← The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
SCOTUS hears Trump’s attempts to rewrite the 14th Amendment
00:42:58
Tonight on The Last Word: The Supreme Court hears arguments for orders blocking Trump’s Birthright Citizenship ban. Plus, Putin skips out on peace talks with Ukraine. And Bruce Springsteen condemns Trump in the first show of his new tour. Laurence Tribe and Lt. General Mark Hertling join Lawrence O’Donnell.
Loading summary
Transcript63 lines
- [00:01]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Stay connected with the MSNBC app bringing you breaking news and analysis anytime, anywhere.
- [00:07]
Jen Psaki
All the stories that we're covering are live and happening as we speak.
- [00:11]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Watch your favorite shows live.
- [00:13]
Jen Psaki
What's happening right now is a hostile takeover of the US Government.
- [00:17]
Lawrence O'Donnell
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 MSNBC Films presents a six part documentary series, David Frost versus on the next episode, former President Richard Nixon.
- [00:39]
Jen Psaki
But when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
- [00:42]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Sunday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC.
- [00:45]
Jen Psaki
The Last Word with Lawrence O' Donnell starts right now. Hey, Lawrence, Jen. Always impressive to see math on live television. I wouldn't have dared tried that myself. Hey, I'm not a mathematician. Big new, big New Jersey night on your show tonight. And it was a day in the United States Supreme Court. And when it's a big day in the Supreme Court, that means Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe will start us off tonight.
- [01:11]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Nothing better than two Lawrences explaining what.
- [01:14]
Jen Psaki
Just happened in the Supreme Court today. Lots of legal minds and expertise there.
- [01:18]
Lawrence Tribe
Yeah.
- [01:19]
Jen Psaki
And for once, one of them knows what he's talking about. Here we go. Perfect. Have a great show, Lawrence. Thanks, Jen. Thank you. Well, the Trump lawyer who has made the most absurd arguments the Supreme Court has ever heard on behalf of Donald Trump was back in front of the Supreme Court today for Donald Trump. And this time, Donald Trump had a very, very bad day with not a single member of the Supreme Court taking Donald Trump's side of the argument or trying to help Donald Trump's lawyer in any way. Remember Samuel Alito, the author of the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which cited the legal opinions of British judges who presided over witch trials in that overturning Roe vs. Wade opinion? Remember the way Samuel Alito all but climbed down from the bench to argue the case in favor of criminal immunity for the criminal conduct of Donald Trump while he was president. Samuel Alito and the other Republican judges on the Supreme Court tortured themselves to create out of nothing what they claim is a constitutional principle that had never been written down anywhere by anyone, that the president of the United States is immune from criminal investigation and criminal prosecution for anything he does in office. But today, that same Samuel Alito was tied with Clarence Thomas in having the least to say in the hearing. Neither one of them offered any support for any of the Trump arguments against the actual words of the Constitution, words that say, quote, all persons born in the United States are citizens of The United States. That's what was at stake today in the Supreme Court. The very definition of who we are, the very definition of who is a citizen of the United States. A definition that has been settled beyond dispute since 1866. And before that, a definition that has been supported by the United States Supreme Court in repeated rulings that confirm the constitutional law that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. The lawyer who last year argued to the Supreme Court that as President Donald Trump could order Seal Team 6 to assassinate his opponents is now the Solicitor General of the United States. And today, Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court that the Constitution does not say what it says. He told the Supreme Court that all persons born in the United States are not citizens. And then he kept talking after that. Imagine that, declaring something as absurd as that in front of the United States Supreme Court. He once again said the most absurd thing that these members of the United States Supreme Court have ever heard. And this time, his support team of Republican Supreme Court justices did not attempt to rescue him. Two hours before the Supreme Court heard the case today, the stupidest president in history decided to tell the Supreme Court what to do on social media. Big case today in the United States Supreme Court. Birthright citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent citizens of the United States of America and bringing their families with them all the time laughing at the suckers that we are. Exclamation point. There was immigration to the United States when the Constitution was written. There were massive waves of immigration to the United states when the 14th Amendment was written, which is the final constitutional pronouncement in writing on citizenship. And the 14th Amendment did not say all persons born in the United States except the children of tourists or the children of immigrants. It said all persons born in the United States. There were massive waves of immigrants coming to the United states before the 14th Amendment was written. A famine in Ireland sent what Donald Trump