Loading summary
Transcript169 lines
- [00:01]
A
By the time I hit my 50s, I'd learned a few things, like how family is precious, work can always wait. And 99% of people over 50 already have the virus that causes shingles. Not everyone at risk will develop it, but I did. The painful, blistering rash disrupted my life for weeks. Don't learn about your shingles. Risk the hard way. Talk to your doctor or pharmacist today. Sponsored by gsk. Police descend on a home two miles from Nancy Guthrie's in Tucson, detaining, but soon releasing a man for the second time as frustration grows over the pace of the investigation. This week starts right now. Desperate search.
- [00:45]
B
We believe our mom is still out there.
- [00:48]
A
We need your help. Another detention Friday night, but no breakthrough as the hunt for Nancy Guthrie enters day 15. Officials releasing chilling doorbell camera footage and asking neighbors for surveillance.
- [01:03]
B
If Nancy's out there, we're gonna find her. We're not giving up.
- [01:06]
A
With no known person of interest or suspect named, what are law enforcement's next steps? This morning, the latest from ABC's Aaron Katerski. Plus analysis from former FBI special agent Mary Ellen o' Toole and digital forensics expert Jim Jones. And Ed Smart, the father of kidnapping survivor Elizabeth Smart. Explosive hearing. The American people have a right to know the answers to this. These are senior and the Trump administration. This is not a game. Attorney General Pam Bondi battles with lawmakers from both parties as backlash grows over the Justice Department's latest release of Jeffrey Epstein documents. We speak exclusively with Congressman Thomas Massie on his combative exchange with Bondi. There was one redaction where he's listed
- [01:58]
B
as a co conspirator.
- [02:00]
A
And what comes next? No deal. Lawmakers leave town as the government enters a partial shutdown over reforms to ice. Our roundtable on the political fallout
- [02:14]
B
from ABC News. It's THIS week. Hear now.
- [02:18]
A
Martha Raddatz, Good morning and welcome to this week. There was a moment of hope as we began this weekend. Images of a swarm of police activity just a short drive from the home of Nancy Guthrie. But after briefly detaining a man and searching a home, there were no arrests and no sign of Guthrie. Now, at 15 agonizing days of searching, the Guthrie family, like so many others, expressing frustration with the pace of the investigation, according to sources in contact with a circle of family and friends around Savannah Guthrie. But remember, it was only days ago, Tuesday of this week that authorities released doorbell video of the suspect showing these chilling images of a masked man on Nancy Guthrie's doorstep in the middle of the night. And just Police found gloves that could be connected to the case. There is still so much we do not know. But as frustrated as the family may be, the police are now armed with far more clues than they were a week ago. This morning we will cover the very latest in the investigation and what experts say law enforcement are likely focusing on now to try to break this case. But we begin with this report from our chief investigative correspondent, Erin Katurski. Hi there. Good Tuesday morning. We're following breaking news overnight.
- [03:37]
B
She is someone millions of Americans know from morning television. But when Savannah Guthrie made this moving
- [03:42]
A
plea, she was speaking of her own private anguish. We are at an hour of desperation and we need your help.
- [03:50]
B
The Instagram message reflected the painful reality of the search for her 84 year old mother. There are hundreds of detectives and tens of thousands of tips from the public, but so far, no sign of Nancy Guthrie. Two weeks after her abduction overnight Friday into early Saturday, the FBI and Pima County Sheriff's Department executed a search warrant at a home a short drive from the Catalina Foothills neighborhood where Nancy Guthrie vanished. Authorities also appeared to question someone in a nearby parking lot and towed a car. But there were no arrests and no
- [04:20]
A
sign of Nancy Guthrie.
- [04:21]
B
The unidentified man authorities detained is the second individual to be questioned and released in connection to the case. Investigators are working to piece together a fuller profile of this masked, apparent, apparently armed man lurking on her doorstep. Video shows the man approaching the house, appearing to try to block the camera with his hand before turning his back to grab some brush, then placing the branches in front of the lens. Savannah Guthrie sharing the images on Instagram writing Someone out there recognizes this person. We believe she is still out there. Bring her home. The FBI says the suspect is 5'9 to 5'10 of average build and carrying a backpack sold at Walmart. The retailer declined to comment. We found the same backpack at Walmart here in Tucson for $11. Backpacks, a Walmart backpack. Right. So that's. Can you trace the sale? We're hoping. We're hoping. We're.
- [05:09]
A
We have teams working on all of this stuff.
- [05:11]
B
Investigators have more clues now analyzing gloves found near Nancy Guthrie's property, as well as DNA. Some of that DNA was collected from her property, and investigators say it belongs to someone other than her or anyone in close contact to her. Investigators are working to identify who it belongs to. Other DNA was lifted from gloves found in searches within a few miles of Nancy Guthrie's home. The New York Post capturing these images of law enforcement finding this glove along a desert road. Any DNA back on Any of this? Yeah, we've gotten DNA back. And that's why I say, well, they already have the genetic markers of those that we think had access to the home, rightfully so. The family, the landscapers, the pool guy, anything useful come back, well, you've got DNA, so that's abuse. Now we have to go through and try to eliminate people or make people. You know, we're so hopeful that we're gonna, we're getting closer. We just, we just believe that. Two weeks on, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos told us there is no let up. 400 cops are out there looking for Nancy, 24, 7. It's not clear what led to that burst of activity at the subdivision nearby Martha, but it's only about two miles away. So that's just the kind of place where the sheriff has implored residents to check their home security systems for footage of anything suspicious, maybe a vehicle or person from January 1, a full month before Nancy Guthrie was taken, to February 2, the day after. The sheriff is hoping something was caught on camera that could help Martha.
