MS NOW Highlights - May 12

[0:01] Shortly after joining Indiana, Kurt, who's Kurt? Kurt Cignetti. Where is Kurt Cignetti? [0:10] Huh? Oh, come here. Come here. Kurt Cignetti. [0:15] Hi again, everybody. Nothing says America is back. Our president is fine. Like a president who [0:25] doesn't know who's standing next to him. That bizarre episode with the national champion [0:31] Indiana Hoosiers football team came one day ahead of Donald Trump's really important high stakes [0:37] trip to China. Donald Trump has never really been known for logical or cogent conduct in public, [0:45] something his defenders claim is part of his madman appeal. But in Trump 2.0, that erratic [0:52] behavior, that madman persona is getting a lot weirder and a lot more frequent and a lot more [0:57] public. Our allies and adversaries alike are beginning to take notice. Case in point, [1:02] earlier today, Donald Trump took to his social media site, Truth Social, posting 12 times in less [1:08] than one hour and a half, including this particularly bizarre post. Trump posted, quote, [1:16] Democrats love sewage with an AI-generated image of former President Barack Obama, former Speaker [1:23] Nancy Pelosi, and former President Joe Biden, three people who are no longer in office. [1:29] They were in a pool of sewage in the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool. Donald Trump has a total [1:35] fixation with painting the reflecting pool bright blue. It's a fixation, which has led cost to [1:42] skyrocket. Like he didn't just say, well, paint it and I'm going to go back to leading the country at [1:47] war, fixing the economy. He's obsessed with the paint color and talking about the painting project. [1:53] He's obsessed with that while Americans are souring on another one of Donald Trump's pet [1:59] DC construction slash vanity projects. New York Times is reporting that the repairs to the reflecting pool [2:06] have ballooned in costs past Donald Trump's initial estimate of 1.8 million dollars. [2:11] They are now projected to cost the American taxpayer 13.1 million dollars, [2:16] more than seven-fold increase in a paint job. While Trump is posting away on True Social about [2:22] painting projects and construction projects and obsessing with remaking Washington DC in his image, [2:30] no matter the cost of the taxpayer, he continues to turn his back on governing and on the issues [2:36] that his own voters sent him to the White House to deal with. Things like the high cost of, well, [2:42] everything. Today, we learned that the inflation rate skyrocketed at its fastest rate in three years, [2:48] as sharp increases in energy costs caused by Donald Trump's war in Iran drove up prices for American [2:54] consumers. Donald Trump's obsession with his golden ballroom and bright blue painted reflecting pool [3:01] as Americans struggle to pay their bills is intended, we suppose, into turning him into some, [3:07] I don't know, great renovator or political figure in America's story. The new reporting suggests it [3:16] is actually having the opposite effect. New York Times reports this, quote, [3:20] For decades, many Chinese viewed the United States with a mix of admiration, envy and resentment. [3:27] Trump's ascent and his volatile second term have shattered that image. In January, [3:32] a nationalistic Beijing think tank published a triumphant report about Trump's first year back in office. [3:38] The report argued that Trump's tariffs, his attacks on our allies, anti-immigration policies and [3:44] assaults on the American political establishment had inadvertently strengthened China and weakened the [3:52] United States. Its title, quote, thank Trump. The report called Trump, quote, an accelerator of [3:59] American political decay, with the United States sliding toward polarization, institutional dysfunction, [4:07] and even, quote, Latin American-style instability. At this turning point in history, the authors wrote, [4:13] what we hear is the heavy and haunting toll of an empire's evening bell. Donald Trump tolling the bell for [4:21] American decline post by post by post in the middle of the night on his obscure social media site is where [4:28] we start the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. New York Times reporter Michael [4:32] Crowley is here. Also joining us, Media Matters for America President Angelo Carison is back. Also [4:38] joining us, political analyst, the former Senator Claire McCaskill is here. Michael Crowley, China welcomes the [4:46] United States of America in a position of truly unparalleled and unprecedented strength. How do we, [4:54] as a country, deal with that? And how do you, as a journalist, tell that story without getting [5:00] attacked or investigated or prosecuted or persecuted by Donald Trump? [5:08] Well, Nicole, you know, of course, we just try to tell the story as accurately and fairly as we can. And [5:17] this is one that is not convenient for this president. And, you know, unfortunately, [5:22] for the United States of America, President Trump does arrive in Beijing at a moment of really unusual [5:29] weakness because of this standoff he is in with, you know, a country that is far from a global [5:37] superpower. I mean, we are really tied down here by Iran in a way that I think that the president was not [5:45] expecting. And I suspect that he finds it extremely frustrating and embarrassing. And it's possible [5:51] that that helps to explain that explosion of somewhat or more than somewhat erratic tweets last [5:59] night. And I have, you know, it seems quite likely that he's headed to China with a lot of unhappiness [6:08] about the situation that he's in. And, you know, this does, as you suggested, I think, confirm a thesis [6:15] that Xi Jinping and many Chinese elites have had for years now, which is that the United States and the [6:21] West are in a state of decline, that our political systems are broken, that we've been squandering [6:29] blood and treasure in overseas conflicts that have resulted in making us weaker and not stronger. [6:35] And, you know, many American adversaries like Vladimir Putin, and of course, including Xi Jinping, [6:43] and by the way, Iran's leadership, which certainly has its own worries, but not this one, [6:48] they don't have to worry about democracy. They don't have to worry about