MS NOW Highlights - June 1

[0:00] So back on Friday, a federal judge gave Donald Trump two weeks to basically erase his name from [0:06] the Kennedy Center, where it never belonged in the first place. The judge blocked Trump's plans [0:11] to shutter the Kennedy Center for what Trump had called a two-year, quote, complete rebuilding. [0:17] Trump was so mad, he posted twice about it on Saturday. He, of course, attacked the judge, [0:23] called him a, quote, anti-Trump hater and attempted to make the case for his own renovations and control [0:31] of the Kennedy Center, control that Donald Trump declared one day earlier he would relinquish [0:36] because the Kennedy Center, Trump said, is a, quote, failing institution. In reality, it was, [0:42] of course, Trump's control and politicization of the institution that brought on mass layoffs [0:48] and destruction and dozens of cancellations of performances, which are the lifeblood [0:53] of the Kennedy Center. But now, according to the Associated Press, this ruling [0:58] is bringing, quote, hope, hope to artists who had been alienated by Trump's takeover. [1:05] Joining our coverage, senior executive editor for Bloomberg Opinion, our political analyst, [1:09] Tim O'Brien, Congressman Crowe and Claire are still here. So you've joined at the perfect moment, [1:14] right? We've established that the corruption is catching up with Donald Trump. [1:18] And I think there's so much evidence in public view from the weekend that Trump is absolutely [1:26] out of his mind at all of these legal and political setbacks. [1:31] Because they're cutting to the core of who he is. And Donald Trump's corruption [1:35] and how craven Donald Trump is isn't just one facet of other things he's doing. It's central to who he [1:43] is. He has always been this person. And he hasn't been held fully accountable for any of it. He still [1:49] isn't. But at least you've had a little blip on the screen over the last couple of weeks of judges [1:55] becoming more assertive. Unfortunately, Republicans who are on their way out of Congress becoming more [2:01] assertive, but more assertive still. And he can't control any of that. And he's a megalomaniac and [2:08] he's a narcissist. And he's been putting his hands on all of these monuments because he wants to have [2:14] a permanence in Washington that he probably won't have. And when you look at the Kennedy Center [2:18] specifically, every president who has served didn't get monuments named for them until they were out of [2:27] office. And if you say Washington to Lincoln to FDR to Reagan, like consequential presidents, [2:33] whether you agree with them in the specifics of what they did, I think they felt they were [2:37] building something better and that they were serving the American people. None of that interests [2:43] Donald Trump. What is interest Donald Trump coming into office was what could he take out of it? How [2:48] could he pad his ego? And how could he pad his wallet? And in the Kennedy Center, it is such a overt, [2:55] like many recent things. But this particular act is such an overt effort on his part to associate [3:02] himself with a president who served in a war. Donald Trump actively sought, I think, five in all [3:10] deferrals so he wouldn't have to serve in Vietnam. And a president who died in the service of his country, [3:15] Donald Trump would never die in the service of anyone else ever. But he wants to be associated with [3:22] that. And now he's been denied that. And he's doing what toddlers do. He's lashing out because [3:27] he can't control the outcome. Opportunity. I saw someone said, you know, you should broadcast the [3:34] removal of his name from the, that there's already such a pent up desire to see the legal defeats [3:41] restore some of these institutions. It feels like we're not at that part of the story yet. He still, [3:47] to me, represents a pretty grave threat to our democracy. How do you view these legal defeats [3:52] or legal setbacks? Oh, absolutely he's a threat. I mean, we are as a country in a zone of danger [3:57] right now. Let's make no mistake about it. But at the same time, Donald Trump is a very weak and [4:03] fragile person. It's why he projects strength all the time. It's why he wants to build all these [4:08] monuments. It's what weak and fragile people do. If you're not strong and confident, if you need all [4:14] these tangible illustrations of your power, right? When you're in the military, you know, [4:19] the toughest, strongest, most competent soldiers are usually the quiet ones. The quiet professionals [4:24] is in fact the mantra of special operations. You don't talk about it. You don't have to pound your [4:29] chest or prove anything to anybody else. So he's weak. And I think the weaker and more fragile they [4:35] get, he gets actually the more dangerous he'll get. So we need to be more vigilant. But our first step [4:39] needs to be to deliver for folks. You know, elections are about contrast. Governing is about [4:44] a contrast. And we're trying to build a coalition right now. So what we have to do, if we get it in [4:48] the power, if the American people give us this opportunity, is to show that we are going to be [4:53] relentlessly focused on their needs. Let's lower costs. Let's end this reckless war in Iran. [4:58] Let's actually protect our military and our service members. Let's work towards balancing the budget. [5:03] And that will speak stronger than anything else that removes the name of Donald Trump. Although [5:09] we will do that. You do that like on a weekend. Claire, what opportunities do you see right now [5:15] for Democrats? Oh, I think there's a lot. Yeah. I mean, everybody needs to stay focused [5:20] on what Jason just was referring to and what we talked about at the top of the hour. [5:24] We need to do what Ossoff did in that speech. It has to be about you, not about the Democrats. [5:31] Frankly, the Democrats aren't very, neither party is very popular