MS NOW Highlights - May 19

[0:00] Yeah, I'm here. You're talking about Kentucky. You're talking about Thomas Massey. This is [0:03] actually pretty interesting. Ed Galrain has been called as the winner here. [0:09] 72% of the vote in. It's just 7,000 supporting them, 54 to 45. But it's not anywhere in [0:14] particular. It's in all of these populous states, these top three counties in the top of the state. [0:19] Ed Galrain winning all of them. Go to Oldham County, which is the most populous county in [0:24] the west part of the state. He's winning that. Shelby County, where he's from, we still don't [0:27] have votes there. But that's where he's originally from. But Lewis County, where Thomas Massey's in, [0:33] he's won that. 85% of the vote in. He's got 63 to Ed Galrain, 35. But that's about it for the moment. [0:39] So this has been a shellacking. And this follows on the heels of Indiana. It follows on the heels [0:45] of Cassidy in Louisiana. There is still a price to pay for going up against Donald Trump. It's not [0:52] universal. But Donald Trump has a lot more sway over Republican and MAGA voters than some of the [0:58] polling might indicate that he does. And you're seeing this again. Thomas Massey, who has been [1:02] a real gadfly, by the way, to everybody, and has been that way for a long time, losing his seat in [1:09] Kentucky. And we're seeing some of that play out in other states as we're about to see Pennsylvania [1:15] close. We've seen Georgia close. Some of this is happening. But to think that Donald Trump, [1:21] with the time he's got left in his presidency, is not the single most important force in Republican [1:27] politics, if not in American politics right now. We're definitely seeing that play out tonight. [1:31] I would agree with that, Ali. But I want to put a little context on that, having done campaigns at [1:36] the county, state, and national level. I'd be very curious to find out what is the percentage of the [1:41] Republican vote that turned out in this primary, because it's a critical part here. We make a big deal [1:46] about the fact that the congressman lost 52 to 45, or whatever the number is. But if only 20% of [1:53] eligible registered Republican voters voted in the primary, again, what we've seen in our politics [1:59] for the last 20 years are the edges of the ones that are driving the political narrative in all of [2:05] these races, which is why the country needs to focus on primaries as a root cause to why you lose [2:12] good men and women in public service because of crap that you see when the party turns on its own, [2:18] this is what you get. [2:20] And I will tell you, this is not competitive, right? The person who wins the primary tonight [2:24] is probably going to be the member of Congress from that district. That's why I'm paying attention [2:28] to Georgia right now, where only 21% of the vote is in in the state Supreme Court election. [2:33] Much tighter there, 20,000 votes separating. It's a nonpartisan rate test technically. [2:38] But this is an actual election tonight. So this tells you more information than what the Thomas [2:44] Massey race tells you. That is a primary that is being dominated by the extreme wing of the [2:49] Republican Party. And that's why you're seeing something different, both in levels of turnout [2:53] and as less of a reflection of the country as a whole. I'm actually more interested in this Georgia [2:58] story, something people don't think about all that much. It's a state Supreme Court election. But [3:03] this is an actual election between people who represent different parts of the political [3:08] spectrum. And you're seeing a closer race in here. So that's a good point, Michael, to bring up [3:12] as you're looking at what these results actually mean. [3:16] But the most closely watched race tonight was probably the Republican primary for Kentucky's [3:21] fourth congressional district, where Donald Trump and his billionaire allies waged a quite a [3:28] retribution campaign to unseat conservative incumbent Congressman Thomas Massey. [3:33] And tonight, the Associated Press projects that Trump-backed challenger Edgar Rain has defeated [3:38] Thomas Massey in that primary. Nearly $33 million, I should note, was spent in that race, making it [3:45] the most expensive congressional primary race in history. Donald Trump was so determined to [3:52] oust Massey, he personally attacked him multiple times on True Social, just in the last few days at [3:57] events. And on X, calling him things like the worst congressman, and a rhino, and urging voters [4:04] repeatedly to replace him. He even dispatched his Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, to campaign for [4:11] Massey's opponent, of course, while the country is in the middle of a war. The point is this, it's clear [4:19] that Trump really, really, really wanted Thomas Massey out of office. And tonight, after his backers spent [4:26] millions and he had used his own bully pulpit over and over again to attack Massey, he succeeded. [4:31] So why did Trump spend so much energy to defeat a conservative congressman in this Republican primary? [4:39] Well, I think Thomas Massey actually said it best himself. [4:43] I vote with Republicans 91 percent of the time. And the 9 percent I don't, they're taken up for pedophiles, [4:50] starting another war, or bankrupting our country. [4:53] That about says it all. Thomas Massey is one of the most conservative members of Congress. [4:59] But he has refused to stick by Donald Trump on two fundamental issues, very big ones this year, [5:05] where Trump has betrayed his own MAGA base. I mean, Massey co-sponsored the resolution [5:09] that forced the release of the Epstein files. And he's been a vocal critic of the administration's [5:14] efforts to cover them up. You see him there on the screen with a bunch of survivors. [5:18] And he's also opposed Trump's war with Iran, and even co-sponsored the War Powers resolution to end [5:23] that war. Tonight in his concession speech, Massey touted his work on exposing Epstein's [5:28] enablers and co-conspirators, and hinted that there may be more to come. [5:32] We need basic decency. That's what the Epstein Files Transparency Act was all about. By the way, [5:40] today is the six-month anniversary of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. We've taken out two dozen [5:46] CEOs, an ambassador, a prince, a prime minister, a minister of culture, and that was just six [6:02] months. I got seven months left in Congress. That guy does not seem to be slinking away. He [6:12] almost seemed gleeful about the seven months he has left in Congress to do a lot more on that [6:16] particular issue. So yeah, I mean, the guy has been a very loyal conservative on nearly every issue. [6:22] I probably disagree with him on a lot of policy issues, a whole host of them, maybe the majority. [6:27] He's also been a huge thorn in the side of Trump, and that is why Trump wanted Massey out of office. [6:33] So for Donald Trump, tonight's primary is supposed to be all about loyalty. I mean, [6:38] he wants to show that Republicans who are not unflinchingly loyal to him and his administration [6:43] will pay a price. That's what it's about. He's already ousted Republican Senator Bill Cassidy for his [6:48] heretical vote to convict Trump over January 6th. And he did the same to several Indiana state lawmakers [6:54] who bucked his agenda on redistricting. The message is supposed to be that the only way to stay in [7:00] Trump's good graces is by showering him with praise, supporting whatever he does, and telling [7:05] him he's just amazing all around. But here's the thing. It doesn't actually always work like that with [7:11] Trump. Now, don't get me wrong. Republicans who oppose Trump will probably wind up facing some mean [7:16] tweets and a Trump-endorsed primary opponent and maybe millions spent against them. Just ask Thomas [7:20] Massey. But Republicans who stay loyal to Trump don't always get rewarded for their so-called [7:26] good behavior either. I mean, just consider the case of Texas Senator John Cornyn, who has embarrassed [7:31] himself over and over again trying to stay in Trump's good graces. And the Senate Cornyn votes with [7:37] Trump, Donald Trump, 99 percent of the time, even more than his fellow Texas Senator Ted Cruz. [7:44] He posts cringey photos of himself on social media. You see there. There's the one on your screen. [7:49] That's him reading Trump's book, just hoping that Trump will notice him and tell him he's a good boy. [7:56] Now, this year, Cornyn even introduced a bill to rename a highway after Donald Trump. [8:00] But none of that, none of that seemed to matter to Donald Trump. Because despite all of that, [8:05] Trump announced just today that he will endorse John Cornyn's primary opponent, Ken Paxton, [8:10] in the Texas Republican Senate runoff next week. And Trump made that decision despite all of [8:17] Cornyn's humiliating attempts to suck up to him. And despite the fact that Ken Paxton is a deeply [8:24] flawed candidate. I mean, this guy has spent years under a massive cloud of indictments, impeachment, [8:31] whistleblower allegations, repeated allegations of misconduct and abuse of office. And that doesn't [8:37] even touch on the allegations of adultery from his former wife who filed for divorce and what she [8:41] called biblical grounds. So yeah, that guy Trump just endorsed, well, he might have a harder time [8:48] holding onto that seat. And that's why Senate Republicans spent months trying to convince Trump [8:53] to back Cornyn. And why they're now reportedly livid about Trump's decision. I mean, after Trump's [8:59] endorsement, Senator Lindsey Graham told reporters that he thinks the Texas Senate race will cost Republicans [9:05] three times as much money with Ken Paxton as their nominee. And that's money that Republicans won't [9:10] be able to spend in other races, like, say, defending Ohio Senator and Trump loyalist John Husted [9:15] in his race against former Senator Sherrod Brown, or defending Alaska Senator and Trump loyalist Dan [9:21] Sullivan in his race against Mary Piltoa. Trump isn't just betraying John Cornyn. He seems to be [9:28] betraying all of his loyal, spineless supporters in the Senate. What Trump has demonstrated tonight is that [9:35] no amount of loyalty can save you from Trump's impetuous decisions. Republicans can choose to [9:42] stand up to Trump or worship the ground he walks on, but nothing will save them from the chaotic [9:47] whims of a mad king. So who's on Capitol Hill today? Was it the acting attorney general, [9:55] the United States of America? Or as one Democratic lawmaker put it today, was it Donald Trump's [10:02] consigliere? Todd Blanche came under withering questioning from Democrats over the wholesale [10:08] replacement of the Department of Justice's 150-plus-year-old mission of upholding the rule [10:15] of law in this country and around the world, with instead doing the bidding of an aspiring autocrat [10:21] named Donald J. Trump. A key focus today, that $1.8 billion settlement funded by our money, taxpayer [10:30] dollars. Our taxpayer dollars will now be used to compensate people who claim to have been wronged by [10:37] the Justice Department, the so-called victims of weaponization. Here's Senator Van Hollen on that. [10:46] This is an outrageous, unprecedented slush fund that you set up. Simple question. Will [10:53] individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund? [10:58] Well, as