would have called the worst people to the United States. The millions of starving Irish who fled to the United states in the 19th century were among the poorest people in the world. And there were Americans like Donald Trump then who didn't want them here. There were Americans like Donald Trump who didn't think a single immigrant from Ireland should be allowed into this country, not one. And there was enough anti immigrant feeling in this country to create strong anti Irish sentiment among the people who were here before them. But it wasn't strong enough to infect the Constitution with Donald Trump's kind of thinking. In 1866, the authors of the 14th Amendment knew that there were people who would have loved the 14th amendment to say all persons born in the United States except two Irish parents are citizens of the United States. That's what Donald Trump would have wanted if he could have gotten a word into the 14th Amendment in 1866. But the anti immigration hatred that was loose in this country then was kept out of the room when the 14th Amendment was written and when it was ratified by two thirds majorities of the House and the Senate. And on Inauguration Day this year, Donald Trump decided to hatefully rewrite the Constitution. Federal courts around the country have issued 40 injunctions against Donald Trump's executive order eliminating birthright citizenship in this country. Those courts are still considering the issue for a final judgment. While those injunctions prevent Donald Trump from denying citizenship to babies born in America tonight. And those injunctions hold throughout the country. Donald Trump's Solicitor General went to the Supreme Court to ask them not to decide the actual case itself about birthright citizenship, but just to decide that no individual federal judge should be allowed to issue an injunction that applies to the entire country. If Donald Trump succeeds with the Supreme Court, then those injunctions will only apply in the 22 states where they have been issued. And that would mean tomorrow citizenship in America would depend on which state you are born in. In Donald Trump's lying social media post today, he said birthright citizenship is about the babies of slaves. Really? Then why doesn't it say that the 14th Amendment could have said to all persons born to slaves in the United States are citizens of the United States. They knew what slaves were when they were writing that amendment, but that's not what it says. The historically imbecilic social media post Donald Trump put out two hours before the Supreme Court hearing today, said, In 1866, we didn't have people pouring, pouring into our country from all over South America and the rest of the world. Oh, yes, we did. And they were almost all white and all poor and many of them starving, many of them sick, many of them dying in transit to this country. The kind of people Donald Trump would have deported on the spot. Those ships docking in the ports of Boston and the port of New York would have been turned back by Donald Trump if he could have. There were Donald Trumps at that time who wanted to do that, who wanted to send those ships back. And when those Donald trumps of the 19th century and the early 20th century were hiring workers for their companies, their hiring notices had the letters Nina in the lower right corner, meaning no Irish need apply. That Trumpian spirit was alive in this country in 1866 and it has been alive ever since. But this is the first time that that Trumpian anti immigrant hatred presented itself to the United States Supreme Court to tell the United States Supreme Court that the Constitution does not say what it says. The Supreme Court could not ask for a simpler case than the one they heard today because the work has been done for them repeatedly. 127 years ago, Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray wrote, the 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications as old as the rule itself, of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes of owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons of whatever race or color domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection and, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. When Donald Trump first started lying about President Obama's citizenship, Jeremy Feigenbaum was a senior in college with no idea that the day would come that he would stand at a podium in the Supreme Court of the United States arguing against Donald Trump's poisonous definition of citizenship. Jeremy Feigenbaum graduated from Harvard law school only 11 years ago, the law school Donald Trump hates more than any other among all the universities he's now trying to destroy in this country. Jeremy Feigenbaum has been a lawyer for 10 years, only 10 years, and he's now the Solicitor General of the State of New Jersey. His first experience in the Supreme Court was as a clerk for Justice Elena Kagan, a former Dean of the Harvard Law School. Jeremy Feigenbaum is just in the first chapter of what is likely to be at least a 50 year career as a lawyer. And today he delivered as masterful a presentation to the Supreme Court as we could hope to hear, including a very special moment with Samuel Alito. Samuel Alito fancies himself the greatest mind the Court has ever had. He's not the only one who's ever felt that way about himself as a Supreme Court justice, but he's the worst at masking that feeling until at the end of his Very brief and totally insignificant questioning of Jeremy Feigenbaum. Samuel Alito was so dazzled and dizzied by Jeremy Feigenbaum's fulsome argument that Samuel Alito simply gave up and quit in deciding the question that is before us here. Do you think we should. Never mind.