right now. [5:36] For totally different reasons, though, right? [5:38] No, I think for totally different reasons, but also for the same reason, and that is dysfunction. [5:43] Right. [5:43] Most people are not paying close attention to everything. They just know nothing's working. [5:48] Right. [5:49] And they know, they're beginning to figure out that Donald Trump is, you know, a con man and [5:53] somebody who's good at marketing and not much else. But if we don't make it about them [5:59] instead of us or even him, we will make a big mistake. And the discipline of doing that is hard [6:07] because a lot of the base wants nothing more than red meat about how Donald Trump sucks. [6:14] And so you've got to have enough discipline to stay on that message about the health insurance [6:19] costs, about rural hospitals closing, about input costs for farmers. [6:24] He sucks at gas prices. How's that? [6:25] He sucks at gas prices. All of that. But if we have that discipline, I think there is, [6:31] we have an opportunity to have an election that is going to be striking in the results that could [6:36] occur. [6:37] Yeah. It also feels like the debate of eight years ago, is it democracy or the economy? It feels [6:42] like it has been had. And people now see that anti-democratic practices where you don't listen [6:48] to the electorate destroying economy. Dead for now. Dead for now was the first report today [6:56] about Donald Trump's slush fund of $1.776 billion that he was planning to give to people [7:04] who were convicted of crimes against the United States of America in their attack on the Capitol [7:11] on January 6th, 2021, to try to overturn a presidential election for Donald Trump, to try to kill police [7:17] officers on the way to doing that and to try to kill the vice president of the United States [7:21] while they were at it. Donald Trump wanted those people to get money from the federal government. [7:27] And now, dead for now, dead for now, through Donald Trump's criminal insurgency group that [7:38] attacked the Capitol on January 6th. Dead for now are the words of an unnamed White House source [7:45] who told Mark Caputo at Axios, it's dead for now. [7:50] But for the Democrats in Congress opposing the Trump slush fund, it is not dead enough. [7:57] And very much to Donald Trump's surprise, I'm sure. In fact, I'm sure he doesn't realize this [8:02] even now. It is not dead enough for Donald Trump either. It's still alive enough to cause Donald Trump [8:11] serious legal problems now of his own. Because the incompetent buffoons around Donald Trump who call [8:19] themselves lawyers in the Trump Justice Department and in the White House and the lawyers who represent [8:23] Donald Trump personally, they, because they have appeared to have wildly outsmarted themselves [8:30] in putting Donald Trump in serious legal trouble now with a federal judge, the kind of legal trouble [8:37] that Donald Trump's Supreme Court did not spare him from in their decision granting Donald Trump [8:43] criminal immunity for possible crimes that he might commit as president. [8:47] The Supreme Court didn't foresee this situation and couldn't protect him from it. [8:53] The Trump slush fund, accompanied by a Justice Department promise that the IRS would never [8:59] be allowed to investigate any possible Trump tax crimes that Donald Trump and his family may [9:05] have committed up to now, was the single most preposterous development in Donald Trump's [9:12] litigation history, which is full of preposterous developments. [9:16] And now it looks like the Trump lawyers on all sides of that one went way too far. [9:25] Donald Trump pushed it so far that Republicans turned against him in the House and in the Senate. [9:31] And the Republican Speaker of the House reportedly told Donald Trump today that the Republican [9:35] House would vote against Donald Trump's slush fund settlement if it comes to a vote in the [9:40] House. And so it's dead for now, which means that Donald Trump's political power in the [9:46] House of Representatives is also dead for now. Donald Trump's political power in the Senate [9:51] on this issue was already known to be dead. The Senate Republican leader, John Thune, had [9:58] said all along that the Trump slush fund was not a good idea. And as time went on, John Thune [10:03] became more and more clear that he personally was against it. And then Chuck Schumer promising [10:08] to bring up votes in the Senate on Donald Trump's slush fund. Last week, Republicans in the Senate [10:14] in a private meeting attacked Donald Trump's acting attorney general, who used to be Donald [10:20] Trump's criminal defense lawyer, Todd Blanche, who created the Trump slush fund. Those Republicans [10:27] in the room, some of them said that it was the harshest questioning of an administration [10:32] official that they have ever seen in any closed meeting in the Senate. But it's already too late for [10:40] Donald Trump to easily kill the $1.776 billion political monster that he created. It's too [10:50] late. Senate Majority Leader John Thune was not satisfied today with unnamed White House [10:56] staffers saying it's dead for now. [10:59] Does the administration need to be, if they drop this, that it's not coming back so that [11:06] those Republicans who were skeptical during that briefing feel okay, wasn't to proceed? [11:11] That would be, that would be the ideal outcome. [11:13] The ideal outcome is dead forever. There's the Republican Senate leader John Thune saying [11:23] the ideal outcome is for Donald Trump to come out and officially say it is dead, not just for now, [11:29] it is dead and never coming back. And while he was at it, John Thune said the other thing that is [11:34] dead in the Republican United States Senate is the Trump ballroom. What Senator John Ossoff this [11:41] weekend called the Jeffrey Epstein Memorial ballroom. I think that the confining the bill to its original intent, which was a very narrowly