it makes plain, anybody is — Just let me know if they're eligible for the fund. [11:03] As was made plain yesterday, anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe [11:10] they're a victim of weaponization. Mr. Attorney General, let me ask you this. [11:13] Are there going to be rules that say that if you've assaulted a Capitol Hill police officer or [11:18] committed a violent crime, you will not be eligible? Why not make that a rule? [11:23] I expect that — well, because I'm not one of the commissioners setting up the rules, [11:26] I expect that there will be rules set up — You're appointing four of the five members, [11:28] aren't you, Mr. Attorney General? Pardon me? [11:30] You're appointing four of the five members. I'm appointing all five members. There's also an [11:35] individual who, after being pardoned by the president, went on to molest two children. And [11:44] that person actually tried to buy the silence of these children by saying that he would pay them [11:50] some of the funds that he was hoping to get from your slush fund. Can you commit to making the rule [11:57] so that that person is not eligible for a payout under this fund? [12:01] Well, you're obviously lying in your question, because there's no way that this person committed [12:06] to that. The slush fund, as you call it, which it's not, didn't exist. [12:10] I'm sure — But I can commit — Mr. Attorney General, don't ever do that again. [12:16] I am reporting what he said. He said on the expectation that he hoped to get some of the [12:22] funds from a payout. He's been — [12:24] You said from the slush fund, Senator, and that didn't exist when he said that. [12:27] This is the fund that the president and all of you have been telegraphing all along, [12:32] that you're going to use to help the president's friends. [12:35] Can you point to — Mr. Attorney General, I have a last question. [12:38] What telegraph did I — I have a last question for you. [12:41] Okay. [12:41] Do you know that it is a criminal offense to lie to Congress? [12:47] I am very well aware of that. [12:50] I'm glad to hear that. [12:51] A couple headlines there. Blanche acknowledging it is a slush fund — and we'll use his quotes if he'd [12:59] like us to — but also suggesting that the child molester who was convicted for the crime of telling [13:05] the child he molested, that there was money coming to him in restitution. [13:12] Didn't even know, couldn't have even known about the slush fund. [13:15] The person that Senator Van Hollen was asking Todd Blanche about is named Andrew Paul Johnson. He's [13:22] right now, as we come on the air, right now his status is this. He's serving a sentence of life [13:28] in prison for molesting minors. NPR reports this about him. Police reported that that man, Johnson, [13:36] 45, tried to keep the children quiet by telling them he would share the millions of dollars in [13:42] restitution money he expected to receive from the Trump administration in connection with his [13:47] January 6 case, end quote. At one point, as part of his bungling defense of the slush fund, [13:57] Todd Blanche suggested that anybody, any Republican, any Democrat in this country, [14:03] could apply for money if they, quote, believed they were victims. Watch that. [14:10] It is true that this is unusual. That is true. But it is not unprecedented. And it was done [14:16] to address something that had never happened again either. So there is an unprecedented nature of what [14:21] we did yesterday in response to years and years of weaponization. Just to correct a few things, [14:27] Senator, it's not limited to Republicans. It's not limited to... I didn't say it was. [14:35] It's not limited to the Biden weaponization. It's not limited to, in any way, scope or form to [14:43] January 6 or to Jack Smith. There's no limitation on the claims. [14:50] Okay. So, with that stipulated, is former director of the FBI, Jim Comey, eligible? His team argued [15:02] that he was the victim of a vindictive and selective prosecution. What about New York's attorney, [15:08] General Tish James? What about the Southern Poverty Law Center, or Act Blue, [15:12] or the six members of Congress who were investigated for simply saying out loud, [15:17] on camera, that the men and women of the United States military swore an oath [15:22] not to follow any illegal orders? Do you have good claims? Are your hand-picked [15:27] five commissioners going to grant their claims? No doubt. So, in a world where Todd Blanche picks, [15:35] as he said, he corrected the questioner. It wasn't just four members, it's all five, [15:40] the commissioners who make the decisions, we can safely rule that out. This is also the same Todd [15:47] Blanche who claims that there's evidence that Bill Barr couldn't find, or Brad Raffensperger, [15:52] or any of the other Trump allies who looked really hard, that the 2020 election was indeed rigged. [15:58] This is the same Todd Blanche who served as Donald Trump's defense attorney. The same Todd Blanche who [16:04] now cannot definitively say if violent felons who assaulted cops will receive money from [16:11] the quote slush fund. Here's what happened when Todd Blanche was pressed again about ensuring that [16:19] money from taxpayers does not go to the most violent insurrectionists. Will you agree to encourage [16:27] those commissioners to set a guideline that compensation will not go to individuals who [16:33] are convicted of assaulting police officers? I expect- I just a yes would answer my question, [16:39] or no. Yes will not answer that question. I mean, you're asking whether I will encourage. I don't [16:43] think that's a fair word. I don't think it's the attorney general's job to encourage commissioners to [16:47] do or not do anything. Barr, forbid, ban, rule out, change the word. Hours after that testimony [17:00] wrapped up on Capitol Hill, news broke that the Department of Justice expanded its settlement [17:05] with Donald Trump. A one-page document signed by, you guessed it, that guy, Todd Blanche, and posted on the [17:12] Justice Department website bars the IRS from ever pursuing an audit of Donald Trump or his family or [17:20] his family businesses. 