- [13:58]
Lawrence O'Donnell
I withdraw that.
- [13:58]
Jen Psaki
I have no further questions. Yeah, it was one of those days in the Supreme Court. The case against Donald Trump this time was so powerful that Samuel Alito had no fight in him. Donald Trump's Solicitor General did not win a single round of questioning with a single justice. And the essence of Donald Trump's argument to the court about what would happen if the court did what Donald Trump wants the court to do was, I don't know. That's right. The Solicitor General of the United States, when asked by the Supreme Court, if we do what you and the President are asking us to do, what will happen? The Solicitor General's actual answer was, I don't know.
- [14:50]
Lawrence Tribe
Day after it goes into effect.
- [14:53]
Jen Psaki
This is just a very practical question.
- [14:54]
Lawrence Tribe
How this is going to work? What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?
- [15:02]
Jen Psaki
I don't think they do anything different. What the executive order says in Section two is that federal officials do not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the executive order.
- [15:13]
Lawrence Tribe
How are they going to know that.
- [15:14]
Jen Psaki
The states can continue to. The federal officials will have to figure that out.
- [15:18]
Lawrence Tribe
How.
- [15:19]
Jen Psaki
So you could imagine a number of ways that the federal officials could. Such as? Such as they could require a showing of, you know, documentation showing legal presence in the country for a temporary visitor, for example, they could see whether they're on a B1 visa, which would exclude kind of the birthright citizenship in that.
- [15:37]
Lawrence Tribe
For all the newborns. Is that how that's going to work?
- [15:40]
Jen Psaki
Again, we don't know. So that's Donald Trump's appointed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh asking, how is it going to work for all the newborns? If there is a single answer to a single question that you would have to be ready for as Donald Trump's lawyer who's trying to rip citizenship away from newborns, it is the answer to that question, how is it going to work for all the newborns? And Donald Trump's lawyer says, we don't know. The same lawyer who said Donald Trump can order seam till six to assassinate his opponents answers the most important practical question asked by the Supreme Court today with we don't know, Donald Trump could have added, we don't care. Donald Trump's solicitor general said that we don't know because the agencies of Donald Trump's government that have been depopulated by Donald Trump haven't figured that out yet. So there's Donald Trump telling the Supreme Court today, we want to deny citizenship to some babies born in America, but we have no idea how to figure out which babies those are. But please let us do it anyway. Right now, right away, please lift the injunctions that prevent us from doing the thing that we don't know how to do. Jeremy Fagenbaum pointed out that 6,000 babies born to New Jersey parents every year are born out of state. What would happen to them if they were born next month in one of those 28 states not covered by the injunctions? If the Supreme Court removes the injunctions in those 28 states, what would happen to them? What would happen to them? Would they be denied citizenship as American born babies? But its approach would require citizenship to vary based on the state in which you're born or even turn on or off when someone crosses state lines, raising serious and unanswered administrability questions not just for the federal government but also for the states. And it would offend the text and history of the citizenship clause itself. Since the 14th amendment, our country has never allowed American citizenship to vary based on the state in which someone resides. Because the post Civil War nation wrote into our Constitution that citizens of the United States and of the states would be one and the same without variation across state lines. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson found the phrase that captured the Trump legal catch me if you can. Donald Trump's solicitor general was arguing to the court today that the injunctions against Donald Trump's orders should only apply within the jurisdictions of the federal courts that issued those orders, the immediate jurisdictions of those courts and no further. That would mean that Donald Trump would be allowed to deny citizenship in the 28 states that are outside the immediate jurisdiction of these judges who've issued the injunctions. So babies in those 28 states who want their citizenship protected, according to Donald Trump's lawyer, would have to go to court and start their own lawsuits against Donald Trump. And here's Justice Jackson telling Donald Trump's solicitor General what his argument really means.
- [19:29]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a catch me if you can kind of regime from the standpoint of the executive where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights. Justice Kagan says, let's assume for the purpose of this, that you're wrong about the merits, that the government is not allowed to do this under the Constitution. And yet it seems to me that your argument says we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, et cetera. And I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law, you know, a system. And I appreciate that you go back to English common law and the Chancery Court, but they had a different system. The fact that courts back in English Chancery couldn't enjoin the king, I think, is not analogous or indicative of what courts can do in our system, where the king, quote, unquote, the executive is supposed to be bound by the law and the court has the power to say what the law is. And so one would think that the court could say this conduct is unlawful and you have to stop doing it.
