can join us and we'll watch it together.
- [46:52]
Patrick Adams
I think we're gonna have a lot of fun.
- [46:53]
Sarah Rafferty
Listen to Sidebar wherever you get your podcasts.
- [46:55]
Patrick Adams
And don't forget to follow the show so you never miss an episode.