407 will be eagerly awaiting the release of Donald Trump's taxes now that we know [17:28] he can never, ever, ever be audited. That was his excuse back in 16 for not releasing them. Politico [17:34] and the New York Times were the first to report the news about the document. The Justice Department [17:39] did not provide comment on the document to either news organization. The acting head of the Justice [17:45] Department up on Capitol Hill facing withering questions about Donald Trump's attempt to turn [17:50] the office of the presidency into a personal piggy bank funded by the American taxpayer is where we [17:57] begin today with some of our favorite, most favorite reports and friends. Justice and intelligence [18:02] reporter Ken Delaney is here. Also joining us, former Department of Justice pardon attorney, [18:07] Liz Oyer is here. She was fired by Trump's Department of Justice after refusing to reinstate [18:13] actor Mel Gibson's gun rights. And with me at the table, back at the table for the hour, [18:18] our friend Andrew Weissman is here. We're so glad you're here. [18:21] I'm so glad to be here. [18:22] I'm so excited to talk about the book. The new book is called Liar's Kingdom. [18:27] It's so important. It's so good. It's so timely. It's about how to stop Trump's deceit and save [18:32] America. We deal with lying. We deal with gaslighting. We'll pull that thread all hour, [18:36] and then we'll dive into the book a little bit later on. I want to ask you about Todd Blanche's [18:43] performance today. The, you know, and there were actually a lot of guys. It's like a three-ring [18:49] circus, right? Vance was in one ring, Blanche on the other. The problem with performing for [18:54] an audience of one, which is what they're all trained to do, motivated to do, is that the answers [19:00] sound ridiculous. Right. I mean, that is the reason he could not say we are not going to give money [19:07] to violent felons. If you remember, before the inauguration, you had the vice president [19:14] and Pam Bondi suggesting, well, don't worry, we're going to do a triage of the January 6th defendants [19:19] to suggest that the violent ones would not get a pardon. Well, they got ahead of their skis because [19:26] everyone got a pardon. And so here you see Todd Blanche not being able to even say that [19:32] minimally decent thing. But I think I'd like to step back one step to this. The entire thing [19:40] is built on, in my view, a lie. I mean, the entire predicate for this is that there needs to be a fund [19:48] because of the weaponization of the Biden Justice Department in going after people who attacked the [19:55] Capitol on January 6th. We saw it with our own eyes. Those people, there was no weaponization. [20:02] Those people got due process. They either pleaded guilty or they were found guilty by a jury [20:09] or they were awaiting trial. That is not weaponization. That is the justice system. [20:12] Mitch McConnell actually justifies not impeaching, not convicting Donald Trump in his impeachment trial [20:17] by saying he should be adjudicated by the justice system. Exactly. So this is all predicated on [20:24] something that they're just pretending, oh, of course, all those people were victimized. [20:29] I would remind people we saw with our own eyes the crime. And even with all of that abundant evidence, [20:38] these people were given due process, the rule of law, and there was an adjudication. What is happening [20:45] now is these people are being told, if you commit crimes for Donald Trump, not only will you get a [20:54] pardon, but you now have the prospect of cashing in on your crimes. What is the deterrent effect now, [21:03] going forward, where you've created this paid army with criminal impunity? Because there will not only be [21:12] no criminal repercussions, there's a reward for what they're doing. This is gobsmacking. And the [21:20] person who is announcing this and defending it is the head of what is our justice department. [21:28] Democrat of Massachusetts is joining me now and surveying all of this. What do you think about [21:33] this fundamental dynamic that we now have of Trump's grip on the Republican Party, sort of arguably [21:41] stronger even maybe than it's ever been, grip on the country weaker and what that means for what [21:46] happens? So it's a tighter and tighter hold on a smaller and smaller group. Yeah. Yes. [21:53] So it, but that was really the point. I've heard the commentators say, and the people decided they [22:00] didn't want to support Massey. No, the people who showed up at a Republican primary decided they didn't [22:06] want him to be their standard bearer. You know, if it's been an open anybody votes, if this had been [22:11] a general, I don't know exactly how that goes, but I think this is the part it's interesting to watch [22:18] and to watch what the dynamic will be on Republicans who said, man, I'm not crossing that guy [22:23] on the elected Republicans. We know who they belong to, but the reality is we're five months out. We're [22:29] going to have a general election and boy is that's going to start shaking things. [22:35] So there's, so there's a bunch of cross pressure. I mean, right now we're already seeing the fallout [22:39] in the Senate today, right? Um, in a few different ways. I want to talk one day, one way was