focused reconciliation bill that just stresses the funding for those two agencies is the clearest path to ultimately getting a bill on the president's desk. [12:09] So no, the Trump ballroom will not be in the Republican reconciliation bill. John Thune saying the [12:17] Republican Senate will not be voting for the billion dollars Donald Trump wants from them for what Senator [12:26] Ossoff will be calling the Jeffrey Epstein Memorial ballroom if a vote on the Trump ballroom occurs on the floor of the Senate. [12:34] Donald Trump is politically radioactive now and Republicans in the House and Senate know it. The Republicans in the House and the Senate know that their worst enemy in the coming elections in November is Donald Trump. [12:49] And Democrats in the Senate and the House have reason to believe that the enormity of Donald Trump's corruption and the corruption in his administration is getting through to voters and could build, be a decisive issue in November. [13:06] And the problem for Donald Trump and Republicans is that even if Donald Trump comes out right now and says the magic words that John Thune wants him to say that the Trump slush fund is dead and dead forever and the ballroom is dead with it. [13:23] It is now beyond Donald Trump's powers to stop the investigation of his slush fund that two federal judges have undertaken with one judge ordering a hearing on the subject next week on June 12th. [13:40] That is the federal judge in Virginia who last week ordered a complete stop to any and all activity involving the establishment or operating of the Trump slush fund. [13:49] But the possibly more difficult legal problem for Donald Trump now is that Judge Kathleen Williams in the Southern District of Florida is using her unique power as a federal judge to investigate not just Donald Trump's lawyers at the Justice Department and Donald Trump's personal lawyers, but also Donald Trump himself. [14:12] Donald Trump filed his case against the internal revenue service in federal court in the Southern District of Florida in the hope of getting one of those Trump friendly Florida federal judges down there, which can happen because judges are randomly assigned. [14:30] Instead, Donald Trump got Judge Kathleen Williams, who was appointed to the federal court by President Barack Obama. [14:36] And last week, in response to a motion by a group of former federal judges to reopen the Trump case against the IRS to investigate the legitimacy of the so-called settlement of that lawsuit, the judge decided to do exactly that. [14:55] Saying that something extremely threatening to Donald Trump's acting attorney general and to Donald Trump was possible here. [15:05] The judge wrote, a court is empowered to investigate serious misconduct as a collateral issue within the purview of rule 11 and determine whether an attorney has abused the judicial process. [15:21] It is very clear that attorneys abused the judicial process in this case, and so all of those attorneys are in serious trouble tonight. [15:29] The judge said under rule 11, a court may impose sanctions on a lawyer for advocating a frivolous position, pursuing an unfounded claim or filing a lawsuit for some improper purpose. [15:44] The Trump lawyers, the Trump lawyers, the Trump lawyers, the Trump lawyers know that a White House source simply telling Axios that it's dead for now does not get them out of trouble with this federal judge. [15:55] But the next line of the judge's order on Friday is a direct threat to Donald Trump himself. [16:04] Donald Trump is not a lawyer in the case who can be disciplined as a lawyer, but Donald Trump is a party to the case. [16:13] He is the party in the case. He is the party who actually brought the case against the Internal Revenue Service, giving the case the title Donald J. Trump versus Internal Revenue Service. [16:26] And about Donald J. Trump, the judge wrote this, a party's decision to file a frivolous lawsuit for the sole purpose of forcing a settlement may qualify as such an improper abuse. [16:42] If a party files a lawsuit for an improper purpose, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on the responsible party. [16:56] So here is a federal judge who now has the power, depending on the outcome of her investigation, to impose a penalty on Donald Trump for doing all of this. [17:08] The judge gave Donald Trump until June 12th next week to answer this question in writing, quote, of whether the case should be reopened because the court was the victim of a fraud. [17:27] Former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuaid will join us later in this hour to consider what's coming for Donald Trump in court because of the legally perverse and obviously indefensible so-called settlement. [17:40] Donald Trump's former criminal defense lawyer forced the Justice Department to make with his former criminal client, Donald Trump. [17:48] The stink of it all has reached the point where Senator John Ossoff this weekend could refer to the whole complex of Trump corruption as the Mar-a-Lago mafia. [18:01] And it is too late for someone in the White House to simply declare Donald Trump's slush fund dead for now. [18:07] It's too late for Donald Trump to reverse the overwhelming image of corruption on a previously unimaginable scale in the presidency. [18:16] Hey, do you remember this little guy? His name is Greg Bovino. [18:21] He led Donald Trump's chaotic, violent, inept paramilitary invasions of multiple U.S. cities until he was fired a couple of months ago. [18:29] Mr. Bovino has been spending his retirement lamenting that he was not able to achieve his personal dream of deporting nearly a third of the U.S. population. [18:40] He's also posted photos like this one on social media. He posted that on social media. [18:46] He posted that photo just before jetting off to a white supremacist conference in Portugal this weekend. [18:52] He was the special guest at a gathering of European far, far, far-right politicians and