← The Rachel Maddow Show
The Rachel Maddow Show
Trump fills administration with 'big team of losers' that voters have already rejected
00:45:23
Rachel Maddow runs through a surprisingly lengthy list of people Donald Trump has chosen to work in his administration who had previously lost elections. Being rejected by voters did not disqualify them from serving in representative government, as far as Trump is concerned.
Loading summary
Transcript39 lines
- [00:01]
Rachel Maddow
Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows Now, ad free + ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News and all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad free and with bonus content including why Is this Happening? Felshey Band Book Club and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [00:30]
Chris Hayes
Really happy to have you here. So 2008, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. He had been a US Senator. You might remember, had he lost that presidential campaign, he would have returned to just being a U.S. senator. But he did not lose. He won. And because he became president, that meant there was a vacancy. He had to vacate his Senate seat in order to move to the White House. And that meant the governor of Illinois would have to appoint somebody new to take that U.S. senate seat that Barack Obama was vacating. Now, in pure partisan terms, at the time, Democrats were not all that worried about that because the governor of Illinois was also a Democrat. Obviously, Barack Obama had been a Democratic senator. Just in terms of the partisan math. Nobody thought it would be that big a deal. But turns out that for the governor of Illinois, his party affiliation was not the most important thing to know about him. The most important thing to know about him was that he was a total crook. A crook who decided to sell that Senate seat for anything he could get. And then to talk about it on.
- [01:43]
Unknown
Tape, I told my nephew Alex, he just turned 26 today. I said, alex, you know, call him for his birthday. And I said, it's just too bad you're not four years older because I could have given you a U.S. senate seat for your birthday. Yeah, you know what I mean? I mean, I've got this thing and it's golden and I'm just not giving it up for nothing. I'm not gonna do it.
- [02:10]
Chris Hayes
I'm not gonna give it up for effing. Nothing. It's effing golden. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich tried to sell Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat. He tried to use that Senate seat appointment essentially to things from all sorts of people, all sorts of ways he thought he should get paid for making that eventual appointment. He wanted a six figure job for himself after his governorship. He wanted his wife put on corporate boards for another six figure payout. He wanted big campaign donations. He demanded a cabinet position for himself in Obama's new government. Or better yet, he wanted to be an ambassador. Really liked the idea of being an ambassador. Rod Blagojevich, as I mentioned, did a lot of this on tape. He was eventually charged with trying to shake down a Chicago newspaper and a Chicago Children's hospital. He was charged with trying to shake down people who had contracts with the government for kickback campaign contributions. He was charged with lying to the FBI, and he was trying. Charged with trying to sell that Senate seat. Ultimately, Rod Blagojevich was convicted and he got 14 years in prison. But you know what? He might yet get to be ambassador to something. It might yet work. It just took a while and a long stint in prison in the meantime, because today, President Donald Trump said he is going to pardon Rod Blagojevich. In confirming the pardon today, President Trump denied widespread reports that he's also going to name Rod Blagojevich Ambassador to Serbia. When Trump was asked about that today, he said, no, he doesn't think he's gonna name him Ambassador to Serbia now, at least, quote, but I would. He's now cleaner than anyone in this room. He's now cleaner. Yeah, because you just cleaned him. Would Donald Trump really pardon a felon and then name that person to be an ambassador? Yes. Yes, he would. Jared Kushner's dad, Charles, he was a felon. Trump pardoned him already and then named him ambassador to France. Hey, Paris, here's your felon. Glad you're one of our most important allies in the world. And, you know, maybe Rod Blagojevich will be on his way to Belgrade as ambassador. If he did, that really would be effing golden. Right? I mean, took him a while to cash in on this extortion plot, but he got there in the end with an assist from Donald Trump. Blagojevich and Charles Kushner, of course, would make a great sort of nucleus of the diplomatic core for Donald Trump, perhaps alongside New York City Mayor Eric Adams. You may recall that New York City's unctuous Mayor Eric Adams was indicted in September for allegedly taking foreign campaign donations and bribes, including from the government of Turkey. Mayor Adams denies the allegations, but he then spent campaign season and since, sucking up to Donald Trump in the most public and humiliating ways possible. Now, tonight, Trump's Justice Department has ordered the supposedly so independent federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York Main Justice Trump's appointees there have ordered SDNY that they must drop the charges against Eric Adams. Now, I mean, SDNY has some decisions to make. Even if they do drop these charges, it seems pretty clear that New York City is not interested in having Eric Adams around anymore. I do