- [06:46]
A
Of course, all of us are, Erin. And let me ask you this. What are investigators hoping to do in the coming days as this search continues?
- [06:54]
B
The sheriff said investigators are going to come back to the house with more measuring tools. They would like to build out a more substantial profile of the suspect. They've estimated his height, 5, 9 or 5, 10. Now they'd like to try and guess his weight, maybe his shoe size, just to give the public something more to go on, maybe focus the tips that
- [07:15]
A
have been coming in. Okay, thanks. Aaron Katurski in Tucson. Thank you. I'm joined now by two experts on how law enforcement approaches these kinds of investigations. Former FBI profiler Mary Ellen o', Toole, the forensic science program director at George Mason University, and Jim Jones, the digital forensics program director, also at George Mason. Good morning to you both. Mary Ellen, I want to start with you. You just heard Aaron's report. You just heard what happened on Friday with a suspicious person was pulled over that turned out to be nothing. I know you also worked on the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Her father is joining us soon. But when you look at this case and where we are and the growing frustration, do you feel there were any missteps? One of the, one of the issues in the case that is concerning, and I don't want to call it a misstep because it does happen in other cases, is the crime scene itself. The crime scene was released and then they came in again. Then it was released again. The Problem with that is that you can compromise forensic evidence. Forensic evidence can be very fragile to begin with. And so when you open and then close a crime scene like that, it can be compromised. So there could be footprints or something like that. There could be footprints, there could be evidence that was there originally and then somebody else touched it, so now it's compromised. So that could be problematic once they get to court and they have to present it, but it could also delay identifying somebody. And from what they have already recovered, they found these gloves. They may or may not be connected in any way, although you can't imagine there are too many gloves in that warm climate. So what do you think is going on now, and what will they have with that? Well, with the gloves, they're looking for, obviously, for forensics, specifically the DNA, and that's something that is obtainable with those gloves. So they're going back and they're looking for more forensics, with DNA being the gold standard. But would they have to. Would the person have to be in a database, a DNA database? Not necessarily. CODIS is our database, and that's the one that all the states contribute to. And if you're arrested, your DNA is in the database. However, there are other methods, and that one of them can be forensic genetic genealogy. Unfortunately, that takes a while to be able to use that. Okay, Jim and I, and specifically that doorbell video cam, she didn't have a description. Google managed to find that anyway. It took them a while. It's an intense process. How do they do that?
- [10:06]
B
What happens with the cameras is they record the imagery no matter what. And assuming the camera is activated, which this one was, the data, the imagery goes up to the Google cloud. Whether you have a subscription or not, that's irrelevant.
- [10:19]
A
The subscription determines how long the data is kept.
- [10:22]
B
And so in this case, the data was uploaded to the cloud.
- [10:26]
A
She didn't have a subscription.
- [10:28]
B
It was put in the queue to be deleted. And it was somewhere during that deletion process that they were able to recover the data. So deleting a file doesn't actually get rid of the data, just marks it for overwriting later. They were able to go to those
- [10:42]
A
servers, to that storage, and find the
- [10:44]
B
remnant pieces of the video.
- [10:46]
A
And what we saw of him pulling down the camera or trying to cover up that camera, did it make any difference to the camera was pulled down. There's nothing in the camera itself, is there, that's accurate?
- [10:59]
B
Likely did not have any impact on it. The camera itself stores a very small amount of video. If it's Actively connected to WI fi. If it loses WI fi, it'll hold up to maybe an hour worth of clips, but it won't transmit them until it gets WI fi back. So taking the camera off, it probably was still trying to record at that
- [11:16]
A
time and then later couldn't upload. And so the data never made it to Google. And Mary Ellen, the backpack, they also have identified where this backpack was sold. You heard Aaron there at Walmart, $11. How big is that database to find how many people have purchased that? I assume they're going online, they're going store to store. It's huge. And that will take a while because there's so many stores in Arizona. He didn't have to buy it in Arizona, could have bought it somewhere else. So that's going to take a while. But the beauty of the fact that he could have gotten it at Walmart is they have a tremendous amount of cameras inside their stores. So once they narrow that down to possibly one store maybe in the area, then they can go back and they can look at the cameras and they can actually see the day that the poster on that day that video would be preserved. And Jim, I want to ask you about the timeline. So we see this guy go to the door. Do we have any idea whether that was right before he may have pounded on the door? We've seen that there was no, I believe no force entry as far as we know. So is it likely that he went back to the car, took off the mask, tried to knock on the door? I know you're speculating there, but in terms of that timeline, what we know and what we don't know.