activists who advocate for making Europe more white. [19:03] Bovino appeared before a giant photo of himself in the 1930s German-style greatcoat he apparently made for himself to wear on the job. [19:13] He told the assembled fascists in Portugal that the United States and Europe have, quote, [19:17] the same problems and the same solutions. [19:20] Last fall, when that tiny terror was leading the Trump administration's attack on Chicago, [19:27] Trump's federal prosecutors, you might remember, they charged a local Chicago man, a Chicago carpenter, [19:34] with plotting to kill Greg Bovino. [19:37] Trump's DOJ said that this man had put out a hit on Greg Bovino, had offered cash to anybody who would kill him. [19:44] Bovino said it was just more evidence of how terrible things are in terrible Chicago. [19:47] He called the city a war zone. [19:48] But, you know, interestingly enough, that case immediately fell completely apart. [19:54] After multiple court rulings that prosecutors were trying to say stuff in court about the defendant that they had no evidence to back up, [20:01] the jury in the case proceeded to acquit the defendant in less than three hours. [20:06] That pitiful failed case was run out of the U.S. attorney's office for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. [20:14] The case just fell apart completely, which is important to know because everything is falling apart in that particular U.S. attorney's office right now. [20:22] At the center of the collapse is the office's case against the so-called Broadview Six. [20:28] Federal prosecutors initially indicted six people for protesting outside the ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois. [20:34] They charged them with felony conspiracy. [20:36] But then things started going wrong quickly. [20:39] They dropped the charges quickly against two of the defendants. [20:43] Then they paired back some of the charges against the remaining four. [20:47] That made defense attorneys start to wonder what was going on. [20:50] Defense attorneys demanded to see the grand jury transcripts, which would show how prosecutors got a grand jury to indict these defendants in the first place. [20:57] Rather than turn over those transcripts, the U.S. attorney's office instead just dropped the remaining felony charge altogether, saying, okay, now you don't need to see the grand jury stuff, right? [21:09] The defense attorneys at that point could have just celebrated having all the charges dropped, but they decided they really wanted to get to the bottom of what was going on. [21:16] The judge eventually agreed with the defense attorney's requests, and she ordered prosecutors to hand over the grand jury transcripts. [21:24] It was quickly clear why they'd been trying to keep them hidden. [21:29] Upon reviewing those transcripts, the judge said, quote, I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of grand jury transcripts. [21:36] I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts. [21:43] She accused the U.S. attorney's office not just of all that misbehavior, but of trying to hide that misbehavior from her by initially giving her a redacted version of the transcripts that hid the worst stuff that they had done. [21:58] Well, upon getting dressed down by the judge that way, the U.S. attorney's office then dropped all the charges, all the felonies, all the misdemeanors. [22:04] And the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in that city has been flailing ever since, saying he wasn't personally aware of any of the misconduct, saying he took action as soon as he heard about it. [22:14] He's announcing sweeping new reforms to his office. [22:18] But against his denials, one of the Broadview Six defense attorneys, a man named Chris Parenti, says the U.S. attorney himself is a big part of the problem here. [22:27] Parenti accuses the U.S. attorney of having had contact with the grand jurors himself. [22:32] If true, that's basically a catastrophe for that federal prosecutor's office. [22:40] The U.S. Justice Department under Donald Trump has cratered. [22:44] It's basically gone. [22:46] But in Chicago specifically, what's going on there right now could result in potentially one of the biggest federal prosecution scandals ever in the history of this country. [22:56] And that's saying something for Chicago specifically, let alone for the country, but I mean it, for the whole country. [23:01] Joining us now is Chris Parenti, attorney for one of the Broadview Six, former federal prosecutor himself. [23:07] Mr. Parenti, I really appreciate you making time to be here. [23:09] Thank you. [23:11] Thanks for having me on, Rachel. [23:12] So, this case is not over, despite the fact that all the charges against your client and all his co-defendants have been dismissed. [23:21] You're continuing to push on this issue of alleged misconduct by the federal prosecutors here. [23:26] The judge says she's going to entertain briefings on whether this was a vindictive prosecution. [23:32] What should we expect to keep happening here, and why are you still pushing? [23:36] We're still pushing, Rachel, because, again, the government picked the wrong six people here to go after, right? [23:41] These are six people who were out there at that Broadview facility protesting for the rights of the undocumented that were being abused by our government. [23:48] So, they were willing to risk their own finances, their own freedom to fight for those people. [23:53] And they are willing to see this through until the end because they realized how important this case is, right? [23:59] What this case has done is it allowed us to see what goes on in secret inside these grand jury rooms. [24:04] Over the past week or two, I heard Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on these news shows telling people, [24:11] hey, it might look like DOJ's, you know, returning political indictments against Mr. Comey and Don Lemon and the Southern Poverty Law Center. [24:19] But