there [22:45] was a war power resolution today. And for the first time, Democrats party line, except for John [22:50] Fetterman have been voting for it. Republicans voting against it, except for Rand Paul. Those two have [22:54] been switching today. Uh, Bill Cassidy fresh off that loss on Saturday crossed the line and voted [22:59] with you and your colleagues, uh, to put it over the hump, which means it will now call a vote is [23:03] how I understand the procedure. Um, what do you make of that development? And also what it portends [23:08] for this Senate for the next four or five. Could you say more clearly that if I'd been voting my [23:13] conscience all along, I would not have been voting with Donald Trump. Talk about a confession. [23:18] I mean, it was really wild. It's just like a moment of, uh, of, of just the, [23:24] now we can see what's really going on. And so you look at all the other guys who are still voting [23:29] in line with Donald Trump. You watch these elections. And look, there's no voter who's [23:33] going to be fooled after the next, after today, right? Is there anybody left who thinks that there [23:40] is an elected Republican who is actually voting his conscience, doing what he thinks is best for [23:48] all of the people of his district. How does he stand up in front of the electorate for the next [23:53] five and a half months as he faces the general electorate and say, you know what matters most to [23:58] me? And with a straight face says you rather than pleasing Donald Trump. Well, and, and I think [24:05] there's a strange kind of coincidence of interest here, which is that both Donald Trump and I would [24:09] argue the democratic party probably want it to be the case that voters understand that Donald Trump is [24:15] the Republican party. The Republican party is Donald Trump. Well, I mean, at this point, right? [24:19] That's reality. It's it. We'd like people to understand reality, but here's the thing. [24:23] What Democrats will do now and are doing already is they are both going after Donald Trump. Remember [24:30] the man who said, what would he do? He would lower costs on day one. And where are we on cost? [24:37] Cost of groceries is up. Cost of gasoline is up. Cost of healthcare is up. Cost of utilities is up. [24:42] Cost of housing is up. And he told us he would keep us safe and stay out of wars. And you can do [24:49] your own count on how many he's in. But what I know he might be another one in Cuba, who knows? [24:53] That's right. A billion dollars a day to kill people halfway around the world and still can't [24:58] explain how that helps one single family here in America. So we're going to stay on that. But here's [25:04] the other half. We're also going to be making the affirmative case. And that's not just he sucks, [25:10] right? Our case is going to be here are the things that will lay out that we will commit [25:16] to get done that will affect your family, that will lower your costs. I think that's going to be [25:24] the key. I want to talk about that contrast, but I want to stay on for a second on the way that he is [25:29] using taxpayer money and pushing them. I mean, because now you've got this, this, I think this ballroom [25:33] thing is really wild, right? I mean, originally it was, I'm raising private funds. Now it's, [25:38] I must have a billion dollars. He's monomaniacally obsessed with it. Over the weekend, the Senate [25:41] parliamentarian, for somewhat complicated reasons, stripped out the ballroom funding out of the bill. [25:45] They want to pass on a party line vote to begin with, right? They're not even, they're not consulting [25:49] you. There's no negotiation on this. And Trump is so obsessed with this. I mean, it's all he talks [25:55] about really. He did an event today about it. He calls up Thune, Senate majority leader, to basically [25:59] say you should fire the parliamentarian. And he wants to get this through. But this just strikes me. [26:05] I mean, when you're talking about this contrast of like what they stand for, like there's been a [26:09] billion dollars in the guy's ballroom as people's gross, as all their costs explode, it is an [26:14] opportunity to be like, well, here's what we would do with money. Exactly. Because that really is the [26:18] heart of it. Donald Trump has now said, with the cameras running now, we can't do childcare, [26:25] right? We can't do that because we got this war to fight halfway around the world. [26:29] He literally said that. That's not a, I want to say that's not a gross mischaracterization. [26:32] That's right. Explicitly. He literally said it. Yeah. He spends hours, right? Online doing memes [26:40] about the war or about Donald Trump in a triumphal arch or in a made up AI thing where he's floating [26:49] in the, in the reflecting pool. He spends hours on this. He spends energy on this. He talks about the [26:57] ballroom and where is he on your groceries? Where is he on the fact that your utilities are up 67%. [27:07] Where is he on the ways that his own policies, his tariff policy, his energy policy, his healthcare [27:15] policy and his war have driven your costs up and up and up and up. And the answer is nobody home. [27:23] Don't want to talk about it. Get mad if somebody raises it. He doesn't want to talk about it. But [27:28] here's what we're betting on, that this is what elections are about. Yeah. And when we hit the [27:33] general election, Democrats are going to say, I'm going to talk about this stuff. He, I mean, [27:39] he has been very focused in the ballroom. He is very focused on, uh, I think essentially enriching [27:45] his self, his family and his, well, that's the other half, right? So, so I want to also on making [27:50] himself rich. So I want to talk about this. I