not think that he will be reelected, but, hey, maybe he could be Trump's new ambassador to, you know, Turkey. He's already got, like, half their stuff. He'd be like, I'm moving into the embassy. But actually, can you just. Can I just put a return label on all the stuff you shipped me? Again, he denies those allegations. I want to show you something here. See if you can spot the pattern here. A few days ago, Donald Trump appointed a new spokesperson for the Defense Department. His name is Sean Parnell. If that name sounds at all familiar, it's because the last thing he did politics was fail. In his effort to win a US Senate seat from Pennsylvania. Mr. Parnell dropped out of the Republican primary after a judge took away custody of his children and ruled that Mr. Parnell had been violent and abusive toward the children and his wife. His wife had accused him, among other things, of throwing chairs at her, of dropping her off on an interstate on the side of the road when she was six months pregnant and telling her to get an. She accused him of choking and strangling her. He denies the allegations, but that all came out during the campaign. And after the judge's ruling in that case, Mr. Parnell dropped out of the Republican primary, and he thus failed to win that U.S. senate seat in Pennsylvania. That is the last thing that Sean Parnell did in public life. That's the last thing he did in politics. Now, Donald Trump has named him spokesman for the Pentagon. Person who won that Republican primary for that Senate seat in Pennsylvania and then lost the Senate race in the general election. That was Mehmet Oz. Dr. Oz. Trump has now named him to run Medicare and Medicaid. So that was the Pennsylvania Senate seat. In the Georgia Senate races, there were four different Republicans who lost while trying to get Senate seats from Georgia in 2020 and 20, who have all now been named to things in the Trump administration. Kelly Loeffler lost a Georgia Senate race in 2020. Trump named her to head the Small Business Administration. David Perdue lost a Georgia Senate race in 2020. Trump named him to be ambassador to China. Doug Collins lost in the primary for Georgia Senate in 2020. Trump named him to run the VA. Herschel Walker lost a Georgia Senate race in 2022. Trump named him to be ambassador to the Bahamas. Kari Lake lost her run for Arizona governor in 2022, and then she lost her run for Arizona senator in 2024. Trump just named her to run the Voice of America. Lori Chavez Darimer lost her House seat in 2024 in Oregon. Trump named her to run the U.S. labor Department. Brandon Williams lost his House seat in 2024 in New York. Trump named him to run the National Nuclear Security Administration. God help us all. Lee Zeldin lost his race for New York governor. Trump named him to run the epa. Caroline Levitt lost her campaign for a congressional seat in New Hampshire. Trump named her White House press secretary. The only thing wrestling executive Linda McMahon ever did in politics was lose two consecutive U.S. senate races in Connecticut. Trump named her Secretary of Education. The last thing Tulsi Gabbard ever did in politics was disastrously lose a presidential run in 2020. Trump has named her Director of National Intelligence. Which is like a horse walks into a bar joke without a horse or a bar. The only thing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Ever did in politics was run and then quit a presidential campaign this year. Now he's Trump's nominee to lead Health and Human Services. Who is Harmeet Dhillon? Harmeet Dhillon lost a race for Republican Party chair this year. Then Trump named her to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Sam Brown lost a Nevada Senate race this year. Trump has put him at the va. Dave Weldon lost a rate for state legislator. Lost a race for state legislator in Florida. Trump has now named him to lead the cdc. Dan Bishop lost the Attorney General's race in North Carolina. This past year, Trump has made him the number two official at omb. Bo Hines just lost a congressional race in North Carolina, so Trump put him on his new crypto board. Joe Kent has lost two consecutive races for Congress in Washington state. Trump just named him head of the National Counterterrorism Center. You noticing a theme here? I mean, I could go on, but are you noticing a theme? I mean, people keep saying no one elected Elon Musk, and that is definitely true. But, you know, at least in his case, he didn't try. He didn't run for something and have the people resoundingly say, no, we don't want you. We'd prefer someone else and not you, and so you will lose this race. But in this second term, they really are stuffing the whole administration with people who have not just once upon a time lost an election here or there. All politicians at some point usually lose something. No, this is like the last thing you did was lose a thing. They almost seemed to be going out of their way to find people for whom the last thing they did in politics, the last thing they did in public life was ask the public to approve of them. And the public said, no, we do not want you. It's almost as if they are going out of their way to say, oh, you the people are saying no. We say that doesn't matter because you may not want us, you may not want this, you may not want us, but this is who and what you're getting. And you're stuck with it. Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote her famous brilliant book about Abraham Lincoln building his brave, capable government out of a team of rivals. With Trump, it's like a big team of losers. People who the American people accepted explicitly do not want. People who just had the opportunity to be voted into office by the American people. And the American people said definitively no, don't want you. And so Trump is saying, well, that's who you're getting and you'll like it. How many of these folks can I find? So there's a lot going on like there is every day. Now tonight, more tragic news tonight. Yet another fatal plane crash. We are three weeks into this new administration and as of today, we've had just in that three week period, we've had the deadliest fatal plane crash in more than 20 years. The Mid air collision over the Potomac river in Washington that killed 67 people. That was followed a couple days later by the crash that killed seven people and injured 24 more people on the ground in Philadelphia. That was followed by a plane catching fire on the Runway in Houston, forcing all the passengers to evacuate downstairs and slides. That was followed by the crash between a plane and a tug at the airport at Chicago O'Hare, critically injuring an airport worker. That was followed by this Japan airplane slicing into the wing of a Delta plane at Sea tac. That was followed by another deadly crash at the end of last week, 10 people dead. A Bering Air crash in Alaska, just outside of Nome, Alaska. And now today, another fatal crash as a small jet slid off the Runway at the airport in Scottsdale, Arizona and smashed into another jet. One person is dead, three are injured. We'll be watching for more news on that as it develops this evening. But again, that crash is in Scottsdale. And this is the fourth fatal aviation incident in the United States in three weeks. One mid air collision, two single airplane crashes, and now two planes smashing into one another just off an airport Runway. When's the last time we had four fatal aviation incidents in three weeks? The administration's explanation thus far has been to blame diversity somehow and also to say, well, you know, we'll take care of it. We'll have the cost cutters who work for the president's top campaign donor get to work in getting into the aviation system. None of the kids who work for Elon Musk have any aviation experience or safety experience or any experience doing anything like this. Except there is that one kid working for Musk who appears to have been pretty deeply involved in working in and around criminal hacking and extortion groups. So at least there's. At least there's that. So there's a lot going on. There's a lot going on every day. But so as to not get too overwhelmed with the pace of things, with the. I think what we're all experiencing as this torrent of bad news, I do think it's possible to recognize that not everything sort of fits in the same bucket. Not all of these things are the same. So in one category, I would put bad outcomes. Plane crashes, bird flu, jumping species and sparking new outbreaks. American farmers having been told by the government that if they install new fencing and dig a new well and upgrade their electrical, the government will subsidize that, will reimburse them for doing that. Now that those American farmers have spent that money, the Trump administration has decided they're not in fact paying them for it. So now those farmers are, are potentially gonna go bankrupt. Right? The shuttering of programs that prevent the spread of multi drug resistant tuberculosis, programs that stop famines, programs that test cancer drugs and all the rest, all of these things are bad outcomes. I mean, I would even say, like Charles Kushner, that's a bad outcome, right? Having a convicted felon as the ambassador to one of our most important allies, that itself is bad. Rod Blagojevich, that's bad. Pardoning politicians for profound and proven corruption, that's just a bad outcome on its face. So that's one category. So there's a second category, which is self dealing and abuse of office. We're going to talk this hour about some of the amazing benefits that Donald Trump's top campaign donor, Elon Musk, is getting for himself and his companies now that Trump has let him take over running the government. There's things like, you know, the inherently worthless Trump meme coin, which he's made tens of millions of dollars already thanks to the suckers who are willing to pay for it. Right? There's all that. There's the bad outcomes, there's the self dealing and corruption. Say those are the first two categories. But the thing that we're gonna focus on tonight and that I think, in a good sense, I think a lot of the country is starting to focus on right now is a different category. It's not just a bad outcome. It's not just self dealing and corruption. It's a third category that poses the risk of what I would call autocratic breakthrough. That's like the political science term for it. It's not just something turning out bad. It's not just you doing things in a way that is corrupt or for your own self rather than for the people you're supposed to be serving. It is breaking systems so that you can't be stopped. It's when they do things with their power that aren't just bad, that aren't just corrupt or self dealing. They are designed to change the government and the country and the system so they can never be removed from power. So opposition to them becomes impossible or illegal or dangerous. So it doesn't matter what we want or what we don't want. It doesn't matter what we intend to vote for or vote against. They're staying anyway and they'll do what they want regardless of how the rest of the country feels about it. That's autocratic breakthrough. And in that category, there's stuff to watch. The attacks on the