elections, [6:52] the midterms, the polls. You know, they have to worry about revolutions that come and overthrow [6:57] them. And if they lose, they die. So the outcome is worse. But their ability to hold power [7:04] has been pretty effective and resilient. So Xi Jinping's not going anywhere anytime soon. [7:10] But he looks at President Trump knowing that the Constitution prevents him from running for office [7:15] again. We'll see whether Trump tries to ignore that or not. But certainly, he cares about the [7:20] midterm elections and the plight of Republicans. So Xi Jinping knows that he has that leverage as well. [7:28] And he also knows that the Iranians have that leverage over President Trump, that they have time. [7:33] It doesn't look like there's going to be a revolution. There definitely are going to be [7:36] midterm elections. That all adds up to a very difficult visit for this president. [7:41] I mean, the irony, Michael Crowley, is that the thing that's making Donald Trump unpopular [7:48] is that he's acting like he's a leader of a different country, a different system of governance. [7:53] It is the anti-democratic conduct that has driven his approval readings down to, [7:58] where are they? 30 percent, the lowest they've been since he entered the political arena. And his [8:03] autocratic, you know, ambitions to build monuments to himself are leading to an approval rating that is [8:13] really almost unprecedented globally. What is your reporting on whether anyone is trying to stop [8:19] the political death spiral? Well, you know, I don't want to [8:24] call it Shakespearean. It's overused and probably exaggerated. But I do think that there's a quality here [8:29] that's maybe literary or cinematic, which is that, you know, President Trump, I think, [8:34] felt like he was on such a roll. It wasn't that long ago, Nicole. You know, in February, [8:39] he had taken out Nicolas Maduro, with whom the U.S. had battled for many, many years, [8:46] you know, relatively painlessly. You know, he was squeezing Cuba and I think thought that he was [8:53] going to be able to bring down the Cuban government very quickly. The previous year, the U.S. had conducted [8:59] very surgical and effective airstrikes on Iran's nuclear program. Of course, we know they didn't [9:05] completely destroy the program, as was claimed, but they were still quite impressive. And it, [9:11] you know, appears that President Trump was just flush with his sense of power and almost a kind of, [9:17] certainly on the global stage, a feeling of almost omnipotence, I think. And so he appears to have [9:24] disregarded warnings that going to war with Iran would be more complicated than he expected and [9:30] accepted predictions that Iran's regime would quickly fall apart and whoever came after would [9:37] settle for peace or be some friend of the United States. So, you know, that is the peril of power. [9:44] He was exercising his power very broadly, and it wound up burning him when he overreached. [9:52] Claire McCaskill, we know from a lot of reporting from Michael's news organization and others that [9:59] the thing that drives Trump almost more than anything else is fear of humiliation, fear of [10:06] being mocked, fear of not being loved. Here's how King Charles returned home to the U.K. and talked [10:12] about the visit. This is an exchange with Rod Stewart and King Charles. [10:16] May I say, well done in the Americas. You should have heard. Absolutely should have heard. You put that [10:24] little rat bag in his place. [10:29] A chuckle there. And again, it's a little moment, but King Charles chuckling with Rod Stewart after [10:36] Rod Stewart says, you put that little rat bag in his place. And Charles doesn't come to his defense, [10:43] doesn't say anything, just laughs. Seems like exactly the sort of thing that would rise to the top of [10:49] his list of perceived offenses. Yeah, I don't get what's going on around him. [10:57] You know, there's his children. I mean, where's Ivanka? [11:04] Susie Wiles, J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio. When he goes on these Twitter ramps. [11:10] Ivanka is buying airplanes that they're billions of dollars. I mean, Jared Kusher got $2 billion [11:14] worth of beef from the South. I mean, where's Ivanka? She's spending all the money that her [11:18] husband, who's playing top diplomat, got from the Middle East governments that we're negotiating with. [11:22] They're all in on it. I listen, no question that the corruption of the Trump family is unprecedented [11:30] in our country's history. My point is, though, that she could talk to her father. [11:36] Susie Wiles is the chief of staff. She's the first woman chief of staff in the United States [11:41] of America. And I have never seen a more impotent chief of staff. I have never seen somebody so [11:46] without any ability to set an agenda or execute an agenda and to tell the principal, to tell the [11:54] president, you're hurting yourself. Does he really think him posting this nonsense till [12:00] two, three, four in the morning and then starting again the next day, does he really think that's [12:07] making him look strong? Does he really believe that? And if he does, we've got a much, much bigger [12:12] problem. The DOJ now trying to pressure war coverage at Murdoch's Wall Street Journal. [12:19] That's, of course, Fox News's sister outlet. They're using subpoenas and the government is [12:24] claiming illegal leaks to, according to many experts, abuse power to shape or stifle critical [12:31] war coverage, which, of course, the country is aware of because it is partly the press and [12:39] information about the war, its reality, that's made it a very unpopular war, plus the economic [12:44] fallout. And I have more on that part of the story later tonight. It is a problem for Trump [12:48] and the midterms. But this story is one where journalists must actually also kind of weigh [12:54] how we, in this case, our colleagues at the journal, peers, competitors, whatever you call [13:00] it, but how journalists report on something that Trump has done more than any other administration [13:05] since Nixon. How do we report on the government trying to make us, our reporting or our colleagues [13:11] and competitors reporting part of the story? Well, the journal has decided to