- [12:39]
B
Yeah. The best public information shows that the camera was disconnected around 01:45 ish am
- [12:46]
A
around 02:30 her pacemaker stopped connecting to the Apple Watch. So that's probably when she physically left the premises.
- [12:53]
B
So there's about a 45 minute window
- [12:55]
A
from the camera stops recording to she leaves the premises.
- [12:58]
B
We don't know if he entered immediately
- [13:00]
A
or if he entered five minutes before she left. And Marilyn, I just want to close with you. How frustrated should people be at this point or is this normal? Unfortunately, this is normal. These cases are not easy to resolve even with technology. And what they're depending on now in large part is for somebody to come forward and say, that's my husband, that's my brother, that's my next door neighbor. And it doesn't appear anybody's done that yet. So we'll have thanks to both of you. I appreciate it.
- [13:28]
B
Thank you, thank you.
- [13:29]
A
And let's bring in someone who knows well what the Guthrie family is facing right now. Ed Smart, whose daughter Elizabeth was abducted from their Salt Lake city home in 2002 at the age of 14. She was held captive for nine months before her rescue. Thanks so much for joining us this morning, Ed. You have been in this excruciating position of waiting while they're looking for your loved one. This is apparently very frustrating right now. Two weeks for the Guthrie family for so many people. Absolutely.
- [14:06]
B
I mean, I remember, you know, once
- [14:09]
A
you have the initial shock, but it never goes away. And, you know, at night you wonder, where is she? How is she surviving? What should I be doing to find her?
- [14:21]
B
And that just repeats over and over in your mind.
- [14:25]
A
I remember feeling so unable to address any of the issues that I felt were so important.
- [14:35]
B
But in the end, I felt that
- [14:38]
A
it was so important to keep Elizabeth's face out there, to do everything that
- [14:42]
B
we possibly could to keep her alive
- [14:45]
A
in the news, because it's just a matter of the next news clip before everyone's distracted onto something else. And finding Elizabeth was certainly what our effort was all about. And we know the Guthrie family has tried to do that as well. Through those Instagram postings. You had some similar experiences with ransom notes. You got some fake ransom notes during Elizabeth's disappearance. And how did you deal with that? How did the FBI deal with that? What was that like during that period?
- [15:18]
B
You know, we had two FBI agents
- [15:20]
A
that literally lived in our home for the first two weeks, and so they
- [15:25]
B
were there to record any phone calls
- [15:27]
A
that came in and to help out
- [15:30]
B
if something else came along.
- [15:33]
A
So we left all of that in their hands. And of course, we did have one or two ransom notes. And in the end, it was someone who, fictitiously, was trying to extort money and get part of the reward.
- [15:49]
B
So that really was something that we weren't. We were kept in the loop, but
- [15:55]
A
it wasn't something that we were dealing with. Every day, you know, my heart goes out to the Guthrie's.
- [16:01]
B
This is so, you know, painful and
- [16:03]
A
so difficult to deal with. You know, it's. It's like this open wound that you can't stop.
- [16:12]
B
And so trying to find Nancy and
- [16:16]
A
try to get people that might have seen something to call in, because, you
- [16:23]
B
know, a lot of people will see something happen and not, oh, well, that's
- [16:27]
A
not of any consequence, but it may be the answer to bring this all to a head. And certainly that was the way it went for us. I mean, it went on for months. That way. And we were on this emotional roller coaster.
- [16:41]
B
And I think that one of the
- [16:44]
A
things that really helped us was the support that we had from the community. We had so many people volunteer to help in the search. You know, there were thousands and thousands
- [16:57]
B
of tips that came in and certainly the people even kept coming back for the search.
- [17:05]
A
And that gave us great hope that, you know, we are going to find Elizabeth.
- [17:09]
B
And fortunately we were able to have
- [17:13]
A
her come back to us. And we hope the same for the Guthrie family. Thanks so much for joining us this morning, Ed. We so appreciate it. You bet. And up next, the wildly contentious hearing on the Epstein files with Attorney General Pam Bondi attacking lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. I'll speak with GOP Congressman Thomas Massie, who faced some of Bondi's attacks. We're back in two minutes. Insurance.
- [17:40]
B
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. You ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it@progressive.com, progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.
- [18:02]
A
911Where is the emergency? It's the middle of the night in a small town on the Jersey Shore. Someone reports an abandoned car on a bridge. A search gets underway for the missing driver, 19 year old Sarah Stern. Is it a missing person? Is it a suicide? At this point, nobody knows. Old friendships, buried cash, and a sinister plot that was once pitched as a movie plays out in real life. I'm juju Chang from 2020 and ABC Audio. Listen to Bridge of Lies coming March 10th. Wherever you listen to podcasts, Please raise your hands if you have still not been able to meet with this Department of Justice. That was one of the quieter moments from a contentious and protocol busting hearing over the handling of the Epstein files. We will talk to one of the congressmen who helped get these documents released, Thomas Massie. But first, a look at the growing fallout from the files with ABC's Jay O'. Brien.
- [19:14]
B
A combative hearing on Capitol Hill this week, spiraling out of control.
- [19:18]
A
Shame on you. Oh, for goodness sakes. This is pathetic. This is pathetic.