don't worry, it's not us. It's the grand jury, right? [24:22] That's the official word here. [24:24] But if his prosecutors are corrupting that grand jury process, and I can assure you they are because we've seen these transcripts, [24:30] then all of that falls away, right? [24:32] Because then you can't—the grand jury is just being bulldozed by federal prosecutors who are acting in an unethical way. [24:39] And the behavior that we saw in our grand jury is—it's appalling. [24:43] As a former federal prosecutor, I have never seen anything like this. [24:47] The federal prosecutor went in there and personally vouched for the indictment. [24:52] She threw out grand jurors who voiced dissent, right? [24:55] That's one way to get an indictment done. [24:56] Oh, you don't like it? [24:57] Then get out of the room. [24:58] And she had contact with the grand jury outside of the grand jury room, which you can't do. [25:02] So if that's what they're doing to get these cases, these political cases, and the Broadview 6 case was a political case, [25:09] and we're convinced it was directed from the White House or the Trump administration, [25:13] if they're willing to have prosecutors act in such an unethical way in a room where there is nobody—there's no judge, there's no defense attorney, [25:20] it is built on trust that the Department of Justice will have its prosecutors do the right thing. [25:26] If that trust erodes, then the whole system collapses, and that's why all six defendants in the Broadview 6 case [25:33] are willing to continue to push this fight forward, because they want the sunlight to expose what this Department of Justice [25:39] is having their prosecutors do behind closed doors. [25:42] I'm really glad that you explained it that way. [25:44] I feel like that's part of the reason that I've been so interested in this case and in the other cases [25:49] where misconduct before the grand jury has been alleged. [25:54] I mean, again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me like us non-lawyers in the country really need to get our heads [26:01] around this particular problem, because if they are lying to the grand jury, if they are engaging in misconduct [26:09] before the grand jury, what that means in non-legalese is that they can bring criminal cases, they can bring charges, [26:18] they can potentially arrest and jail people on the basis of nothing. [26:22] And they can do it to all of their political opponents, to whole classes of people. [26:27] If the grand jury system falls apart because they are abusing it, because they are behaving behind closed doors [26:32] in ways that aren't what they're supposed to be doing under the judicial system, [26:36] it really kicks the door wide open to mass arrests of their political opponents. [26:41] Now, the judge acceding to your request to look at these grand jury transcripts, [26:47] recognizing and being so stern with the U.S. Attorney's Office here after what they did, [26:51] what kind of penalties are possible here? What kind of punishment is possible here? [26:57] How can this U.S. Attorney's Office, how can any of these prosecutors' offices [27:00] be sort of brought back under the right side of the law if judges decide to do that? [27:06] Yeah, we are hopeful. I mean, this judge was deceived by the U.S. Attorney's Office for seven months. [27:11] I can—my view of this is she is angry, right? For seven months. And keep in mind, [27:15] she came out of that office, as I did, is right. And I think she didn't see it because you don't [27:19] want to see it. You want to believe that that U.S. Attorney's Office, the Chicago U.S. Attorney's [27:23] Office, which is known around the country as being one of the preeminent offices in this country, [27:29] you don't want to see that they're doing things the wrong way or they're doing—they're putting, [27:34] you know, not just their finger on their scale, but their entire body on the scale for this one, [27:38] right? And you don't want to see that. And now that at the end of this, right, she saw it, [27:43] right? And the government tried to hide it. They, like—they were ordered to turn over transcripts, [27:48] and what they did is they redacted certain parts and they removed pages, right? You would never do that [27:53] with something that's only going to the court, right? You redact things that'll be on a public docket, [27:56] social security numbers, birthdays, names, things that are just going to a judge in her chambers. [28:01] You wouldn't redact anything. But someone in that office, and maybe more than one person, [28:05] sat down and literally crossed out all of this misbehavior that I just described for you that [28:10] occurred there and took out pages and didn't tell the court. So, you know, everyone is thinking that [28:15] the office is acting with that presumption of regularity that the department is usually entitled [28:19] to. But as we tried to argue to the court, judge, that's gone. And it's not just for what's happened in [28:24] Chicago. You see it across the country. This Department of Justice has mailed it in on doing [28:30] things the right way. And now it's time for judges like her and judges across the country to say, [28:35] I'm not going to allow this. We have now seen what you're doing behind closed doors, [28:39] and the American people need to see it. Because if you're doing it here in Chicago, [28:43] I guarantee you they're doing it in every other office because they're getting pressured to put [28:48] through these indictments that no grand jury, if you didn't put your finger on the scale, [28:51] would indict. And keep in mind, in our case, the grand jury voted no. And it shows how relentless [28:56] this department is. Even when the grand jury, who almost never says no, voted no against this [29:00] indictment, they went back the next week and engaged in more misconduct to get this across [29:04] the finish line. That's the scary part. Yeah. And judges around the country, in