report on unusual [13:19] subpoenas that its own journalist reporters received from the Trump DOJ, as you see here. [13:25] The masthead is the Wall Street Journal. This story is about the Wall Street Journal. This is reporting [13:31] about how they are reporting and being potentially intimidated or punished through this government [13:39] that they're reporting on. Now, to be clear, this has been a losing revenge streak in legal [13:45] moves by Trump. And you probably, if you follow the news, have heard about them. We've seen these [13:49] efforts against people. James Comey was a big story. He did an interview on MS Now in the cold just [13:54] yesterday. We're also seeing it against institutions and journalism itself. That article I just put on the [13:59] screen notes that the paper received grand jury subpoenas for records covering, records of its [14:05] reporters covering this war. Now, this is a huge deal. This is about war, which is one of the obviously [14:15] most important and grave powers a president wields. And remember, this war, which has proven so unpopular, [14:22] is being waged unilaterally. The president did not work with Congress. The president did not address [14:28] the nation up front or leave any time for any kind of meaningful dissent or protest. He launched a [14:34] proactive attack on Iran. The strait that was once open for our energy needs is now closed. The ceasefire [14:40] exists. We don't know what comes next. But I mentioned that brief war history to say that [14:45] with Congress cut out of the loop and the American public cut out of the loop, one of the only other [14:49] measures left is journalism reporting how the war is going and the facts about the war. And the facts [14:56] have been, to put it fairly, mixed, negative. Plenty of them look bad for the Donald Trump administration, [15:04] for the war planning, and obviously for the gas prices in the economy we're all living through. [15:09] And against that type of accurate or, shall we say, evidence-based information, this government, [15:16] your government, is responding by trying to intimidate, legally stifle, and potentially [15:21] jail the people doing that report. You know, I always try to talk to you. I mean, I'm talking [15:27] through a camera, right? But I always try to talk to you directly about what we know and don't know [15:30] and what's happening. This is what's happening. And we know it's a problem. We also know that [15:35] our Constitution, the 250 years that we're celebrating, argues exactly against any leader, [15:42] I don't care what party, who would try to rule our government and crush the First Amendment. [15:48] It's the first for a reason, and crush this type of free speech. So that's why this matters. [15:54] Andrew, as I mentioned, joins me shortly. I want to tell you about the methods because it's really [15:59] something. Trump delivering his message on a sticky note with the word treason in sharpie placed [16:06] atop a stack of printed articles that he handed to the acting attorney general. That's how some of [16:12] this got started, according to a very detailed account from CNN's reporting. Now, that official [16:19] is, of course, Todd Blanche. And he's under this public pressure by Trump to take measures [16:24] that, I want to be clear, might ultimately, if he takes them, see Mr. Blanche investigated, [16:29] sanctioned, or disbarred. He knows, with his law degree and his experience, that if he actually [16:36] is going out and pursuing baseless, false claims against journalists or others that are only [16:44] designed to intimidate, to do selective prosecution, or to shape war propaganda, yeah, you can lose your [16:52] law license over that. And if you look at these polls, it's not clear that Trump's friends are [16:57] going to be in office forever. Trump shared a literal enemies list as well that demands that [17:02] Blanche indict, John Brennan, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. So it's someone else's post, [17:09] as you see, and it's Donald J. Trump, the sitting president, who shared it, reposting that. The idea [17:16] of the Trump DOJ indicting Barack Obama may sound far-fetched, even after everything. But the evidence [17:26] we have shows that in his demands, Trump is serious. It was once far-fetched to think he would abuse [17:31] legal powers against so many sitting lawmakers, an FBI director, a CIA director, the current [17:37] Republican leading the Fed. That's already happened. I keep showing you this chart because [17:42] it's a fact, and it is a problem if our country lets this become normal or memory-hold, like so [17:49] much other civic amnesia that we have. This is our current situation. So you can't just look at the [17:54] new next effort by Trump to turn up the heat on a supplicant like Blanche and say, well, he won't go [18:00] to Clinton or Obama. They very well may try. Remember, this list of faces were already pursued, [18:08] most of them, under an attorney general that Donald Trump just canned for not doing enough, [18:14] in his view. That's why we have Blanche instead of Bondi. Now, the guardrails have still prevented [18:21] any of these efforts from succeeding. Depending on how you count, he's 0 for 20 or 0 for 25, [18:28] 0 and 25, but none of these cases have led to any conviction. Many of them, as you saw, [18:33] have been tossed. But Trump views Blanche as his enforcer. We have a man who's doing a great job, [18:41] I'll tell you. I knew it because he kept me out of jail for years. Acting attorney general, [18:49] Todd Blanche. I said the other day that some of that stuff should be looked into. They said, [18:54] weaponization. He's a terrible human being. Weaponization, right, Cash? They blame me for [18:59] weaponization. He is not the communicator he once was. Indeed, Donald Trump, who used to be pretty good [19:07] at PR, knows that you don't just repeat the attacks on yourself. They blame me for weaponization, [19:15] he says, reminding everyone that he is weaponizing the government, using a term that even the right [19:19] has said is bad, because he is weaponizing the government. You can call it weaponization. [19:23] You can call it lawfare. The actual term in the law, when you prove that the government has gone [19:29] after a person for illicit reasons, rather than just