media are not important because you have to like the media. They're important because without the media, the public's not going to know things the government doesn't want them to know. The attacks on the inspectors general and the oversight agencies, they're not necessarily important because you have to love the inspectors general and the oversight agencies. But again, it's a categorical change in taking out the inspectors general and the oversight agencies. These guys are protecting themselves from being investigated or being stopped by those watchdogs. But they're also preventing the public from knowing about whatever malfeasance may be going on. And in that category, the autocratic breakthrough category, the changing the system so we can't be removed from office so that we can act without regard for what the American people want or say or do. In that category, the big kahuna is the attack on the courts. You may have seen the headline tonight. We had a federal judge block the big cuts they just imposed on scientific and medical research. The amount of scientific and medical research funding and the way that funding is structured is set up by law. And to cut it unilaterally is to violate that law. So those scientific and medical research cuts have been blocked tonight by a federal judge. We've also had a federal judge block the resign or else threats against millions of federal workers that are trying to induce them into quitting their jobs. That has been blocked by a federal judge. We've Had a federal judge block the Elon Musk improper access to the Treasury's payment system. That has been blocked by a federal judge. We've had a federal judge block their efforts to send three Venezuelan men to Guantanamo. We had a federal judge block the release of the names of FBI agents who worked on January. January 6th cases. We've had three different judges block the effort to overturn birthright citizenship, the American principle enshrined in the Constitution that says, if you're born here, you're American. We have had two federal judges now block the government funding halt. We have had a federal judge block the shutdown of USAID and the order that everybody at USAID has to be fired or put on leave. We've had judges stop thing after thing after thing that they've been trying to do. And all of those losses in court. We're only three weeks into the administration. How have they lost in court this many times already? Well, it's because they're doing a lot of things all at once that seem, at least at first glance, to be quite illegal. And so judges are stopping them from doing these things as fast as lawsuits can be filed. But the important thing here is the response to these court orders. Because in, for example, the funding halt case where the judges are saying, you cannot halt these funds, these funds have to go ahead. In the USAID case, where the judge says, you cannot shut USAID and put the whole USAID and put the whole staff on leave, you have to reverse that. In those cases already, we have had the new administration lose in court, and we have also had the new administration appear to defy those court orders. In both cases, the plaintiffs have gone back to court in those cases saying, your Honor, your ruling is not being obeyed. They're still doing what you ordered them not to do. And that has bad consequences. True, Right. Directly, there's a reason these cases were brought in the first place, which is you can't do this illegal thing. And also, if you do this thing, it causes harm. So the fact that they're defying the court orders directly has bad consequences. USAID still being shut has bad consequences. Those funding halts still have bad consequences. But categorically, the most important thing here is their willingness to defy the courts. Because that is the ultimate autocratic breakthrough, a declaration that the rule of law does not apply to them, that it cannot constrain anything they want to do that is worse than any one outcome. Right? That is a forever decision that means nothing anyone else wants. And no court ever. Rules will ever again have any impact on what our government wants to do to us. That is a category of its own. That is the key to autocratic breakthrough, and that is where we find ourselves on the precipice, looking over the edge tonight. Elizabeth Warren joins us next. Stay with us.
- [23:27]
Rachel Maddow
The last thing you want to hear when you need your auto insurance most is a robot with countless irrelevant menu options. Which is why with USAA auto insurance, you'll get great service that is easy and reliable, all at the touch of a button. Get a quote Today, restrictions apply. MSNBC Presents Main justice each week on their podcast, veteran lawyers Andrew Weissman and Mary McCord break down the latest developments inside the Trump administration's Department of Justice.
- [23:54]
Elizabeth Warren
The administration doesn't necessarily want to be.
- [23:56]
Chris Hayes
Questioned on any of its policy. I think what we are seeing is.
- [24:00]
Rachel Maddow
Project 2025 in action.
- [24:03]
Chris Hayes
This is it coming to fruition.
- [24:05]
Rachel Maddow
Main justice subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for ad, free listening and bonus content. MSNBC presents a new original podcast hosted by Jen Psaki. Each week she and her guests explore how the Democratic Party is facing this political moment and where it's headed next.
- [24:24]
Chris Hayes
There's probably both messaging and policy issues, but as you look to kind of where the Democratic Party is, do you think it's more a messaging issue, more a policy issue?