- [20:51]
Jen Psaki
Leading off our discussion tonight is Professor Lawrence Tribe, who has taught Constitutional law at Harvard Law School for five decades. And Professor Tribe, just a note here to start. It was a very, very proud day for Harvard Law School in the Supreme Court once again today with the New Jersey Solicitor General, Justice Jackson, Justice Kagan. But on these important nights, I don't pretend to be able to guide you on this subject. Just open your microphone to give us the guidance you think we should have about this case.
- [21:22]
Lawrence Tribe
Thank you, Lawrence. The case is obviously very important, although it was teed up for the Supreme Court in a way that allows it to postpone possibly indefinitely reaching the ultimate merits. The merits, as you say, are really quite easy. The Constitution is explicit. From 1868 on, it is said without ambiguity that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. That's really quite clear, and it has been clear throughout our history. Thirty years later, in a case that did not involve slaves or the descendants of slaves, but Chinese immigrants, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that principle that being born in the United States is enough. That's all you need. And all of the federal district courts have found it quite easy. The four key cases before the Supreme Court were decided in the courts below by two judges appointed by Republicans and two by Democrats. The most senior of those judges appointed by Ronald Reagan said that in his 40 years on the bench, he had never seen a clearer or simpler case. It's open and shut. So what happens? Well, when the Solicitor General pretends that he doesn't know, what happens I think he is pulling a fast one. We all know what will happen. What will happen is chaos. What will happen is that huge numbers of kids all around the country, especially in the 28 states that were not covered by any of these injunctions, huge numbers are going to be stateless. They will not automatically be citizens of the United States. Many of them will not be citizens of the countries from which their parents came because many of those countries don't confer citizenship upon the children of their nationals when born abroad. And so we will have people in limbo, poor little babies who will not be able to get all of the benefits that come with U.S. citizenship because they won't be able to unless they have the resources or their parents do, to bring their own lawsuits. They're not going to be able to establish that their parents were citizens or permanent residents or met the various requirements of this bureaucratic labyrinth. And because they'll be in that kind of limbo, the states will not get the federal benefits that go only to citizens. So the states will be burdened. That's what gives them standing. And as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson perfectly put it, it is a catch me if you can system in which the federal government will be able to keep violating the Constitution over and over and over again until there's a final judgment from the Supreme Court saying stop. And even then, they're quite cagey about whether they will obey. But in the meantime, as Justice Kagan very significantly pointed out, the federal government, the Trump administration, really has no incentive to get it before the court, where it doesn't look like they have anything like a majority to support their position on the merits of, as she points out, if their track record continues to be one of continually losing case after case after case in the federal district courts and then in the courts of appeals, she asked the question, how could you possibly at that point decide to come to this court, where implicitly she was saying, you know, you're going to lose maybe 7 to 2, maybe even worse, you're not going to bring it here. So what are we going to have? We're going to have indefinite, uncertain results. Now, it seemed that John Roberts, the chief justice, was pushing the other way when he said, well, don't you think that we can come up with ways of doing it expeditiously and some other mechanism will be found? Perhaps. But we know how this Supreme Court, when Donald Trump is involved, manages to time things in such a way that he gets his way even if he's violating the law. That's clearly not a system that we can live with. We need to take the Constitution more seriously.
- [26:38]
Jen Psaki
Professor Lawrence Tribe, thank you very much for leading us tonight. Thank you very much.
- [26:43]
Lawrence Tribe
Thank you, Lawrence.
- [26:45]
Jen Psaki
Coming up, Donald Trump's humiliation tour of the Middle east continued today with bowing to Middle Eastern dictators while here at home, a Republican senator running for reelection in a state being hurt by the Trump tariffs was being questioned about the 13 year old 747 that Donald Trump wants to accept from the dictator of Qatar. The Flying palace is next Next level pet people will do anything for their dogs.
- [27:15]
Lawrence O'Donnell
That means treating them with next level.