investigate the facts where they lead, [19:33] it's called selective prosecution. It gets your case tossed. It can get the prosecutors, [19:37] of course, sanctioned, as I mentioned, which is something that Mr. Blanche should think about. [19:42] It's not my job to give him legal advice, but we'll run this clip later if we have to, [19:46] if Mr. Blanche ultimately not only discredits himself, but loses his law license or worse, [19:53] because if he goes forward with some of these things, like going after Obama and Clinton because [19:59] the president asked for it, yeah, that would look like selective prosecution without [20:03] at least clear evidence to the contrary. Now, Trump is taking these legal weapons well beyond [20:08] the Obamas or the Democrats that he's called out or the critics. He is now, as I mentioned, [20:15] the lead story that we're going to bring Andrew in on going after the conservative institution of [20:19] Murdoch's Wall Street Journal. Now, previously, you may recall, he sued them over their Epstein [20:25] coverage and lost in the civil courts. And I want to be clear, anyone in this country can afford [20:32] themselves the civil courts, including government incumbents. So that is something he can do. He lost, [20:37] so he had no case. But he can do that. But after failing, what we're seeing now, and why I [20:43] mentioned it to bring us up to speed to tonight, is Trump's doubling down with this criminal probe, [20:48] which is much more serious, using a criminal investigation and those kind of subpoenas [20:53] for journalists, which carry the implied threat of potential jail time if you don't cooperate, [20:59] and using the part of our system that is strong. When you say to the courts, well, this could be [21:06] national security or this affects war. There might be illegal government leaks. That can matter. And by [21:11] the way, the DOJ is allowed, of course, to pursue illegal government leaks. That usually means going [21:16] after the person in government who broke the law. The journalists didn't, if they only reported [21:21] something that came from the government. But they can do that. The question here is whether this is [21:25] abusive power, leaning on that type of power to silence and censor the war coverage. Now, Rupert Murdoch [21:32] is a big figure. He has a complex history with Trump, but he still runs Fox News, which nowadays, [21:37] Trump and MAGA see as a very friendly place. But just like Putin started with the biggest opposition [21:44] critics, but moved on to other people that used to be in his inner circle, Trump will go after you [21:50] even if you own Fox News. Nobody is really safe if you start publishing or airing things he disagrees [21:55] with. Remember, Rupert Murdoch is such a kind of big political figure. They had that whole show and [22:00] character based off him in HBO's Succession. Now, this is fiction, echoing perhaps some view of [22:07] reality, but they cast Murdoch as someone who was tough and willing to fight anyone. [22:14] Here's the safety briefing. If you move against me, I'll put a hole in the back of your head. [22:23] Tough guy. That is a fictional character based on the real Murdoch, but plenty of folks said that [22:30] that toughness and that style reflects the now aging patriarch of that conservative empire. [22:39] Well, I'm glad the Wall Street Journal is resisting. They've done terrific reporting. [22:44] There's been other great reporting by other news organizations. The New York Times, [22:49] the Washington Post continues to do excellent reporting as well. I mean, this is part of an [22:54] attack from all angles on the press. So you have these grand jury subpoenas against the Wall Street [22:59] Journal. You had a raid on the home of a Washington Post reporter where they confiscated all of her. [23:06] It was an unprecedented raid in the national security investigation, seizing all of her electronic [23:10] devices. You have the EEOC bringing a discrimination complaint against The New York Times because a white [23:17] male reporter didn't get a promotion he wanted. You have apparently the an investor, the FBI apparently [23:23] investigating The Atlantic magazine for reporting on Cash Patel and his alleged heavy drinking and his [23:29] other behavior. So really all across the board, you're seeing this administration use every [23:35] weapon within its possession to attack the press, to harass the press and to endeavor to intimidate [23:42] the press. Right now, FBI Director Cash Patel, the top federal investigator and domestic intelligence [23:49] chief in the country, is facing a massive and growing list of scandals about his alleged alcohol [23:55] abuse, absenteeism, paranoid abuses of power on the job. It's an incredibly embarrassing look for the [24:01] Trump administration and a genuine threat to American security. But Trump doesn't seem to care [24:08] about any of that as long as it puts his administration in the spotlight. FBI Director Cash Patel, [24:16] does he get enough publicity? If you could get a little more publicity, it would be very... [24:20] It's almost like he's happy his FBI director is mired in scandal. All presses, not good press, [24:28] I don't think there, Mr. Trump. Now, today Cash Patel was on Capitol Hill facing questions from [24:34] lawmakers about his various scandals. And Senator Chris Van Hollen pressed him on the reporting about [24:39] Patel's alleged drinking habits. I cannot imagine ever having to worry about former FBI Directors Ray [24:47] or Mueller spending multiple weekends drinking heavily at the Poodle Room in Las Vegas. So there've [24:54] been no occasions during your tenure when FBI personnel were unable to promptly reach you? [24:58] Absolutely not. You can ask my entire workforce. They hear from me at every single hour of the [25:03] day. It's been written and documented. You are literally saying it. No, I'm saying that these are [25:08] reports, Director Patel. Unlike your baseless reports, the only person that was slinging [25:13] margaritas in El Salvador on the taxpayer dollar with a convicted gang-banging rapist was you. [25:18] In your response to me earlier, where you had a little bit of a blow-up, you made a couple [25:25] provably false statements. So did you. Do you know, Mr. Director, that it is a crime to lie to [25:31] Congress? Do you know that? I do not lie to Congress. Okay. A couple of things to say about [25:40] that. First off, when Patel accuses Senator Van Hollen of slinging margaritas on the taxpayer dime, [25:46] he's referring to this photo. The photo I'm going to show you again. There it is. When Senator Van [25:50] Hollen traveled to El Salvador to check in on a man the Trump administration wrongfully sent to a [25:55] notorious mega prison. Senator Van Hollen said at the time that the drinks you see in the table were [26:00] actually put there by the government of El Salvador to make it seem like they were not abusing the [26:06] prisoners at that facility. But more importantly, it's notable that Kash Patel is categorically denying [26:12] that the story about his drinking was true. That story cited at least nine sources for its various [26:17] allegations about Patel's behavior. There were more people who came forward, according to the reporter, [26:22] after the story was published. And Patel was so outraged by the story that two people familiar [26:27] with the matter told MSNOW that Patel has ordered polygraphs for dozens of members of his team in a [26:32] desperate search for the people who leaked to that reporter. Now, it is hard to imagine why Patel would [26:40] be hunting for leakers by using polygraph tests when he says the story is completely made up. That makes [26:47] no sense. Patel has spent a lot of time and energy denying these specific stories about his alleged [26:53] drinking. But we already know a good deal about his drinking habits from public accounts and things [26:57] he said publicly. I mean, we have all seen the footage of Patel guzzling beer with members of [27:02] the U.S. men's hockey team while on an official work trip. And it's not like Kash Patel was ever shy [27:07] about talking about his drinking habits before he was the FBI director. [27:11] Sunday nights would roll around and the president would try to find me. I'd say, sir, I am on call [27:19] every day, including Sundays, except the very late evening where Sundays are for God hockey and beer, [27:27] not in that order. And I will resurface back on very early Monday morning. [27:31] It turned into flannel Fridays because I was having this beer and I was wearing a flannel shirt. [27:35] And now it's this massive thing online. [27:38] I'm going to be on the sheet playing in the beer league, having a PBR, and then I'll return your [27:43] phone call. Obviously, I'm kidding, but it was funny. [27:44] We had this tradition every night where he would call a final final. So we'd have dinner and then we'd go [27:49] somewhere and have like a final drink. Everybody should have a beer or three. It's going to be [27:54] pretty, it's going to be pretty lit. I might have some special apparel. We are, we're going to throw [27:58] down, there's going to be bourbon, there's going to be sparklers. We ended up in Northern Italy [28:01] and we were slamming Negronis at our like last night. And I was like, I need a subpoena. I went [28:08] to Devin and I told him that in the morning. He goes, dude, if you're going to start drinking at [28:12] 9 a.m., get out of my office. Can I be the first one to say that if I ever go before a Senate [28:16] confirmation, they're going to call me an alcoholic? His words, not my [28:22] words. I mean, the guy had enough foresight to joke that he might one day face questions [28:26] about his drinking. But now that he is actually in a big, important government job, he's very [28:31] clearly outraged by those very questions from the Senate. Kash Patel's tenure as FBI director [28:37] has been one embarrassing scandal after another from the very beginning. Tonight, just before [28:43] we got an air, a former top career FBI official spoke out for the first time about the chaos [28:48] in Patel's FBI. And in the early days of the Trump administration, FBI hostage negotiator [28:52] Brian Driscoll was elevated to be the interim FBI director while Patel was being confirmed. [28:57] And he says that right from the beginning, things were not going well. [29:01] Patel told you that as long as you were not prolific on social media, didn't donate to the [29:08] Democratic Party, didn't vote for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, that the vetting would not be [29:13] Yes. Yeah. It's exactly. It's not funny, but that's exactly what he said. He's like, okay, [29:19] just tell me if you voted for a Democrat in the last five elections. This conversation is over and [29:24] conclude the phone call. This is disgusted and shocked. Why were you disgusted? Because now my [29:32] fear that there was a political wave coming towards the FBI with vitriol directed at the FBI, [29:41] it was palpable. And there was a sense of shock that, well, I'm really close to this thing. [29:49] The Taliban's deputies were politicizing the FBI from day one of this administration. That's what [29:54] you just heard from Brian Driscoll. And every day we learn more and more about how the FBI has been [29:59] fundamentally changed under Patel's leadership. Just tonight, the news outlet Notice reports that the [30:04] FBI has created a so-called payback squad, a team specifically comprised of agents who are willing [30:10] to pursue Trump's political targets. That's according to four people who spoke to Notice [30:14] on Condition of Anonymity. Everywhere you look in this administration, Trump is reshaping the [30:20] government to focus on his personal priorities, to target his enemies, to focus on things he cares [30:26] about. And he just doesn't care about what gets lost in the process. Michael Feinberg was an assistant [30:31] special agent in charge at the FBI before being pushed out by Kash Patel. And Tim Weiner is a [30:37] Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter. He's the author of the book Enemies, a History of the [30:42] FBI. And his latest book is called The Mission, the CIA in the 21st Century. Must read books in the [30:48] moment we're living in. Thank you both for being here. Let me start with you, Michael. There's so [30:52] much I want to ask you about, but I want to start with what we learned today from Brian Driscoll and how [30:57] he described his job security at the FBI under Patel as being reliant on his willingness to purge agents [31:04] that investigated