- [24:34]
Rachel Maddow
The Blueprint with Jen Psaki. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for ad, free listening and bonus content.
- [24:45]
Chris Hayes
Amid everything, did you notice the little announcement that the Trump administration has ordered a halt to all federal funding for electric vehicle chargers across the United States? EV charging stations? You might think that would be a problem for Trump's billionaire co president, his largest campaign donor, Elon Musk, who runs the electric car company Tesla. But you know what? There's a reason he's not complaining. Quite the contrary. And it's because Elon Musk's company, Tesla, already has the biggest private charging network in the country, bigger than all of his competitors. So as he posted on his social media site last year, quote, take away the subsidies, it will only help Tesla. Well, now Donald Trump has done just that, leaving Tesla unchallenged as the largest EV charging network in the country, with no one really having any chance to catch up to them. Then there's one of Musk's other companies, SpaceX, a huge government contractor. Back in December, the New York Times reported that the Defense Department's inspector general had opened a review into SpaceX for potentially violating rules about keeping sensitive government secrets out of the hands of our foreign adversaries Elon Musk's own foreign travel and his contacts with foreign governments had reportedly not been disclosed regularly to the US Government, which not only impeded his own security clearance, but also reportedly led in part at least to this inspector general's security review of potential national security risks surrounding his companies and specifically him. Well, when Donald Trump took office, he fired that inspector general conducting that review, along with 17 other inspectors general across the government. Then there's Elon Musk's social media company, formerly known as Twitter. When Elon Musk took over that company, one of his goals was to turn it into a digital payment company. He wanted everybody to start using Twitter the way they used Zelle or Venmo to send money electronically. Starting this year, he announced a big new plan to do that. But you know the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the government regulator that makes sure credit card companies and banks can't charge you junk fees or unnecessarily hike up your interest rates and screw you over that way. The CFPB also regulates the kinds of digital money transfers that Elon Musk now wants to do at Twitter. And as Lever News points out today, the CFPB has just been finalizing new rules for that kind of payment system. When over the weekend, it got shut down. Musk and the Trump administration shut the CFPB down entirely. So if you voted for Trump because you thought banks and credit card companies are the good guys and they need more opportunities to screw people over on small print scams and junk fees and ballooning credit card interest rates and all the rest, well, if so, today must feel great. Must feel like you got a lot for your vote. The pushback against Trump's efforts to defund the police, to defund the financial police has begun in earnest. Lawsuits have been filed already challenging Trump's shutdown of the cfpb. Today in Washington, protesters and lawmakers, look at this, turned out again in the street, rallied in support of CFPB and its workers outside of its headquarters. This was today in Washington. People showing in person and Democratic lawmakers showing up there to support them. One of those lawmakers is Senator Elizabeth Warren. She was instrumental in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during the Obama administration and she has been defending it ever since. Joining us now is Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Senator, thank you so much for making time to be here tonight.
- [28:40]
Elizabeth Warren
Happy to be with you.
- [28:41]
Chris Hayes
Tell me about this protest today at CFPB headquarters.
- [28:44]
Elizabeth Warren
Well, so we're in this moment where Donald Trump ran for president, saying over and over and over he was going to lower costs for American families. Remember how much he talked about the price of groceries, the price of eggs, right? Gonna lower those costs. And now here we are three weeks into the Trump administration and they say this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is literally the cop on the beat to make sure that a family doesn't get cheated when they take out a mortgage, that you don't get tricked in the fine print on a car loan, that your credit card doesn't have a bunch of hidden fees in it, that your student loan has an issue or hasn't scammed you and put you in the wrong program. So this is an agency that literally, over the 13 years it's been out there working, has recovered more than $21 billion that these big financial institutions have cheated people out of and actually returned the money to the people that they cheated. So what Donald Trump has done, saying he really wanted to lower costs, is he's taken this agency that is the cop on the beat for the cheaters. And when they get caught cheating, makes them give the money back. And he said, cops, step aside, look the other way. We don't care how big the scam is, we don't care who's getting hurt. Just everybody put your pins down, fold your hands, put them in your lap, and let the scams roll on.
- [30:22]
Chris Hayes
What do you make about the way they have done this? Because you and I have spoken before, since the formation of the cfpb, about all the ways that Republicans have tried to come after it and all the ways that, you know, people who represent these financial institutions have tried to kill it, have tried to undermine it. If it was this easy, if it was just a proclamation, tell all the workers to go home, stop working on any of this stuff. And by the way, we're shutting the building. Why didn't they do it like this before? It seems to me like that might be an indication that this isn't actually a legal way to close this agency.