have you here. I mean, I have to say [27:56] this to call it a settlement is too charitable and generous. It's, it's, it's a shakedown. It's [28:00] not even, it's not even a court approved settlement in a technical sense, right? I mean, they're, [28:03] they're calling it that, but you know, we've got a $1.8 billion slush fund. That's going to be given [28:07] out by essentially his appointees at will to whoever attached to it today. On top of that, [28:13] as someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about tax fairness and particularly the tax incidents of [28:18] a wealthiest and most connected Americans, a crazy writer that came out today that basically says [28:24] they dropping all audits can never investigate him or his companies or his family or anyone ever, [28:29] ever, ever for anything. The IRS, I guess I'm left speechless. It's sort of melted my ability to [28:36] analyze it, but what is your response to it? But you know, you've got it exactly right. So start on the [28:40] first part of it. And this is this $1.8 billion. Can we just underline here? That's not some random 1.8 [28:47] billion. It's not 1.8 billion that fell out of the sky. This is taxpayer dollars. This is stand [28:54] up in front of a group of people and say your money. Yeah. Put went to dig in your pocket money. [28:59] That's exactly right. Didn't go to lowering the cost of healthcare. It didn't go to childcare. [29:04] It didn't go to bringing down your costs or even paving a road out here. It went to Donald Trump to [29:12] distribute, I don't know, to people who beat up cops on January 6th. It goes to whoever Donald [29:20] Trump's favorite person of the hour is. Nobody gets ruled out here, no matter what kind of crook [29:26] you are. So that's the first part is the money part. I mean, it's, we should just say it's [29:30] essentially explicitly a fund for crooks in some sense, because I mean, not, which is not to say [29:37] that everyone's prosecutors are correct. I want to be very clear about that. But, but I mean, [29:40] that it's really pointing in that direction, just to be clear. Yeah. [29:44] Pointing pretty sharp as in finger right at your nose. Yeah. Okay. But look at what happens [29:51] in the other part of what he's done. I don't know how else you could hold up a bigger sign [29:58] that says the president of the United States is deeply concerned that he has committed tax fraud. [30:05] Members of his family have committed tax fraud over a long period of time. And as soon as somebody [30:11] other than Donald Trump is in charge, those chickens are going to come home to roost and [30:16] poop all over him. And so insist on this as the settlement writer. [30:21] That's right. This is the settlement writer right this minute. And by the way, [30:26] it almost has, you said you can't analyze it for me. It has just a little bit of the flavor of, [30:33] oh, the general election is coming up. And if Democrats are there in the house and the Senate [30:40] and have some control, they might be doing hearings, putting breaks, they may be reining in. So it's [30:47] like watching somebody who's been gorging on corruption, who is just, who is loaded with [30:52] corruption and says, let's stuff in a few more pieces before the guys come who might take the [31:00] food away from the table. On this sort of, this sort of corruption priorities and cost question, [31:04] which I agree is like the center right now of the campaign. It's like, [31:07] the guy wants to build a ballroom, wants to pay other friends. Are you better off? You're not. [31:11] Things are more expensive. His own war. He started all this. It's not like, [31:15] you know, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine and costs went up. Joe Biden took the blame, [31:19] but there's not a lot he could done about it. This is a very different situation. [31:22] But there also is a question of like, tangibly, it's like, even if you have Senate majorities, [31:26] there's not a Senate majority, House majority, like how much you can actually do to bring down costs for [31:30] folks. You know, I don't see it that way. So I see what we can start with [31:35] is we can do the investigations and start beating back on the corruption. And let's not forget on [31:41] this. The corruption and the costs are not running independently. They're actually feeding each other. [31:47] Correct. [31:47] Why are your utility bills so high? Well, could part of it be that Donald Trump took a million dollars [31:53] from a billion dollars from the oil industry and keeps delivering on that? So every place where we've [32:00] got oversight capacity independently to call people in, to cut off budgets, to demand from the various [32:07] actors, may not be Donald Trump himself, but from the people who are running the administration, [32:12] it gives us a purchase. It gives us a foot in the door to be able to push back on that. [32:17] Second thing is look where we are right now. Donald Trump and the Republicans have nothing to show [32:24] for having been in power for a year and a half. They're going to have to turn around and run on, [32:29] hi, here's what we did, a ballroom that isn't finished and a reflecting pool that [32:35] looks like a holiday and swimming pool. The estate tax exemption is nice and big, I will say. [32:40] Tax breaks for billionaires, for meta, for the big guys. Okay, that's what they've got to run on. [32:47] One of the things we will be in a position to do if we have House and Senate is start pushing through [32:54] our agenda, push through our child care bill. And now it's up to Donald Trump. [32:58] Right. [32:59] What are you going to do, baby? Yeah. [33:01] You're going to veto it because it came from the Democrats? [33:04] Or are you going