- [19:24]
B
Mr. Attorney General Pam Bondi facing off against the House Judiciary Committee over the Department of Justice's handling of the release of more than 3 million pages of records tied to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
- [19:36]
A
I am deeply sorry for what any victim, any victim has been through, especially as a result of that monster.
- [19:45]
B
You redacted the names of abusers, enablers, accomplices and co conspirators. Even worse, you shockingly failed to redact many of the victims names. The attorney general sitting just rose in front of Epstein's survivors as she traded attacks with lawmakers. And I told you about that attorney general before you started.
- [20:06]
A
You don't tell me.
- [20:07]
B
Yeah, oh I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate.
- [20:10]
A
Not even a lawyer.
- [20:11]
B
Pressed by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie who co wrote the law requiring the release
- [20:16]
A
of the files within 40 minutes, Wexner's name was added back.
- [20:20]
B
Within 40 minutes of me catching you red handed.
- [20:23]
A
Red hand. There was one redaction where he's listed as a co conspirator and we invited you in. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. He needs to get you're a failed politician.
- [20:36]
B
A legal representative for Les Wexner telling ABC News the assistant US attorney told Mr. Wexner's legal counsel in 2019 that Mr. Wexner was neither a co conspirator nor target in any respect. Afterwards, some of the Epstein survivors responding to Bondi's refusal to face them directly,
- [20:53]
A
she had three opportunities to address survivors. We stood up and all she had to do was turn around and she could not even turn around and face us.
- [21:03]
B
Bondi's hearing coming just one day after Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was forced to defend his repeated mentions in the DOJ's files after previously saying he distanced himself from Epstein, his one time neighbor. In 2005, my wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again. So I was never in the room with him socially for business or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn't going because he's gross. That's my story. A one and absolutely done. But emails released by the DOJ show Lutnick and Epstein remained in touch years after Epstein first pleaded guilty to sex crimes in 2008, including a 2012 lunch attended by Lutnick, his wife, nannies, daughters and three sons. I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation. My wife was with me as were my four children and nannies. I press Lutnick ahead of that hearing. Why did you keep contact with Jeffrey Epstein after he pled guilt? I look forward to testifying today. Did you mischaracterize your relationship with him? More than six years since Jeffrey Epstein's death and the fallout from his crimes still reverberating from Silicon Valley to Hollywood to Wall Street Where Katherine Ruemler, the top lawyer at Goldman Sachs who served as White House counsel during the Obama administration, announced her resignation effective in June. In emails, she called Epstein Uncle Jeffrey and Sweetie and advised him on how to respond to questions about his sex crimes. A spokesperson for Rumler telling ABC News, quote, Ms. Rumler has done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide. Nothing in the record suggests otherwise. The impact of the files spanning the globe from the United Kingdom to France, Norway and Dubai, where of DP World, Dubai's largest port operator, Sultan Ahmed bin Salayem stepped down Friday, revealed by U.S. lawmakers as the recipient of this email where Epstein said he, quote, loved the torture video. DP World did not respond to an ABC News request for comment. And the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer facing political pressure over his appointment and then later firing of his one time ambassador to the U.S. peter Mandelson, who emails show also corresponded with Epstein before he was appointed Ambassador. Mandelson was asked directly about the nature of his relationship with Epstein. The information now available
- [23:37]
A
makes clear that
- [23:38]
B
the answers he gave were lies. And Martha, President Trump this week defending his Attorney General's appearance in that fiery hearing, posting that she did, quote, Fantastic, Martha.
- [23:52]
A
Our thanks to Jay o'. Brien. I'm joined now by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky who helped lead the efforts to release the Epstein files. Good morning to you, Congressman. I would like your overall reaction to the hearing this week and Pam Bondi's performance. Combativeness.
- [24:10]
B
I don't think she did very well. She came with a book full of insults, one for each congressperson. She obviously had one for me. And you know, I've been there when Merrick Garland is there. Obviously politically I don't agree with him, but he performed much better in terms of at least not looking bad. And unfortunately we didn't get the answers we wanted about the Epstein files. Transparency act from her.
- [24:39]
A
Did you get any of the answers you wanted?
- [24:42]
B
No. But she did come off her script and engage with me about this production of documents where she admitted that 40 minutes after I pointed out to the DOJ that they had over redacted some of the documents, they did unredact those documents. So it's clear they've made mistakes in the document production. At least she acknowledges that tacitly and it's clear that their work is not done here yet.
- [25:08]
A
And I want to go to some of those unredacted files. You and Congressman Ro Khanna said names of some of the men who were redacted shouldn't have been redacted. They then sent that back to you. And two of them were not redacted. But on Friday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche accused you and Congressman Khanna of unmasking those people, saying they had nothing to do with Epstein or Maxwell. They were from an FBI lineup years ago. What's your response to that?