- [30:56]
Elizabeth Warren
That's exactly right. Congress created this agency. There were laws that were passed.
- [31:02]
Adam Schiff
Right.
- [31:02]
Elizabeth Warren
They passed a bill in the House, passed a bill in the Senate, did a conference, got the thing through, was signed into law by the President of the United States and only Congress. Not Donald Trump, not Elon Musk, not some 22 year old programmer. Only Congress can shut this agency down. But here's the trick on that one. You notice none of the Republicans, oh yeah, they, you know, beat on their chests and they're big manly guys and they keep putting in these bills to say, let's shut down the consumer agency. But they don't actually want a real vote on that. A lot of them don't actually want to stand next to exactly what they're trying to do. And that is shut down the agency that has handled more than 6 million consumer complaints by people who got cheated by their credit card companies, by payday loan companies. They don't want to admit what they're trying to do. Remember that $21 billion that came out of somebody's hide. And you know whose hide it came out of? The cheaters and the scammers. It came out of the hides of the billionaire CEOs. And they would like to have the opportunity to earn that money going forward. So they want to push. But there are a lot of folks in Congress actually kind of squeamish about that. So they did the end run. They tried it through the courts. You know what the Supreme Court of the United States said, not once but twice thing is perfectly constitutional. Yep. It's going to go forward. If you want to change it, you've got to go back to Congress. And now here's Donald Trump, Elon Musk and a handful of 22 year olds saying, no, we think we're just going to find another way to shut it down. It's not only not legal and not popular really, it's a case of saying they want to fire the financial cops, but they'd like for nobody really to notice that. And particularly Elon Musk would like nobody to notice that. He just wants to get rid of them before he launches his new financial product.
- [33:14]
Chris Hayes
Let me ask you about the point you just raised there, about how the Supreme Court has weighed in on this twice already and said this is a constitutionally sound agency. That can't be. You can't just wish it away. Yep. I feel like this is not an original thought. I think a lot of people are having this thought at the same time, which is for all of these court challenges that are happening, most of which are succeeding at stopping the things they've tried to do in these first three weeks. For each of those, we have started to see them now make noises about potentially defying those court rulings. We have had in the USAID case and in the halt to government funding case. We've had the plaintiffs in those cases go back to the judges and say, you, Honor, your order that the government needed to stop doing what they were doing. They seem to be defying your order. We're going to need something stronger. What do you make of this? Big, I think constitutionally existential question about whether or not court rulings are going to be treated as optional by these guys. Their brazenness at breaking the law, whether it's with the CFPB or USAID or any of these other things they're doing, seems to me born of a kind of confidence that can only come from their expectation that the courts don't mean much at the end of the day and that illegality is not necessarily a reason to avoid doing something that they really want to do. You're right.
- [34:39]
Elizabeth Warren
We've got our toes right on the edge of a constitutional crisis here. But here's the thing. It may be the case that Donald Trump is so full of confidence that he thinks he can wave his wand and whatever he wants to happen will happen. And in many cases, he will be right. For example, the Republicans in the Senate just go ahead and confirm people for jobs that they know they are not qualified for, so they will kowtow to him. But I don't think that's going to happen with the courts. And here's the next part. They may not be able to force Donald Trump to do something, but Donald Trump isn't actually the guy who puts in the orders and cuts people's paychecks. There's somebody else in the system who does that. And they're a click down from Donald Trump and a click down from that and a click down from that. And when a federal court issues an order and then gets people in front of them and says, you either follow that order or find yourself in contempt, now we're going to see whether or not those are people who are going to say, oh, but Donald Trump told me. And a judge is going to say, I don't care what Donald Trump told you. I'm telling you what the law is. You follow the law. And, you know, my view right now is the courts are where we are hanging on to our constitutional structure. They still have the power to hold everybody else in this country in contempt if they do not follow lawfully issued court orders.
- [36:20]
Chris Hayes
Senator Elizabeth Warren, thank you for your time tonight. It was really interesting also to see you out there with protesters today, people showing up, putting themselves on the line, showing up in real life to stand up for the CFPB and the people that work. I appreciate you being there with those folks and telling us about what it was like. Thanks for being here tonight, ma'am. You bet.
- [36:39]
Elizabeth Warren
Thank you.
- [36:40]
Chris Hayes
All right, we'll be right back. Stay with us.