to pony up and sign it and reduce costs for American families? [33:08] So don't tell me that we're going to be handcuffed until 2028. [33:13] Right. Nope. The fight starts the day after the election if we've got the power. [33:18] Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, thank you for making time and for being patient [33:21] as we work through this busy election night. Great to have you here. [33:24] I want to bring in MSNOW's Kevin Fry on Capitol Hill. Anthony Coley served as director of the Office [33:30] of Public Affairs under President Biden and is an MSNOW political analyst. Paul Butler is a former [33:35] federal prosecutor and MSNOW legal analyst. So I wonder what you make of what we heard today, Paul. [33:42] This fund, we don't exactly know how it's going to operate. Seems like a lot of [33:47] open questions for a huge amount of money. Open questions about its constitutionality, [33:53] important separation of powers concerns. The appropriation clause of the 14th, [33:58] the appropriation clause says that Congress determines how federal taxpayer dollars are [34:04] allocated. There's an argument here that the Trump administration is unilaterally [34:09] creating a fund to hand out taxpayer money to its supporters with no congressional approval or [34:17] oversight. There's also a really interesting kind of historical 14th amendment concern. Chris, [34:23] section four of the 14th amendment says that federal taxpayer money cannot go to anybody who, [34:31] as in paying an obligation or debt for insurrection or violence against the government. [34:38] So it says that specifically? It does. Again, it was intended so that the people who [34:42] rebelled in the Confederacy couldn't be rewarded. But it specifically says debt and obligations, [34:49] which sounds like attorney's fees and any other concerns that January 6th defendants have, [34:55] can't be paid for by the federal government under the constitution. [34:59] Anthony Blanche did say at one point that the president and his family will not get a payout [35:04] from the fund. But if the president's allies, supporters and donors can get paid, [35:09] what questions does that raise? It raises a lot of questions, Chris. And let me say this, [35:14] I was in the room for most of this hearing today. The thing that struck me the most was the silence [35:18] that came from Republicans on the rostrum. And Dr. King told us, I've been rereading a letter from [35:24] a Birmingham jail and other historical documents. He reminded us that silence is complicity. [35:30] And that's what I saw today. And if you go back and look at consequential moments in American history, [35:35] take Watergate, for example, there were Democrats and Republican leaders who marched over to the [35:40] White House to tell Richard Nixon that it was time for him to go. During the Reagan administration, [35:45] for example, on the matter of Iran-Contra, there were Democrats and Republican committee chairs [35:50] who called the Reagan administration on the carpet for that scandal. And even during the [35:56] George W. Bush administration on matters with regard to wiretapping and torture on the U.S. [36:01] attorney scandal, you had Republican senators like John Cornyn and Lindsey Graham and Arlen Spector [36:07] and John McCain. I mean, the list goes on. It's pretty long, Chris, of Republican members of [36:13] Congress standing with Democrats when leaders of their party are doing things that are not consistent [36:19] with the Constitution of American values. And it is that silence from Republican members of [36:25] Congress right now that makes this moment so dangerous. Since you were in the room, Anthony, [36:30] take us inside. Did you sense any discomfort or hear anything that suggests discomfort about the [36:36] idea of giving almost $2 billion in taxpayer money to people who may be friendly with the president of [36:44] the United States? No. And this is why I just don't understand it, Chris, for the life of me. When you, [36:50] especially you led with Senator Coons's question, Senator Van Allen weighed in as well, [36:56] about this issue of law enforcement, people who attacked law enforcement on January 6th, [37:03] getting compensated out of this fund. I mean, whatever happened to back the blue? This is [37:09] supposed to be an administration who is pro-law enforcement. But I hope every single law [37:15] enforcement officer in this country sees this clip today. It's further proof that this guy doesn't [37:21] care about them. He doesn't care about—I mean, the American people are scratching their head right [37:25] now. Why is this man focused on this issue and not their high gas prices and not their cost of [37:32] living? And so, I mean, that's what I felt and others felt in the room today, in addition to just [37:38] all the silence we're sending from Republican senators. So, Kevin, lawmakers also pressed Todd Blanche [37:44] on how Trump might be involved in this process. What did we learn? Right. So we know that when it comes to [37:52] this fund, they're setting up as part of the rules that were laid out by the DOJ in their document [37:56] yesterday, a five-member board. Four of those would be appointed by the attorney general. One [38:00] additional one in consultation, they say, with Congress. But here is the notable phrase in here, [38:06] that they can be removed by the president who can remove any member without cause. Now, Blanche was [38:13] pressed on how much involvement the president would have, despite that clause in the document. Here's what [38:17] that exchange looked like. Who are the commissioners? They're not named yet. [38:23] Who will name them? I will. Or the attorney general will. It's not me. [38:27] So, with the suggestion of the president