- [25:40]
B
Well, three hours before Todd Blanch himself unredacted those names, I told him in an X post, which I know he read, because he reposted it, that those may be men in a lineup. And then I went on TV and said, those may be men in a lineup. And it was actually the DOJ who released those names, which is fine, but they omitted the context that I provided, which is these may be men in a lineup. Now, there were two men who needed to be named, one of whom has already resigned. The Emirate Sultan resigned as a CEO of a very large company because we released his name. And there's another man, Leslie Wexner. I'll add him to the list with Jess Staley and Leon Black, who need to be investigated right now. They've appeared in these files. Leslie Wexner is the one who, you know, Pam Bondi said, oh, he's appeared thousands of times in these documents. We're not covering up anything. But I pointed out to her, they redacted his name from the one document that says child sex trafficking co conspirator. And my question is, who is the person at DOJ who redacted Leslie Wexner's name from a document titled child sex trafficking with co conspirator next to his name?
- [26:59]
A
And I want to say right now that Wexner denies and they say he was not a co conspirator. Wexner has a statement. The assistant U.S. attorney told Mr. Wexner's legal counsel in 2019 that Mr. Wexner was neither co conspirator nor target in any respect. Mr. Wexner cooperated fully by providing background information on Epstein and was never contacted again. But I'd like to move on if we can. Yesterday, the DOJ sent Congress a letter explaining the reason for all these reactions. So you are not satisfied with that?
- [27:31]
B
No. They're citing deliberative process privilege in order not to release some of the documents. The problem with that is the bill that Ro Khanna and I wrote says that they must release internal memos and notes and emails about their decisions on whether to prosecute or not prosecute, whether to investigate or not investigate. It's important they follow that, because then we could find why they didn't prosecute Leslie Wexner. What was the decision tree there? And also why in 2008 they gave Jeffrey Epstein such a light sentence? And finally, I know the DOJ wants to say they're done with this document production. The problem is they've taken down documents before. We were able to go over to the DOJ and look at the unredacted versions. They took down some of the most significant documents, two of them involving Virginia Giffre's case and other things. The picture of Epstein, a room where it got CIA written on the boxes that's been taken down. We want to be able to look at all these files. They can't keep those documents down after they've already produced them.
- [28:40]
A
I want to talk to you about one of the moments in the hearing, and that is the Attorney General would not look at the Epstein survivors behind her. Did that surprise you?
- [28:53]
B
I think that was kind of cold on her part. I think she was afraid to. And look, these survivors would love to have a meeting. It's not about Bill Clinton and it's not about Donald Trump. This Epstein Files Transparency act was about getting these survivors justice. We've got some degree of transparency, but it's called the Department of Justice, not the Department of Transparency. And so what these survivors need, they need to see some of their own 302 forms which haven't been released. And they also need to see some of the men that they've implicated, prosecuted.
- [29:28]
A
Do you still have confidence in Pam Bondi as Attorney General?
- [29:32]
B
I don't think Pam Bondi has confidence in Pam Bondi. She wasn't confident enough to engage in anything but name calling in a hearing. And so, no, I don't have confidence in her. She hasn't got any sort of accountability there at the doj. When I asked her specifically who redacted Leslie Wexner's name from the one document that mattered, she couldn't give me an answer. She wouldn't give me an answer. But ultimately, it's her who is responsible for the document production. According to our law, the Attorney General. It's not Todd Blanche. It's not the people below them. You can assign tasks to people, but you can't assign your responsibility.
- [30:11]
A
And just very quickly, if you will, you've supported most of what Donald Trump has done during his presidency, but because of your actions with these files, he is supporting your primary opponent and has waged very personal attacks on you. I know we just have a few seconds here, but just your reaction to that.
- [30:28]
B
Look, this is about the Epstein class, the people who are funding the attacks against me, they may or may not be implicated in these files, but they were certainly rubbing shoulders with the people who are in these files. They're billionaires who are friends with these people. And that's what I'm up against. In Washington, D.C. donald Trump told us that even though, you know, he had dinner with these kinds of people in New York City and West Palm beach, that he would be transparent. But he's not. He's still in with the Epstein class. This is the Epstein administration and they're attacking me for trying to get these files released.
- [31:05]
A
And again, I'm going to say President Trump has not been accused of anything criminal here. Thank you very much for joining us this morning, Congressman. We appreciate it.
- [31:14]
B
Thank you, Martha.
- [31:15]
A
The Roundtable weighs in on how long the latest partial government shutdown could last. We're back in a moment.
- [31:23]
B
I'm R.J. decker, the private investigator uncovering the Sunshine State's darkest secrets. Tuesdays, it's the premiere of ABC's hottest new crime show. RJ freaking Decker. As I live and breathe, he's a private eye. It's not a standard murder. Something bigger and a public mass trying to get some back to prison.
- [31:42]
A
Today.
- [31:43]
B
You go to prison one time and suddenly it's all the jokes. RJ Decker Series premiere Tuesdays on ABC and stream on Hulu ABC Wednesdays. The Emmy winning comedy Scrubs is all new. This is a whole new chapter for me. No more sad steps. That's what I'm talking about.
- [32:02]
A
I want both of our sacks to be fun.
- [32:04]
B
You two idiots are perfect for each other. From executive producers of Ted Lasso and Shrinking. We were all a part of this victory. Now get those nachos out of the preemie warmer. Nachos. Feels like there's more applause for the nachos than my speech. The new season of Scrubs Wednesdays, 8, 7 Central on ABC and stream on Hulu.