- [36:44]
Unknown
With Chewy. Everything you need for your pets is right at your fingertips from the coziest beds to durable leashes and collars, the cutest fashion, fun toys, yummy treats, all the food they love, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Get low prices every day on everything you need for your pets, with fast delivery right to your door so they can get to the good stuff sooner. For low prices, for fast shipping, for life with pets, there's chewy Stay connected.
- [37:15]
Rachel Maddow
With the MSNBC app. Watch your favorite shows live, read live blogs and in depth essays and listen to coverage as it unfolds. Visit smart msnbc.com app to download. Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Each morning you'll get analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows.
- [37:39]
Chris Hayes
I do think it's worth being very clear eyed, very realistic about what's going on here.
- [37:44]
Rachel Maddow
Previews of our podcasts and documentaries, plus written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves, all sent directly to your inbox each morning. Get the best of MSNBC all in one place. Sign up for MSNBC Daily@msnbc.com.
- [38:01]
Chris Hayes
I mentioned at the top of the show that one of the people who's been working with Elon Musk, the President's top campaign donor, as they've been going around sort of ripping out the guts of every government agency they can get into, is somebody who has been linked to hacking and other cyber criminal enterprises online. It's interesting though, why he lost one of his most recent jobs before he got this one with the US Government. This is the email that reportedly went around when he got fired from that job. He was working as an intern at a cybersecurity firm. This according to Bluebird News, quote, Edward has been terminated for leaking internal information to the competitors. This is unacceptable and there is zero tolerance for this. After Edward the Intern was fired, he reportedly posted online that even after the company had fired him for leaking company information to a competitor, Edward had managed to get himself access to, quote, every single machine at that cybersecurity firm that had fired him. He bragged that he could have wiped all the company's customer support servers if he had wanted to. Edward, that fired intern, is now older and Wiser. He's now 19 years old and he now works for the President's top campaign donor. And in that capacity, 19 year old Edward is now a, quote, senior advisor at the US State Department, where he now has been given access to all of the IT and data management functions for the country's entire diplomatic operation in every country on earth. One current US Official telling the Washington Post quote, this is dangerous. And hey, I'm no expert, but it doesn't sound good. Kind of does sound like a national security concern. To have a 19 year old who already in his young life has a history of leaking sensitive information and then to give that 19 year old access to all centralized data at the US State Department, I don't know, it just seems off. It really is just the latest in a string of national security news coming out of this White House that could really curl your hair. Elon Musk's JV team also has access to the payment system at the Treasury Department that not only controls all things the US Government pays for, those things include, for example, details of secret payments made to foreign assets run by US Intelligence, payments to US Businesses abroad who have secret contracts with our intelligence services like the CIA. Speaking of the CIA, their entire workforce has been told to resign. They've all been sent that resign or else email. Then there's Trump's pick to lead the FBI. Cash Patel, who we just learned on Friday was paid $25,000 for his participation in an anti FBI film made by a Russian American filmmaker who makes propaganda for the Kremlin. And then of course there's Trump's pick for Director of National Intelligence. Your third meeting in Syria after meeting with Assad, and then his wife was with Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddin Hassoon. Were you aware of his threats regarding suicide bombers in the United States? I was not and had not heard that until today. Were you aware of his threats involving suicide bombers in the United States? No. Never heard of that before. You just said it. Wow. That's Trump's pick to be Director of National Intelligence. Tulsi Gabbard speaking at her confirmation hearing, saying she had no idea that that guy she met with in Syria had threatened to unleash a network of suicide bombers in the United States. Just learned that today. No idea. Totally thought we were talking about Tupperware. Had no idea that's what that guy was. Washington Post soon reported on documents showing that Tulsi Gabbard actually did know about that guy's threat about suicide bombers in the United States more than eight years ago. She learned about it at the latest as soon as she returned from that trip. And you know, not for nothing, but that guy's still around. Imagine what it would mean to have the guy with the network of U. S. Based suicide bombers on hand who's also got connections to the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence who has not apparently been totally forthcoming about their relationship, including in her confirmation hearing under, like I said, a lot of national security alarm bells ringing right now. Even so, Gabbard's nomination to be Director of National Intelligence appears to be barreling forward. The Senate voting tonight to tee up her final confirmation vote as early as tomorrow night. Senator Adam Schiff joins us on that next. All Republicans in the Senate voted tonight to advance the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence. It's like saying that I could be a defensive lineman on the Philadelphia Eagles. Sure. Republican Thom Tillis and Democrat John Fetterman did not vote tonight, but other than that, it was party line. Joining us now is California Senator Adam Schiff, who has been a leading voice against Gabbard's nomination. Senator, thank you so much for being here tonight.