Chicago and around [29:10] the country, sort of getting up on their hind legs and saying no to this, exposing it, acknowledging [29:15] that it's happening and saying we're going to put a stop to it could be, I think, a whole new phase [29:20] in Trumpism and in what this administration is doing and even tries to do. Chris Parenti, [29:27] former federal prosecutor, attorney for one of the Broadview Six. Mr. Parenti, thank you so much [29:31] for your time. Please keep us surprised. I'd love to have you back. Will do. Thank you, Rachel. [29:36] All right. Let's talk to Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. He serves on the [29:40] Foreign Relations and Appropriations Committees, also the author of the new book, [29:44] Crisis of the Common Good, The Fight for Meaning and Connection in a Broken America. I want to get to [29:51] the book in a moment, but let us start with this anti-weaponization fund. A couple of things [29:57] happening right now. Senator Jackie Rosen says she's going to introduce bills to redirect the [30:02] money for this fund towards SNAP, Medicaid, and public safety programs. There's another attempt at [30:09] 6 p.m. today by Senators Schiff, Kelly, and Slocken to block this fund. What do you want to do? [30:16] Well, I think the fund is illegal. I don't think it's going to be able to go forward, but [30:20] we clearly have the chance to put Republicans on record. As you know, they want to pass this big [30:26] immigration funding bill. That bill is open for amendments, and we're definitely going to have [30:32] several amendments to block this fund from going forward. The courts are probably going to weigh in [30:37] increasingly definitively here. The president of the United States cannot just reach his hands into [30:43] the Treasury and scoop out $1.8 billion to pay off police beaters, but we'll double up on those [30:50] legal efforts and put Republicans on the record. I don't know that they want to vote in favor of this [30:55] because this has captured the country's attention in a way that some of his other corruption schemes [31:00] haven't. People get this, and they know how deeply immoral it is. Why do you think they get it? [31:06] I think it's happening right at the same time that these prices are going up and up and up, [31:11] and they're all being caused by Donald Trump. And so I think people are like, right now, [31:15] as they go to fill their gas tanks up, saying to themselves, like, wait a second, it seems like [31:20] the only thing he's working on are schemes to enrich himself or to support himself politically. He's [31:26] doing nothing to end the war in Iran. He's doing nothing about gas prices. So this one's pretty [31:31] simple to understand, just giving himself your taxpayer dollars. But it also happens at a time when [31:36] people think he should be working on problems that they're facing. [31:40] So you're going to have the Secretary of State Marco Rubio in front of you tomorrow. You're going [31:43] to see him twice talking about the war, both in foreign relations and appropriations. [31:49] The president is really confusing about where we are with this war. Today, he said, [31:57] yeah, today, he said, I don't care. I couldn't care less about the idea of negotiations falling apart. [32:03] Forty-two minutes later, after this CNBC interview where he said that, he posts this on his Truth [32:10] Social. Talks are continuing at a rapid pace with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Is this intentional [32:16] for him to be all over the place? Is it a negotiating tactic? What is your sense as a person on foreign [32:23] relations about what exactly is going on? Well, I know one thing for sure. It's definitely not a [32:30] negotiating tactic. I mean, this is a guy who's kind of losing his mind. And he's, you know, barely [32:37] awake during the day. He is obsessive over the ballroom. He's not spending any time trying to end [32:43] the war. I mean, they have no plan to end the war because they basically made a bet at the beginning [32:49] of the war. Netanyahu and a handful of Iran hawks convinced them that if they bombed Iran for a couple [32:55] days, the regime would fall and some pro-America, pro-Israel regime would take its place. That's [33:01] what they thought was going to happen. And when that didn't happen, they literally had no plan B. [33:06] And so that's why they are fumbling. That's what we need to find out tomorrow. Like, what is the plan? [33:13] Is there any chance this war is ending anytime soon? Or are we going to be sitting on $9 a gallon [33:18] gasoline this fall? So far, it appears they have no plan. It feels like they went into the war [33:24] with no plan. Donald Trump is just not engaged on a daily basis. And hopefully, Rubio will be able [33:30] to articulate how they're going to get out of this war. But I don't think he is because I don't [33:34] think they have any idea how to get that done. What should happen? I mean, we have already bombed [33:40] Iran. The goal was to get regime change. It didn't happen. The goal was to stop their ability to [33:48] produce enriched uranium. Maybe that's happened for a moment. Who knows how long? But they haven't [33:55] gotten to a settlement on that. And to stop the missile program and to stop the proxies. [34:02] Can Donald Trump really achieve those through a negotiation? Or is there—are we at a point [34:10] where we have to continue this war? What is your best assessment of what to do next? [34:14] Well, neither a war nor a negotiation will get what Donald Trump wants. And that is just the [34:19] reality. Why? Because these guys are incompetent. It is like you have fifth graders running your [34:24] national security policy. So no, Iran is now more powerful than ever. They took America's best shot [34:30] and they survived. They have additional leverage because they control the strait. So a negotiation is [34:35] not going to get you anything better than Obama's deal. The