- [32:25]
A
I have proposed and President Trump has
- [32:27]
B
concurred that this surge operation concludes a
- [32:31]
A
significant drawdown has already been under away
- [32:33]
B
this week and we'll continue to the next week. I'm certainly not going to spike the football, but you're not going to hear me express any gratitude for the people who caused this unnecessary, unwarranted and in many cases unconstitutional assault on our state borders.
- [32:49]
A
Are Tom Homan and Governor Tim Walsh this week on the drawdown of ice operations in Minnesota. The Roundtable weighs in when we come back. I'm joined now by the Roundtable, Democratic strategist Faz Shakir, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, New Yorker staff writer Susan Glasser, and Republican strategist Matt Gorman. And good morning to all of you. And Chris, I want to start with this shutdown, the Homeland Security shutdown. They want. The Democrats want changes in the immigration enforcement. No masks, agents wearing body cameras. Republicans are balking at that. So how long does this last?
- [33:31]
B
Look, I don't think there's any political impetus for the Democrats to give in. You know, if, you know, ICE and Homeland Security is shut down, it's fine by them. And I don't think they have an impetus for this to end anytime soon. And so the question's going to be, do Republicans, you know, give in to pressure on some of those issues in order to get their operations back up and running in a full way? So. So I think, you know, in the last shutdown, there was incentives on both sides for them to get something done. This time. I don't think there's nearly as much of an incentive for the Democrats as there is for the Republicans. So the Republicans have to decide which of those issues do they find the least objectionable and how much do they have to give to get this back up and running.
- [34:17]
A
Fez, is it possible that the Democrats are overplaying their hand here?
- [34:20]
B
Well, I know the Democrats and Republicans want disaster relief, recovery. They want the airports to function. So functionally, of course, there's elements of the DHS and operations that you want to continue on. But I agree with Governor Christie that fundamentally they're on two different planes on ice. The big whale that right now isn't being fought over, that I think is the next Congress's major obstacle is 75 billion was given to ICE. They had opportunities, increased the staffing by 10,000 people. That's out of control. When you're cutting Medicaid and you're cutting food stamps. Why are we giving that much to one agency? The Democrats can't win that fight right now, but they have to tee it up for the next Congress such that that put us in charge and we can do this.
- [34:57]
A
And Susan, we just saw Tom Homan there, the border czar. Tom Homan, Operation Metro surge is coming to an end. Yeah, I mean, I think this is a really clear marker of overreach on the part of the administration. It's really remarkable to have seen that. Actually, it was the horrible video images we saw from Minnesota, the killings, the death of Alex Preddy and Renee. Exactly. But also so hundreds of everyday Minnesotans in the streets reacting, pushing back in a way that it appears the Trump administration had to do something that Donald Trump never does, which is to retreat, to push back. So one, are they going to apply this template of surging thousands of armed, masked federal agents into other cities? That's one question. The other question is, are Democrats going to lose some of the momentum as a result of the backlash to this and will that affect this shutdown debate here in Washington? And what do you think, Matt? A new AP north poll found 62% of Americans think the deployments of immigration agents to U.S. cities have gone too far. 60% now have an unfavorable view of ICE. So could it be in the administration's favor to stop that or to limit those?
- [36:12]
B
And it seemed like in President Trump's your bull interview, he seemed to talk about a lighter touch on some of these things, didn't talk about softer touch.
- [36:18]
A
Yeah.
- [36:18]
B
You know, one of the things I was really surprised about was the fact that Democrats took this two week stopgap back a couple weeks ago. That Thune offer. Right. I mean, three weeks ago this was a red hot issue and it broke through in a way that a lot of to normal voters in a way that a lot of Washington stories don't. And I was surprised. I mean look, two weeks is an eternity, especially in the Trump era of the media cycle. So look, we're going into a shutdown. ICE is already funded through the big beautiful bill and they're without an end game for Democrats. They have less leverage than they did three weeks ago when it was a red hot story. So I think this is gonna end in a lot of ways. Like the last shutdown ended when to Faz's at this point, the TSA starts having reverberations around spring break vacation. That starts affecting real folks.
- [36:59]
A
It's not, not so much is supposed to be happening right now because of the budget.
- [37:02]
B
Yeah, exactly. One of the things that did change in those two weeks is that you had Republicans peeling off from Donald Trump increasingly and of course on the recent tariffs vote on Canada. And I think you're going to see more of it certainly on Epstein, much more criticism of Trump. I would argue that politically you have a more likely possibility as we're moving into this period of time that there are Republicans who want to peel off from Trump. And I think too real quick, a lot of those lists of things, body cameras, a lot of them are in favor of it. I think they're just not willing to use the government shutdown as a maneuver on it.
- [37:32]
A
And Chris, I want to change to a Big story this week. And that was Mark Kelly and the others. A grand jury, Mark Kelly, they tried to get criminal charges against him and others for the video. A reminder, the video where they reminded lawmakers, reminded veterans or active duty military rather, that they do not have to follow illegal orders. That was it. That was the video. And they don't have to follow illegal orders. What's your reaction to that? They tried to get the grand jury to indict. Grand juries almost always indict. They didn't this time.