Trump. I mean, you not only worked under Driscoll, but you yourself were, of course. I think [31:09] everybody remembers this, even though you help explain government and law enforcement to us every [31:13] day. But you yourself were pushed out of the FBI for your connection to an agent who investigated [31:18] Trump. What was your reaction to seeing him talk about all of that in the interview? [31:24] This is going to sound a little weird. I'm glad to see it finally coming out in the open because we all called [31:31] them Driz. What Driz said in that interview was something we all knew, not just intuitively, [31:38] but from the very profligate rumor mill that goes on at the Hoover building in the FBI's field offices. [31:45] It was no big secret that there were going to be political litmus tests for everyone. [31:50] The weekend that I was informed I was under the radar, shortly before I resigned, one of my friends [31:58] who is very high in the organization still gave me a heads up that if I was put in a position where I [32:05] had to speak to either then Deputy Director Dan Bongino or Director Cash Mattel, I should expect to be [32:11] asked whom I voted for. So it's not surprising. And it seems like it's kind of an unspoken thing that [32:18] everybody knew that this had happened to him. And now he's finally coming forward, which is certainly [32:22] significant. I want to ask you about another story, because today House Judiciary Democrats accused the [32:27] Justice Department of improperly paying out FBI agents who were suspended for misconduct, but who [32:32] appear to be political allies of Trump. I mean, this taken together with Driscoll's account seems to [32:38] paint a picture where people who signed up to be career officials, non-political, are being asked to [32:46] do something that is certainly not what they signed up for, at the risk of termination, I guess. How do you [32:52] see it? I think that's a very accurate way to put it. In a different environment, I might put it a [32:58] little more bluntly and a little more harshly. But what we're seeing now runs fundamentally counter [33:05] to the idea of an apolitical law enforcement or intelligence community apparatus. And it's worth [33:11] noting, many of the agents who have now received settlements or been reinstated, when they were forced [33:19] out to begin with, I believe a number of them received funding from a foundation run by Cash [33:25] Patel himself when he was outside of government. It's like bribery. It's certainly some form of [33:32] corruption, I think. Let me bring Tim into this conversation. And Tim, another part of Driscoll's [33:39] interview that stuck out to me was when he said that Patel told him, quote, the FBI tried to put the [33:44] president in jail and he hasn't forgotten it. I mean, it's which seemed it's a very straightforward way [33:50] of kind of calling out this obsession, I should call it. In your view, does that fundamental disdain [33:57] for the institution itself explain why he doesn't seem to care if the integrity or effectiveness of [34:02] the FBI is being jeopardized under Patel? You know, Jen, back in 2020, in the first Trump [34:09] administration, Trump's attorney general, Bill Barr, who's not a woke snowflake, said that the idea of [34:17] putting Cash Patel in charge of the FBI, which was a very live idea back then, was the height of [34:23] insanity that would happen over his dead body. Things haven't improved very much. When Patel is a [34:34] conspiracy theorist, he is conducting an ideological purge at the FBI. He has decimated the ranks of [34:47] national security, intelligence, counterintelligence, counterespionage people. And we're at war. And we're [34:54] at war with Iran, which has had terrorist proxies running around the world since the 1980s. Not an [35:02] opportune time to take out the Iran squad, as Patel did. All of this in the name of retribution, [35:11] all of this in the name of payback for investigating the crimes of Donald Trump. [35:16] MSNOW senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin was in that hearing room. She joins me now from West Palm [35:23] Beach, Florida. Ashley Parker is back with us and also with me, MSNOW legal analyst Catherine [35:30] Christian. Lisa, first of all, talk about just the mood in that room and the driving message from [35:36] survivors. I think, Chris, the driving message from survivors was do not stop. You must find [35:46] accountability. And accountability comes in a variety of forms. We heard from advocates who [35:51] were saying, look, there are threads that still need to be pulled on in terms of potential criminal [35:56] investigations that can be done. When the Department of Justice and the FBI said in July of 2025 that [36:03] there was no more criminal investigation that could be done, this, the allies who testified today, [36:09] including Lauren Hirsch from World Without Exploitation, that's false. But one of the things that we [36:14] really heard today was sort of a new phase of the investigation in terms of a new survivor coming [36:20] forward. Her name was Rosa. You just heard from her. And she said that Jeffrey Epstein began abusing [36:25] her in 2009 when she was 19 and had just come to this country as a model from Uzbekistan. [36:33] One of the things that's so important about Rosa's testimony is we know a lot about the women who were [36:38] then underage girls who were abused by Epstein in Florida in the mid-2000s. But what Rosa says [36:44] happened is that Epstein began to rape her when he was on whole house arrest and work release from [36:51] his prison sentence in Florida for abusing those dozens and dozens of girls. That is abuse that [36:57] continued. And Epstein continued to tell people while he was still alive, oh, that was a one-time [37:02] thing. That just happened in Florida. I was arrested for solicitation of prostitution, but I'm an upstanding [37:08] guy. Rosa and her testimony today flies in the face of the rehabilitation that Jeffrey Epstein enjoyed [37:15] in New York and beyond after he was released from jail. Chris? [37:20] Catherine, I want to play a little bit more of what Rosa had to say because, again, this is the first [37:26] time she has ever spoken publicly. Here it is. I kept my identity protected as Jane Doe. I woke up one day [37:37] with my name mentioned over 500 times. While the rich and powerful remained protected by reduction, [37:52] my name was exposed to the world. She's talking, obviously, about the files that were released [37:59] and many of the women who said they did not want their identities revealed found their names in [38:06] there. You can feel the pain in her voice. Is there any recourse that women like her have? [38:15] Well, unfortunately, the act, the Epstein Act, had no penalty clause. So DOJ were able to react, [38:23] redact things they didn't want the public to know, but clearly were, I'll say, reckless or sloppy [38:29] in not redacting the personal identifying information of these victims, of these survivors. [38:34] But there is no penalty clause in the act, meaning if you violate the act, this will happen. [38:39] That's one of the loopholes in the act. So it's horrible. But unfortunately, the way this act was [38:46] written, because it was written so fast, there is no mechanism for the survivors who did not want [38:52] their identity to release to, you know, point the finger and say, I need, you know, to get something, [38:57] some justice because they released my name and they weren't supposed to. [39:02] Lisa did point out what is important about this is every time we hear from someone like her, [39:07] there are new threads, right? And I also spoke earlier to Congressman Walkinshaw, who said, [39:12] you know, there may be a DOJ where there can be a real investigation here. But what do you see as [39:20] the most likely recourse for these women who have been saying clearly, loudly, repeatedly, [39:26] and at great personal cost, that there are others out there who should be accountable? [39:32] Well, there, thankfully, is no statute of limitations for federal child sex trafficking. [39:37] There are there is a statute of limitations for other crimes. So if people and not all men can be [39:43] identified and you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they engage in this behavior, they can [39:48] be prosecuted, if not by this DOJ, another DOJ, meaning a different attorney general and different [39:54] administration. For crimes that were not money laundering and other crimes, there, those cases [40:00] are gone, meaning you can't prosecute them because the statute of limitations are gone. But for the [40:04] adult women who were victimized when they were children, if they can identify, that's the key, [40:10] you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If they can identify the people who violated them, [40:15] then there can be a prosecution. [40:17] Yeah, and one of the things that continues to strike me as I watch these, Lisa, is how supportive [40:23] they are of each other. You see the support that Rosa was getting as she was giving her testimony. [40:33] Yeah, I mean, Chris, one of the things that struck me was that these are people who have been [40:37] repeatedly failed by multiple institutions of government, federal government, state government, [40:44] Congress, the Department of Justice. And so in the absence of government caring for them and the way [40:48] that government should, they are caring for each other. I want to go back, though, to something [40:53] that you and Catherine were discussing about sort of what the remedy is, because she's absolutely [40:57] right. The Epstein Files Transparency Act has no provision to sort of sue the Department of Justice [41:03] for the kinds of disclosures of victim information that Rosa and Danny Bensky were talking about [41:08] earlier today. But this hearing has been unique because the Democrats have been talking about two [41:13] particular pieces of legislation they want to advance. One is what they call a private right of [41:18] action against the Department of Justice that would empower victims to sue the Department of [41:23] Justice and recover money for the harm that has been done to them, that retraumatization through [41:28] the publication of their personal information. But the second is what Lois Frankel, a member of [41:33] Congress who was the mayor of Palm Beach, refers to as the Courtney Wilde Act. Courtney Wilde is an [41:38] Epstein victim who testified today. She was first abused by him when she was 14. But she brought a [41:44] lawsuit against the government in 2008 because the Department of Justice never notified her, [41:50] much less consulted with her and other survivors, about that 2007 non-prosecution agreement that we [41:55] refer to as the sweetheart deal. The Courtney Wilde Act that Lois Frankel was talking about today [42:00] would allow victims to have that right of notification even if the federal government hasn't already [42:06] brought charges so that if there is a plea deal with someone like a Jeffrey Epstein in the future [42:11] and charges still haven't been brought, those victims will be notified and they will have [42:15] meaningful consultation in whatever deal the government strikes. Chris? [42:19] 1,500 aliens on the planet, most of them right here in Manhattan. And most of them are decent [42:28] enough. They're just trying to make a living. Cab drivers? Not as many as you'd think. Humans, [42:33] for the most part, don't have a clue. They don't want one or need one either. They're happy. They think [42:37] they have a good bead on things. Well, why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it. [42:44] The person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals. And you know it. [42:50] 1,500 years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, [42:56] everybody knew the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. [43:05] Imagine what you'll know tomorrow. Great scene there from Men in Black. Are we all alone in the [43:14] universe? The Trump administration this week piqued that curiosity with its release of previously [43:19] confidential Pentagon files on UFOs. And our next guest is preparing alien enthusiasts with a [43:26] practical guide for dealing with potential visitors from outer space. News you can use. [43:31] Joining us now, renowned astrophysicist and best-selling author, Neil deGrasse Tyson. He's out [43:36] today with a new book titled, Take Me to Your Leader, Perspectives on Your First Alien Encounter. [43:44] Neil, great to see you. Congratulations. [43:45] Thanks for having me back. Thanks