- [43:23]
Adam Schiff
Sir, good to be with you.
- [43:25]
Chris Hayes
You spoke tonight on the Senate floor in opposition to her confirmation. You called it dangerous and a five alarm fire. What do you think the American people should know about her as a nominee as we're heading toward that final vote tomorrow?
- [43:38]
Adam Schiff
Well, first, I think it's important, as with all these nominees, to just level set. Normally, if you're talking about someone who's going to head an agency, let alone in this case all of the intelligence agencies, you would expect a nominee to have some experience, maybe having worked for an intelligence agency, maybe having led an intelligence agency or even at a minimum served on a relevant committee like the Intelligence Committee in Congress. Tulsi Gabbard has none of that experience. Zero, nada, Zilcho. That would normally in a normal world be disqualifying. But she goes far beyond that. She has echoed Kremlin talking points about the origin of the war against Ukraine. She's pushed out Russian propaganda about US Biolabs in Ukraine, one of the pretexts that Russia wanted to use for its invasion to the point where RT Russia today, this propaganda outfit is praising her to the degree that advisers close to Putin refer to her as our girl. An interesting diminutive for someone who might be leading U.S. intelligence agencies. This is someone who met with Bashar Al Assad, came back, had, you know, wonderful things to say about how he wanted to get across the impression that he wouldn't engage in terrible things against his own people when our own intelligence agencies were saying he has gassed his own people. So hard to imagine someone more disqualified from running those agencies. But Republican opposition to all of these controversial, unqualified, disqualified nominees has collapsed. And maybe collapse is too strong a word because that that presupposes there was an infrastructure to stand up to these bad choices to begin with. But nevertheless, they all seem headed for confirmation, which is just terrible for the country.
- [45:34]
Chris Hayes
There was reporting earlier on in the process that some Republicans had reservations about Gabbard. There was reporting that at her meetings with Republican senators, she, for example, could. Couldn't describe what the job was and didn't understand even how to answer even basic questions about what the intelligence community does. People seem taken aback by that. Do you get the sense that that has just dissolved or that she's, I don't know, somehow made people feel better about those initial concerns? She's evolved in some way herself. Do you know what any of your Republican colleagues who had worried about her are thinking now?
- [46:14]
Adam Schiff
I don't think the concerns about her have dissolved, as you put it. I don't think that she has satisfied their concerns. I think they've come to realize that if they stand up to Donald Trump, that the MAGA world will come after them, and they're simply not willing to take that on. President Trump has very successfully demonstrated that whether it is marshaling primary challenges or just dialing up the sort of MAGA extreme world against you, he and his allies can turn it on in a heartbeat, and they just don't want to face that. But, you know, we're going to have to live with these nominees for a long time. There'll be no hiding from what they do. Those who vote for these nominees are going to take ownership of everything they do, whether it's Tulsi Gabbard or RFK or Cash Patel or Pam Bondi or any of these people. Those that support their confirmation, knowing the risk to our national security, are going to have to own those decisions. But what is even more tragic, I think, is the country will end up owning those decisions. And whether that's in the form of allies not willing to share intelligence with us because they don't trust Tulsi Gabbard any more than many members of Congress, or whether that means that people leave the FBI because Kash Patel is driving them out and they don't want to be part of a political vendetta. It's all going to undermine our national security, our homeland security, and it's the American people who will suffer.
- [47:49]
Chris Hayes
Senator Adam Schiff, thank you for being here tonight, sir. I appreciate it.
- [47:53]
Adam Schiff
Thank you.
- [47:53]
Chris Hayes
We'll be right back. All right, that's going to do it for me for this Monday night, but I will see you again tomorrow and every night this week at 9:00pm Eastern, Eastern here on MSNBC in the meantime, you can find me on Bluesky. If you don't have Blue sky yet, I recommend it. I'm on bluesky atto.msnbc.com it is a social media network that doesn't make me want to stab myself in the eye with a rusty fork. At least not yet.
- [48:25]
Rachel Maddow
Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts New episodes of all your favorite favorite MSNBC shows now ad free plus ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News and all MSNBC original Podcasts are available ad free and with bonus content including why Is this Happening? Velshi Band Book Club, and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.