- [38:08]
B
Well, I want to put a couple things in perspective. Having done the job of U.S. attorney for seven years, in seven years that I was U.S. attorney in New Jersey and we were the third most productive district out of 93 in the country during those seven years. So we brought a lot of cases. We never once, not once in seven years were no billed by a grand jury, not once. So to try people, overwhelming majority are always because the prosecution just unanimity, unanimity. We never got no billed. Right. So why is that this false idea that grand juries, you can indict a ham sandwich. It's not true. And the Trump administration is proving that they're putting a bunch of ham sandwiches up there and the grand juries are not indicting them. The fact is that the previous Justice Departments before this one took very seriously bringing charges to a grand jury and asking to indict a fellow American. And what you're seeing now is absolutely the destruction of the credibility of the Justice Department with our judicial system. Judges are not giving the benefit of the doubt anymore to US Assistant US Attorneys when they come into court and worse yet with the public. And so the damage that gets done here by this just pure vendetta prosecution is long term and is going to be very, very difficult to fix over the course of the next decade.
- [39:34]
A
And Susan, also the military, Ptag said, went after Mark Kelly specifically as well, trying to reduce his rank in retirement, reduce his pay in requirement. But we had a Republican appointed federal judge temporarily blocking Hegseth from punishing the senator. And he ripped into Pete Hegseth saying basically he was trampling Kelly's First Amendment rights rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members. He said Secretary Hegseth and his fellow defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise. And the statement goes on. Well, that's right. And that judge said to the Defense Department's arguments, he said horse feathers, you know. But I think in a way, this remarkable thing of everyday Americans saying no to one of the excesses of the Trump administration. It shouldn't obscure the fact that I think a very significant line has been crossed by the administration here. There's only been one time, one time in American history that a member of Congress was sent to jail for speech and for speech criticizing a president of the United States. That was in 1798. Okay. And that was because of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which of course have been repealed and repudiated. That's not the modern world we live in of the First Amendment, which protects not only your and my right to criticize the president of the United States, but certainly members of Congress who also have the speech or debate clause of the Constitution. And I just think that we need to take a breath and realize that Donald Trump this week instructed his Justice Department to throw US Senators and House members in jail for the crime of criticizing him implicitly and telling service members that they don't have to pay illegal orders. This is a line. This is. I got to get your reaction to that.
- [41:24]
B
Yeah, look, I don't see the hegseth or Republicans stopping going on offense. I think they see themselves is they can win a fight on their base on this. But on the other end of this, both sides actually benefit from this fight because Kelly was somebody in the 2024 VP search, had no presence of personality. Suddenly he's been elevated. He has something to talk about and has a signature issue that he can own for the future as well.
- [41:45]
A
And just a final thought on that.
- [41:47]
B
I mean, this is not there authoritarian impulses of Donald Trump. And thankfully, the American public is increasingly angering and upset over this. Obviously, we've seen it play out in the way he's dealt with Epstein. There's a bubbling sense that he's lost the country and that gives me great hope.
- [42:03]
A
Okay, thanks to all of you. We're going to be right back with the war on the roundtable and a report on a critical change by the EPA on how the US addresses climate change. Stay with us
- [42:15]
B
from 30 for 30 podcasts.
- [42:23]
A
Did you say someone got shot? Brian Pata, senior defensive lineman from Miami,
- [42:28]
B
gunned down the key to this case. It's Brian. An hour before he died, he was on the phone arguing with somebody. This might be a hit. You want the truth? They just want a conviction.
- [42:40]
A
Being placed under arrest.
- [42:41]
B
We had a killer amongst us. Murder at the U. Listen now. Friends like these. The murder of Skyler Neese is now streaming on Hulu and Hulu on Disney911. Do you have an emergency? I have a 16 year old daughter can't get a hold of her. I am scared to death.
- [42:56]
A
We wanted to talk to Skyler's friends.
- [42:59]
B
They're not telling the full story. The truth is gruesomely horrific.
- [43:02]
A
How could you do this to your best friend?
- [43:05]
B
There's a darker secret that's not been said. Watch the new Hulu original series Friends like the Murder of Skylar Neese on Hulu and Hulu on Disney for bundle subscribers. Terms apply. Under President Trump's leadership today, the Trump EPA has finalized the single largest act of deregulation in the history of the
- [43:27]
A
United States of America.
- [43:29]
B
Referred to by some as the holy grail of federal regulatory overreach, the 2009 Obama EPA endangerment finding is now eliminated.
- [43:40]
A
That was Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announcing that the Trump administration is eliminating the landmark finding allowing the federal government to regulate climate change. Chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce reports on the fallout. In a sweeping move that scientists warn will impact generations to come, the Trump administration this week erased the scientific finding that greenhouse gases threaten human health and the environment, gutting the government's ability to regulate emissions and fight climate change.
- [44:12]
B
This is about as big as it gets, they tell me.
- [44:14]
A
The Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 endangerment finding gave the government authority to regulate greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane found in emissions from cars, power plants and factories, declaring they endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. That bedrock decision now gone.
- [44:37]
B
A disastrous Obama era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for American consumers.