war is not going to stop Iran's nuclear [34:41] program or their missile program or their drone program. So the solution here is simple. [34:46] Donald Trump has to announce that we are permanently stopping military operations. [34:50] And after he does that, Iran will likely reopen the strait and we will at least have a chance to [34:56] have gas prices come down. But the two paths you mentioned, starting to bomb again, doesn't get [35:02] you anywhere. We're going to be paying a toll though, right? So does that mean gas prices are going to [35:07] stay up because of the toll that's going to get put on likely on these ships? [35:11] Right. But there's no, I mean, listen, this is kind of like breaking a raw egg in front of you and [35:17] then being asked what your plan is to put it back together. These guys have broken the world economy. [35:22] They've just broken it. And the best case scenario right now is for them to step out of the way and [35:29] probably allow for the Gulf states or the Europeans to come in and try to put it back together to try to [35:35] negotiate with the Iranians so that there isn't some permanent toll. These guys are making it worse [35:41] day after day after day. You know, it's kind of like if you're, if your kid, if you found your kid [35:45] having disassembled your entire vacuum cleaner, like you wouldn't put the kid in charge of [35:51] reassembling it. You would bring it to a professional. That's what we have to do now. These guys are just [35:58] a mess and we need to end the war. These guys aren't going to be able to fix it. The kid may be a very [36:02] stable genius. In that case, you might let him keep it. I want to ask you about the Democratic [36:07] Party. I don't know if you listened to the last conversation, but the knock on the party right [36:10] now is that they're, they're very anti-Trump. They're, they're going after him as, as John [36:14] Ossoff is for the slush fund, for not taking care of the American public for gas prices. You just [36:18] mentioned that. But the knock on the party is that they don't have a big idea for what they stand [36:23] for and what they want to do. You have a book out assessing the problems in America. You talk about [36:28] the six cults. What is your, like, what's your conclusion? What's the solution for how we get [36:35] out of this? Yeah. So this book is about the crisis that came before Donald Trump. Donald Trump is the [36:41] main character, but this country has been falling apart spiritually for a long time. People are more [36:46] unhappy. They are more lonely than they have been in a generation. And this book talks about that [36:52] spiritual crisis and what we have to do to make people feel happy and powerful again. And it's not [36:58] beating Donald Trump. That's essential, but it's not actually the complete story. Let me give you [37:04] an example of how this ties into the democratic agenda. People feel powerless today. They really [37:08] do in the economy, but also in our politics. They think our politics is bought off by billionaires [37:14] and corporations and they're right. And that makes them feel pretty lonely when they wake up in the [37:19] morning to have no voice in their government. So I would love for the Democrats to make the eradication [37:25] of billionaire and corporate money, like a number one or number two issue to say that if you elect us [37:29] on day one, we're going to pass everything that we can to crack down on the billionaire's control of [37:35] government, like forcing disclosures of all of their contributions, ending insider trading in Congress. [37:42] Those are the kinds of things that are good policy, but they also speak to the spiritual crisis [37:46] in the country where people feel like they are out of control of their lives. We need to create, [37:52] as I argue, a common good economy where profit isn't the only thing that matters, [37:56] but also a common good government. And Democrats could start on that agenda by saying, [38:01] if you elect us, our number one priority is going to be purging corporate and billionaire [38:05] influence from our politics. That's something we could be for. [38:09] I want to just end with Graham Plattner. I know you've already talked about it, but I'm curious [38:14] if you think the issues that he's facing and he's combating are larger than the scandals that he's [38:21] faced. And there've been a lot of scandals now. Why don't you think voters care, I guess, [38:28] about all of these scandals in the Democratic Party? Are we entering a new era where it's not [38:34] so much about the mistakes you've made and maybe the imperfections in your personal life, to put it [38:41] nicely, and more about being authentic and honest? I mean, is that what we should take away from [38:49] Graham Plattner not cratering in the polls on the Democratic primary? [38:54] Yeah, I don't know. It's a good question. I haven't seen what Plattner has said about [38:57] these latest disclosures, but I did see what he said about the things he had posted on Reddit. [39:02] Some of them were offensive, but he was really honest about the place that he was in his life [39:08] when those things happened, about his remorse. And I think the reason that he is still leading in [39:15] the polls by a wide margin in Maine is because he is flawed and he's been honest about that. [39:22] But character also comes in how you stand up to corruption, how you stand up to a country that [39:28] is being bought. And I think people see him as somebody that has been pretty honest about the [39:33] big things we need to do to fix our country. He's running against somebody that seems to have [39:37] enabled corruption. And that contrast seems to really matter in Maine right now. [39:43] All right. Senator Chris Murphy, really good to have you. Congrats on the new book. Again, [39:47] there are six cults. Do you address them all? And ways to break free of them. Appreciate your time, [39:52] sir. Thank