- [27:17]
Jen Psaki
Protection from parasites with nexguard Plus, a Foxalonir, moxidectin and parental chewable tablets. Nexguard plus Chews provide one and done monthly protection against fleas, ticks, heartworm disease, roundworms and hookworms, all in a tasty beef flavored chew. Use with caution in dogs with a history of seizures or neurologic disorders. Dogs should be tested for existing heartworm infection prior to starting a preventive. Ask your vet about nexguard plus Chews.
- [27:44]
Lawrence O'Donnell
As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with MSNBC's newest newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.
- [28:01]
Jen Psaki
The American people are basically telling the President that they are not okay with any of this.
- [28:05]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter@msnbc.com Project 47.
- [28:16]
Jen Psaki
The Quiet man the Quiet man has gone quiet about one thing. Donald Trump has been shockingly, uncharacteristically silent for 48 hours now about his desire to take the biggest payoff in the history of payoffs, by which I only mean the physically largest payoff, a 747 800, which is the largest model of 747. Donald Trump wants it and the dictator of Qatar wants to give it to him. Many believe the dictator of Qatar is trying to buy influence with Donald Trump by giving him that plane. It is a government to government transaction. It has nothing to do with personnel, whether it's on the US Side or on the Qatari side. Why would we buy an influence in the United States? Oh, I don't know. Why would you buy influence from the United States? You know, maybe we can ask your former lobbyist Pam Bondi, who is now the United States Attorney General, why you, the Qatari government paid her as a Washington lobbyist, why you tried to buy influence in the United States through Pam Bondi as a Washington Lobbyist Donald Trump has a pattern of going silent when he knows he's losing. You know, in those final couple of days of the dying Trump nomination of Matt Gaetz being Attorney general, what did Donald Trump say about Matt Gaetz being Attorney General? Nothing before Donald Trump abandoned him as a nominee. But when Donald Trump is really pushing something, he's tweeting about it in the middle of the night non stop. Donald Trump didn't tell anyone today that it would be stupid not to take that 13 year old plane from the Emir of Qatar. A plane that is no longer good enough for that dictator, but Donald Trump thinks is good enough for him. And as Donald Trump has gone quiet and stopped campaigning for his plane, more Republicans are finding their voices in opposition to the physically largest payoff in history. The transaction strikes me as being rife with political espionage, ethical and constitutional problems. The claim would have to be thoroughly scrapped to ensure that listening devices have not been implanted. That would take a great deal of time to make sure that it meets the security standards that the President needs. Ultimately, I don't understand why we would pursue this. Well, maybe we're not pursuing it anymore. Donald Trump is going to give up. He's just never going to make an announcement that he has given up. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is not going to be able to accept delivery of that plane as a plaything for Donald Trump. The Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have told Pete Hegseth in writing, quote, president Trump is claiming that this gift of an aircraft worth $400 million is saving taxpayers money. But in reality, his decision will force taxpayers to foot an unnecessary bill, potentially more than a billion dollars to convert a foreign provided aircraft into the fortress necessary to protect him and his communications. All while taxpayers are already paying at least 3.9 billion for the contract for two aircraft currently being built by Boeing to add to the Air Force One fleet. And the contract for Boeing to build those new versions of Air Force One, which will also be 747s, was negotiated by Donald Trump during his first presidency. Boeing would have to stop work on the two Air Force One 747s that it is already building in order to start rebuilding that dictator's plane as an Air Force One inside the shell of that old dictator's plane. And that's never going to happen. It's too expensive, it is too corrupt, it is too stupid. The Republicans in the Senate will not appropriate the money, the billion dollars it would take at least to rebuild a dictator's plane. It will take 60 votes in the Senate to appropriate. Not going to happen. But Donald Trump is going to continue to humiliate himself as the desperate American president craving a dictator's used airplane. That's not good enough for the dictator anymore. And Donald Trump's dream of grabbing that flying palace will continue to haunt Republicans as they try to pass legislation that will take health care coverage away from 13 million Americans. While Donald Trump is trying to get a 747 given to him by one of the richest dictators in the world. Look, I've been a little busy on reconciliation, so I'm not following all the twists and turns of the Qatar jet. I've certainly heard about it. My understanding is it's not a personal gift to the president. It's a gift to the United States. Whatever President Trump is doing is out in the open. They're not trying to conceal anything. And running the House of Representatives has become all the more difficult while Donald Trump tries to take the biggest payoff in history. Coming up, as Donald Trump continued to humiliate himself in the Middle East, Vladimir Putin managed to humiliate Donald Trump in Turkey today. That's next.