for being here. I'm just going to read your own words on the back [43:49] of the book so readers know what to expect when they pick this up. Think of Take Me to Your Leader [43:55] as a book of etiquette for close encounters or perhaps a scientifically infused user's manual [44:01] with helpful hints from an astrophysicist who wants to meet the aliens as badly as you do. [44:07] That's me, right there. [44:08] So tell me, do you write this book because you think that encounter is imminent? [44:13] Well, it's been gurgling up within me. And because alien sightings or UFO sightings have [44:21] transitioned really over the past several years from the farmer seeing it on his back 40 and [44:29] drunken revelers at 2 a.m. when the bar closes, you get these reports and you say, [44:35] hey, I don't know how we should believe those, right on up to, in recent years, testimonies [44:40] in Congress by insiders and former military officials and security people in the security [44:47] sectors of our government reporting on things that we either don't understand or that they [44:53] believe they do, such as alien body parts, crashed saucers, reversed engineering of their technologies. [45:04] So, so I'm thinking, okay, it's time to bring out the alien. So why not? And so, so, so, so if [45:13] they bring out the alien or if an alien does arrive, we should be prepared for that. And this is a primer [45:19] for you. You're right. It's not just sightings on dashboard cameras in Russia anymore. It seems to [45:23] have a little more credibility. Even foreign president Obama recently said something that [45:27] suggested that he knew that we were not alone in the universe. He had to kind of walk it back. [45:32] Well, I, so he's scientifically literate. So I, when he says, yeah, surely there are aliens, [45:37] he's saying what we had told him in the astrophysics community. You do the math, you look at how old [45:42] the universe is, the ingredients of life, how quickly life got started on earth. It'd be [45:47] irresponsible. It would be an overstretch of your ego to presume we're alone. [45:53] So let me ask you, did you, what did you think of the material that the Pentagon just did release? [45:57] Oh, so I, I enjoyed going back to those early typed written letters from 1947, describing in very [46:04] flat terms, not, you know, no hyperbole. We found this. What do you think of that? Let's talk about [46:11] this. Let's keep it under wraps. And I, it's just fun to get a little bit of history there. And, but [46:17] again, it was consistent with testimonies we've already heard in Congress. There's nothing new there [46:24] that, no shockers that we couldn't have extrapolated from what was already told. So Neil, [46:29] your book includes tips and tricks for if the reader ever finds themselves in an alien encounter [46:35] and you write in part this, if an alien approaches you with multiple appendages, one of which [46:40] looks like an extend hand, resist grabbing and shaking it. You don't know in advance when part [46:46] of the alien's anatomy you just touched and you probably don't want to find out. Furthermore, [46:50] the handshake is not even a worldwide custom, so it's surely not universal. Nor do you know if raising [46:57] your hand in a high gesture can be constructed as an act of kindness or aggression. And what if [47:04] the alien chooses to greet you the way earth dogs greet each other? And it simply wants to come [47:09] around and sniff your butt. You don't know anything about your new friend's customs. So on a first [47:15] encounter, it's probably a good idea to leave all your habits at home until you learn a thing or two [47:20] about theirs. I enjoy it. We laughed a lot. I want to read the audio book. Yeah, I was going to say, really good. [47:26] So what do you do? Well, so I have a whole chapter on how you might take first steps. [47:33] By the way, Obama recently said that he wanted to be the emissary of earth to aliens. [47:39] He's a good choice. Well, because he's a diplomat and he's a politician. And I think if the aliens want [47:44] to lay waste to earth, you need a diplomat in there to try to not have that happen. But if they don't, [47:51] it's because the evil alien trope, I think, is primarily our fears of ourselves hoisted upon [47:58] them. Because we know how we treat one another when it's a more advanced part of our civilization [48:04] encountering a less advanced. They're enslaved. They're slaughtered. They're persecuted. [48:09] List whatever the history of civilization has done, what we have done to ourselves. [48:15] So if the alien is not evil, then we don't really need a politician. You need a scientist. [48:21] And so I describe a kit you should carry with you, a little science kit, like the Pythagorean theorem. [48:28] That would be literally universal. And you show geometrically with a triangle and square. [48:36] The periodic table of elements, they won't recognize our symbols, but the structure of the periodic table [48:41] comes from quantum physics. That is universal. So you have some certain things that will warm them [48:47] up and give them some confidence that we have any intelligence at all. [48:52] That math more of the universal language than anything we could speak. [48:56] Exactly. And so you've got to become equipped to communicate in that way. [49:00] And I guess there is this belief, as a final last quick question, you know, [49:03] if an alien civilization reaches us, that means they have reached a degree of sophistication. [49:07] We have not. Is there that hope that perhaps that means they would also be enlightened and want to be friends? [49:14] I think that's a realistic hope. Like I said, evil aliens is just us. [49:20] OK. And one concern I have is that every Hollywood rendering of aliens near most of them are humanoid. [49:28] And, you know, the gray big eyes, you know, this guy over here. [49:32] Well, I love him hanging out the window. Right. But it's interesting. They never give him hair. [49:36] I'm just intrigued by that, because if they're humanoid, they might have hair, a mustache or a beard, evil goatee beard. [49:43] Maybe. All right. The new book. It's a great read. We laughed aloud this whole segment. [49:48] The book is Take Me to Your Leader, Perspectives on Your First Alienate Encounter. [49:53] Thank you.