you. Let's bring in MSNOW senior reporter Josh Einiger, who is live outside the [39:58] Delaney Hall facility in Newark, and Veronica Cardenas, former ICE assistant chief counsel. [40:04] Josh, paint the scene for us. What happened overnight and what is going on behind you right now? [40:11] Well, Ariel, you see a lot of traffic moving around behind me. We're at a very industrial [40:15] intersection. The actual facility Delaney Hall is down. Well, now there's a truck in the way, [40:20] but there's a barricade that's keeping people about a half mile away. And of course, [40:24] it's causing a bit of a traffic mayhem in this part of Newark as well because of all that, [40:28] which actually speaks to the bigger picture of how disruptive all of these things have been [40:32] all across the country. Last night, several dozen people were led away in handcuffs after [40:38] protests got tense once again, as the police, the Newark police and the New Jersey state police were [40:44] expanding a perimeter to comply with the curfew that the mayor of Newark set for nine o'clock last [40:50] night. As local authorities try to take control of this situation and prevent ICE from emerging from [40:56] the facility and doing it themselves. Here's how the governor described the point behind all of this. [41:02] We've set out to do three things here to protect everyone's first amendment rights to protest [41:10] peacefully, to prevent ICE from surging into our communities and putting New Jerseyans at risk [41:16] and to ensure that people held at Delaney Hall are treated with dignity and according to our [41:22] constitution. Together, we're accomplishing those things. And I won't let anyone derail that mission. [41:28] We're making progress. ICE is behind the facility's gate and not on our streets. [41:36] Very small handful of protesters here right now. In fact, they're outnumbered by police and press [41:41] as local leaders hope it stays that way and things stay calm for the day. Arielle? [41:46] I'm sure they do. And Josh, you know, you saw Mikey Sherrill kind of walking that line there. [41:50] She's been in a tough spot all week. State police took over for ICE on Friday and DHS Secretary [41:56] Mullen thanked her for that. But still full access to that facility has been pretty spotty. What's the [42:02] status of the demands that the governor has made to get inside that facility and to improve the [42:07] conditions there? Well, so visitation, Arielle, is once again being allowed for family members of [42:14] some of the detainees inside. Also, congressional delegations, Hakeem Jeffries, was able to go visit [42:21] yesterday and conduct some degree of oversight. But I think to your point, Arielle, [42:25] Cheryl is really, as you say, she is walking this very fine line. You've seen elsewhere in the [42:31] country when ICE has come in or at ICE facilities in California, when they have ended up doing the [42:37] crowd control outside their facility, that's when things have gotten especially ugly. And we saw that [42:44] at the beginning of this little flashpoint in the last week or so here in Newark. And that is why the [42:50] governor decided to send in the state police to try to sort of create a buffer so that at least [42:54] she knew that trained professional law enforcement would be able to take charge of the situation out [43:01] here. Josh Einiger, thank you, as always, for your reporting. And Veronica, who does actually [43:06] have the oversight authority over privately run federal detention centers like this one? [43:12] It is Congress, state and local officials to ensure that they're meeting laws in New Jersey and [43:17] the state. And the fact that they are not allowing that oversight to occur puts a lot of question [43:24] marks in what is actually going on. So this has been going on since last year, where state and local [43:29] officials have been trying to get in to really look at the conditions because there were issues about [43:35] whether these facilities were safe, whether they were complying. And it seems like now that detainees [43:42] are actually speaking out about it. They have this hunger strike and also a labor strike that the [43:48] attention is on this facility now. Veronica, we have detainees being arrested during a legally filed [43:54] hunger strike. And we saw a senator caught in pepper spray last week. At what point could ICE or [44:01] facility owners face legal exposure and do these actions at some point constitute a civil rights [44:06] violation? And that is a really great question. And I would like to see New Jersey to be a little bit [44:12] more aggressive in what they could do in the courts. First of all, the detainees, they are on a labor [44:18] strike. They're expected to cook, to clean, do laundry, perform maintenance for a dollar a day [44:24] for the entire day, despite how many hours they work. GEO is a for-profit company, and they're making [44:30] over millions of dollars unjustly because they're relying on detainees' forced labor, essentially. [44:38] They state it's voluntary, but they always fear retaliation if they don't comply. And so [44:45] other states like Seattle, Washington, they actually sued GEO company for this unjust enrichment, [44:54] and they did win a settlement in those cases. So looking to see where the legal avenues are [45:01] to hold this for-profit company accountable. Another thing that is important, and I have been [45:08] talking to my clients who are in Delaney. They've called me. There was an altercation last week where [45:14] there was, you know, pepper spray, and people were coughing, and some people were injured. And so [45:22] looking to see who these people are that are enforcing that or hurting the detainees, getting the names of [45:30] the name tags, because if it's ICE, that may be a little bit harder. But if it's a contractor working [45:35] for GEO, they don't have the same protections. Veronica Cardenas, thank you so much for your insight.