of the United States? Excuse me? With the suggestion [38:32] of the American, of the president of the United States, your boss? I do not make suggestions. I [38:36] will. No, no. He won't make suggestions to you. I have no idea if he will or not. I really don't. I [38:43] have no idea if he will or not. I would be shocked if he didn't tell you exactly who to put on, [38:50] and I'd be more shocked if you did not put them on. Of course, some of the Democratic [39:02] misbelief that you're seeing there from Senator Jack Reed is that we know, of course, that Attorney [39:07] General or Acting Attorney General Blanche is one of those can being considered for the full-time job. [39:12] So, part of this, I think, stems from the Democratic point of view that they are like, [39:16] well, if you're trying to get this job, of course, you want to do what the president wants you to do. [39:19] Also, because the document lays out that for-cause option where they can just essentially remove [39:25] a member at their own volition. But this gets to the root of the concern we have seen from Democrats [39:29] and even some Republicans since this was announced, which is essentially that this creates up a fund [39:33] where the president can give out money through his folks that he is overseeing to anyone that he deems [39:39] to be a victim of the last administration, including January 6th defendants. And so this kind of all [39:45] goes back to that central kernel of concern from lawmakers. Yeah, thank you for that. So, Paul, I do [39:52] want to play with the president said because he was asked about who exactly might benefit from this [39:57] fund. And here's what he said. These were people that were weaponized and really treated brutally [40:04] by a system that was so corrupt with corrupt people running it. And they're getting reimbursed for their [40:10] legal fees and the other things that they had to suffer. Do you believe that people who committed [40:15] violence against Capitol Hill police officers on January 6th should be eligible for compensation [40:20] from this DOJ fund? And are you or your family members going to be seeking compensation from that fund? [40:26] It'll all be dependent on a committee. A committee is being set up of very talented people, [40:31] very highly respected people. I think it's a committee of five. And again, I didn't do this deal. [40:35] You heard him say a committee of five. Math is not my strong suit, but let's say this. [40:41] All you need is a quorum. A quorum is three. That's correct. [40:45] So there could be three in a meeting deciding who gets this money. It's a majority vote. That means [40:51] potentially two people could be making decisions that ultimately amount to almost $2 billion? [41:00] $2 billion? Two people, maybe ultimately it's one person, one man, President Donald Trump, [41:06] because in this deal, he gets to veto, he gets to fire any one of the five commissioners. So [41:13] anyone who doesn't vote how he likes, we know what's going to happen to that person. [41:17] Anthony, what did you hear from Todd Blanche in terms of justification to explain to the [41:23] American people why nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money should be used this way, [41:29] especially now when we know what the American people are saying about how much they're hurting. [41:36] I didn't hear very much. And I want to go back. You played the Trump clip at the top. [41:40] Chris, he talked about this in past tense, but I don't think we should think about this [41:44] just as past tense. I think he is sending a message. He's creating a permission structure. [41:50] He's sending a message to would-be criminals that if you commit a crime in my name, [41:56] don't worry about it. I'll take care of it. I'll pardon you. I'll make you whole financially. [42:01] And honestly, that should send a chilling message to every American who is pro-democracy and pro-constitution, [42:07] because it comes at a time when this man, his back is against the wall because of his low approval [42:12] ratings, and we're going into a midterm election where his party is about to lose control of one, [42:19] if not both, houses of Congress. So that, to me, should be the takeaway about this. It's not just [42:25] what happened in the past. He's creating this template for what could happen going forward and [42:30] calling really on a ragtag militia of people, just like we saw on January 6th, to turn over [42:38] the will of the voters, potentially in 2026. Paul Blanch said today that what they are doing is [42:46] almost identical to a fund that was done during the Obama administration. Is it almost identical? [42:52] No. He, in fact, admitted at the hearing today that it wasn't almost identical, mainly because [42:58] in a typical settlement agreement, it's a judge who oversees the settlement to make sure that [43:04] everything is on the up and up. Here, the Trump administration did this really neat hat trick [43:09] where they filed suit and then they dismissed the suit and they say, OK, we settled it. But after the [43:15] judge dismissed the suit, they're saying the judge doesn't have any oversight over it. And to Anthony's [43:21] point about the message that this sends, Chris, 1,000 people pled guilty in January 6th crimes. That [43:29] means that they came to court and they admitted that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt [43:33] that they did what the government said that they did. An additional 250 were found guilty by a judge or [43:41] a jury. Now, Trump, on his first day in office, pardoned 1,600 of those people. But Anthony's exactly [43:49] right. The expressive message here is that people not only are getting away with crimes, [43:55] they're being rewarded for crime.