- [34:17]
Lawrence O'Donnell
It's conversation. It's perspective. It's the weekend on MSNBC with three new dynamic hosts, Jonathan Capri, Eugene Daniels and Jackie Alemani. And in the evening, it's the Weekend Prime Time with Eamonn Mohadin, Kathryn Rampel, Elise Jordan and Antonia Hilton join them as they offer analysis on the week's most important events and set the agenda for the week ahead. The weekend at 7am eastern and the weekend primetime at 6pm eastern Saturdays and Sundays on MSNBC. Sir David Frost gave us an intimate look at some of the most compelling personalities of our time.
- [34:53]
Jen Psaki
We want to involve both world leaders and world entertainers.
- [34:57]
Lawrence O'Donnell
MSNBC Films presents a six part documentary series, David Frost versus On the next.
- [35:04]
Jen Psaki
Episode, former President Richard Nixon. Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal by definition. Exactly.
- [35:12]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Sunday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC.
- [35:20]
Jen Psaki
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in Turkey today for peace talks with someone who didn't show up. Vladimir Putin decided to skip the peace talks brokered by Donald Trump in the neutral nearby country of Turkey. The Wall Street Journal editorial board writes Mr. Trump, who is in the Middle east, first said he might take a side trip to Turkey if peace talks took place. But after Mr. Putin bugged out, Mr. Trump tried to smooth over the embarrassment by saying, nothing's going to happen until Putin and I get together. It's closer to real to say that nothing is going to happen until Mr. Putin feels he has an incentive to show up and negotiate. Mr. Putin's no show is the latest evidence that the Russian isn't serious about ending the war. And it's no surprise Mr. Putin thinks Mr. Trump might abandon Ukraine and make it easier for him to keep taking Ukrainian territory. Donald Trump, of course, wasn't even slightly bothered that Vladimir Putin defied him and did not show up for the peace talks. Mr. President, are you disappointed in the.
- [36:25]
Mark Hertling
Level of the delegation that the Russians sent to Turkey?
- [36:29]
Donald Trump
I don't know anything about it. I'm not disappointed in anything. Who are you from?
- [36:33]
Jen Psaki
BBC News.
- [36:35]
Donald Trump
I'm not disappointed. Why would I be disappointed? I know nothing about a delegation. I haven't even checked. Look, nothing's going to happen until Putin and I get together, okay? And obviously he wasn't going to go. He was going to go go, but he thought I was going to go. He wasn't going if I wasn't there. And I don't believe anything's going to happen, whether you like it or not, until he and I get together.
- [36:55]
Jen Psaki
Joining us now is retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hurling. He's the commander of the United States, was the former commander of the United States army in Europe. General, it's really an honor to have you join us tonight. What is your reaction to, first of all, the possible structure of the peace talks that didn't happen, and what should happen?
- [37:16]
Mark Hertling
Well, today, Lawrence, I think Putin overplayed his hand. His refusal to attend the peace talks is just another demonstration of the way Moscow does business and their unwillingness to negotiate in good faith as well as an attempt, as I think you alluded, to undercut and embarrass both the United States and Ukraine. But truthfully, Lawrence, this is the way the Russian government does business, always seeking any kind of advantage. And I think what we saw in the president's comment just now is he was trying to make excuses for him. But Zelenskyy's willingness to show up reinforces Ukraine's commitment to finding a diplomatic solution, and it helps Zelensky maintain the moral high ground. Zelenskyy's willingness to face Putin was a surprise to Russia, I think. And while Putin's not showing up showed him to be a coward and was a very bad strategic move.
- [38:08]
Jen Psaki
I want to listen to something else Donald Trump said today. He's the first president in history who's gone to an American military base to say to America, to ridicule and mock and criticize American generals. To American soldiers with American generals present. Let's listen to this.
- [38:31]
Donald Trump
We had more four stars. We had, I think, 425, four stars in World War II, which, by the way, we won. In World War II, we had 187 generals, and we had, like, 425 generals now without really a war. And so we made a lot of changes. And we have the best. We have the best. We figured. We worked hard to figure the best, the real ones. We want the real generals, not the fake generals and not the political generals, too.