- [44:46]
A
Former President Barack Obama firing back, saying Trump's repeal means we'll be less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change. Also, the fossil fuel industry can make even more money. But the White House touting this as the largest deregulation in U.S. history, claiming it will save over $1 trillion by eliminating emission standards for cars and trucks and paving the way for rollbacks for power plants and oil and gas refineries.
- [45:13]
B
What that means is lower prices, more choices, and an end of heavy handed climate policies.
- [45:20]
A
President Trump has long called climate change a hoax and campaigned on, quote, unleashing American energy.
- [45:27]
B
We're going to drill, baby, drill. Energy's coming way down.
- [45:30]
A
And on Inauguration Day, Trump signing an executive order directing his EPA to assess whether the regulation should be kept in place. Is this a decision based on science?
- [45:40]
B
No, this is definitely not a decision based on science. The science is clear. It's indisputable.
- [45:47]
A
Scientist Matthew Davis worked at the EPA under Democrats and Republicans. He says the change will have deadly consequences.
- [45:54]
B
We're going to see more pollution, so
- [45:56]
A
we'll see more heart attacks, more stroke, more asthma attacks. More people's lives will be cut short. The president with this message for Americans worried about that.
- [46:05]
B
Don't worry about it because it has
- [46:06]
A
nothing to do with public health.
- [46:08]
B
This was all a scam, giant scam.
- [46:11]
A
But major health organizations and several states have already vowed to sue over the repeal, setting up a legal battle that could very well end up before the Supreme Court. For this week, Mary Bruce, ABC News, the White House. Our thanks to Mary. So let's bring back the roundtable. And Faz, I want to start with you. You heard Mary saying the impacts of this reversal could last for generations.
- [46:34]
B
And you know this will be one of the hottest Januarys on record, despite the ice that you and I see out our window. I want to just make a point about this, that a lot of people don't know that data centers is one of the things that's driving this. The data centers accounted for about 40% of the U.S. economy last year, its growth. And Trump has been in the pockets with the big tech oligarchs and they want to develop all over the country and they want fossil fuels to burn heavily for their usage. And Trump is saying you got it, whatever you want, need. And of course, that leaves many communities out in the dust paying higher electric bills.
- [47:03]
A
By the way, Chris, this will almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court, a very different supreme court than in 2007 when they ruled that greenhouse gases are considered air pollution. So what happens here?
- [47:15]
B
Well, a few things. First off, I just have to say about the Obama administration, you know, live by the sword, die by the sword. You know, I think this was an extraordinary executive overreach at the time. And if you do it that way, then you're subject to having those things reversed when a different administration with a different philosophy comes in. And the other thing, as Barack Obama said, elections have consequences is the Supreme Court. And this is a much different Supreme Court. Now, they defer to executive authority. And if, you know, they defer to executive authority on a number of other issues, I think what you'll probably see here is they'll say that the executive has the ability to be able to rescind something like the endangerment finding.
- [47:56]
A
And Matt, is this something you believe Americans really want to see happen? We don't really have any polling, not that. But that has been our life for a very long time. And understanding that the climate is changing.
- [48:09]
B
Well, Look, I think the climate change movements at a nadir, we haven't seen in the last 30 years or so. I mean, I think a lot of factors contribute to that. The Washington Post wrote about this back in November 2025. I mean, there was a repeated moral urgency argument I think has fallen deaf. But also in this post Covid era where affordability is paramount among voters, it has been for the last five or six years when people are worried about energy prices and rent prices and inflation. That's in direct conflic with so much of the climate change movement. And who bears the brunt of this? Suburban voters, working class voters. And I think they did a lot to erode their moral standing. I mean, heck, even Greta Thunberg's more worried about Gaza and Cuba right now than on the environment. I think that says a lot to where the movement is at the moment.
- [48:49]
A
Susan, this is not just a domestic issue. The rest of the planet is looking at us as well. Yeah, well, that's right. I mean, on so many issues, you have the Trump administration sort of standing atop history, you know, saying, enough, you know, let's roll it back. And I think Trump in area after area is sort of saying, I want to undo many of what he sees as progressive gains. Over the last few years, the US has sort of abdicated any possible leadership role. The interesting question, of course, is, you know, what does it mean for the rest of the world? We don't live on the planet alone here. And I think our friends and neighbors are saying, well, first of all, can you trust America's word on anything? Because every four years or eight years, we're wildly veering back and forth between Barack Obama, you'll remember in the post Covid bill that was passed by Congress was touted as the largest green energy package ever in American history. Here we are just a few years later trying to undo all of that.
- [49:48]
B
Martha, I'll tell you, I'll tell you.
- [49:50]
A
I got about 10 seconds to this.
- [49:51]
B
I'll tell you this. China's not worried about it. They're not worried about the rest of the world. And so we shouldn't have to worry about it either.
- [49:57]
A
Okay, thanks to all of you. We'll see you again soon. We'll be right back. That's all for us today. Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Check out World News Tonight and have a great day. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile.
- [50:14]
B
I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying.
- [50:21]
A
It's not just for celebrities, so so
- [50:23]
B
do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com
- [50:30]
A
Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees, extra fee, full terms@mintmobile.com,.