- [39:06]
Jen Psaki
Who are the fake generals, Lawrence?
- [39:10]
Mark Hertling
I have no idea. And this seems to be a repeated mantra by both the President and the Secretary of Defense and in some cases, the vice president. And it's just a means of undercutting the chain of command. It's disrupting the morale and discipline of a great military force, which the United States is. And truthfully, the numbers they've been reciting are very far off. It's not quite true. You know, they're counting numbers in different ways in what actually happened. The generals in World War II didn't include the numbers that count, didn't include the National Guard division commanders. It was misleading. The number of generals and admirals, all flag officers we have today is a little over 400. And it can be reduced, in my view, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't undercut the authority of these generals. And that's what some of the wordage and the verbiage we're hearing from the commander in chief. It's just unfortunate because we have a tradition of civil military relationships that should be the case, where the military provides advice and hopefully counsel to the political decision makers. And they are spread out all over the world. And in today's environment, you have many more headquarters because of the complexity of modern warfare. There was no cyber command in World War II. There was no Space Command in World War II. There was no transportation command or European headquarters. There was a shape. So when you start looking at the details of that, you find out that Mr. Hegseth and President Trump are really getting their numbers wrong and don't understand the complexities of modern warfare.
- [40:54]
Jen Psaki
You know, when I heard him say that today, I was. I really needed to hear from you about it tonight. Really an honor to have you here. General Mark Hertling, thank you. Thank you very much for joining us.
- [41:04]
Mark Hertling
It's a pleasure, Lawrence. Thank you.
- [41:06]
Jen Psaki
Thank you. Coming up. Last night in a concert in England, Bruce Springsteen told his audience what was happening here on the other side of the Atlantic. You'll hear what Bruce Springsteen had to say last night in Manchester next. Last night in Manchester, England's industrial city, Bruce Springsteen began a new tour called the Land of Hollywood Hope and Dreams Tour. Between songs, Bruce Springsteen told his British audience what was happening here on the other side of the Atlantic.
- [41:46]
Donald Trump
In America, the richest men are taking satisfaction in abandoning the world's poorest children to sickness and death. This is happening now in my country. They're taking sadistic pleasure in the pain that they inflict on loyal American workers. They're rolling back historic civil rights legislation that led to a more just and plural society. They're abandoning our great allies and siding with dictators against those struggling for their freedom. They're defunding American universities that won't bow down to their ideological demands. They're removing residents off American street streets and without due process of law, are deporting them to foreign detention centers and prisons. This is all happening now. A majority of our elected representatives have failed to protect the American people from the abuses of an unfit president and a rogue government. They have no concern or idea of what it means to be deeply American. The America that I've sung to you about for free 50 years is real and regardless of its faults, is a great country with a great people. So we'll survive this moment. Now I have hope because I believe in the truth of what the great American writer James Baldwin said. He said, in this world, there isn't as much humanity as one would like, but there's enough.
- [44:22]
Jen Psaki
Tonight's Last Word is next. Today, Senate Republicans defeated a Democratic resolution to obtain information on what the Trump administration has done to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador. Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen is the only person who has been able to visit Kilmar Abrego Garcia in El Salvador. They have been ignoring the orders of the district court, the fourth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. The supreme court, in a nine to zero decision, we don't see many of those, in a nine to zero decision,. Ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia in accordance with his rights to due process. Now, if President Trump can ignore the courts, that's a very short road to tyranny. I have made very clear from the start that I'm not vouching for the man, Mr. Abrego Garcia. I am vouching for his rights. Because if you deny his rights, you put in jeopardy the rights of everybody who resides in the United States of America, Senator Chris Van Hollen gets tonight's last word.
- [45:46]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Stay connected with the MSNBC app bringing you breaking news and analysis anytime, anywhere.
- [45:52]
Jen Psaki
All the stories that we're covering are live and happening as we speak.
- [45:56]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Watch your favorite shows live.
- [45:58]
Jen Psaki
What's happening right right now is a.
- [46:00]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Hostile takeover of the U.
- [46:02]
Lawrence O'Donnell
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 at msnbc. Com. Appreciate.