Nicolle SHREDS Vivek Ramaswamy for DOUBLING DOWN on ad — Deadline: White House Weekly Highlights

[0:01] You should just be able to say, look, no one's violating the law, no one's going to get in any [0:05] trouble because they're not violating the law. They're worried because they know and they [0:09] understand the level of enabling that's gone on is just, at this point, transparent and obvious. [0:15] And that's my point. If you commit a crime or you aid and abet a crime or you participate in [0:21] a frivolous lawsuit, your bar status is going to be looked at. Just follow the law and we don't [0:27] have a problem. Senators Larkin basically articulating how far from anything even [0:35] appearing normal we are. And in that vein, today's Trump 2.0 corruption story is wild. [0:43] The corruption in Trump's second term is so open and so flagrant that the MAGA versus MAGA corruption [0:51] stories are spilling into public view. This is a feud over an alleged pay to play scheme that has [0:57] been public for days now. New York Times has been covering it, as have other outlets. [1:01] It involves Donald Trump's former personal lawyer named Alina Haba and Donald Trump's handpicked [1:08] former Kennedy Center chief Rick Grinnell. Drawing from interviews with more than a dozen people with [1:14] knowledge of the events, the New York Times reports that earlier this month, Alina Haba allegedly stormed [1:20] into the Oval Office and claimed that Rick Grinnell, the other guy, had siphoned money given by her [1:26] husband, who's a Turkish billionaire, that was meant for the Kennedy Center. It was a 17.6 million dollar [1:34] payment that actually came from the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo, where her husband [1:40] has business dealings. According to the Times, it was intended for, quote, a Texas security and defense [1:48] firm. Mr. Grinnell previously acknowledged consulting for the firm in 2024, but he has said he had no [1:54] connection to it at the time the transfer was made and denied any connection to the transfer, end quote. [1:59] Almost six million dollars of that was supposed to be sent to the Kennedy Center. Today, brand new [2:05] reporting in Axios reveals exactly what Grinnell offered up in exchange for that payment. He reportedly [2:12] texted Haba's husband this, quote, once the money comes to the company here, I will arrange the donation [2:19] to Kennedy Center and you'll be joining the VIP events and get close to the administration even [2:25] with POTUS, end quote. Alina Haba and her husband have not commented. Rick Grinnell calls the accusation [2:32] that he siphoned the money, quote, lies. And a source tells Axios that, quote, Rick Grinnell hotly denied [2:39] that he sent the text because center was spelled the British way as C-E-N-T-R-E. Let's bring in media [2:48] matters for America. President Angelo Carazon with me at the table, political reporter Jake LaHutt. [2:53] He writes the sub stack, The Hut. I have called these stories sort of branch lineable stories, [2:59] but that usually referred to like, you know, fights between, I don't know, Kellyanne Conway and [3:06] Dina Powell, you know, the fights that were internal, but sort of intramural. These are Trump insiders [3:12] accusing each other of felonies. Yeah, it escalated pretty quickly. And as someone who has been yelled [3:20] at by Rick Grinnell on a couple of occasions, couldn't happen to a better guy. But when it [3:25] comes to like the mechanics of the spreading of money, what's a felony, I think, you know, [3:30] zooming out here, we have the trading on the president's name. And what is the fine line [3:35] difference between something like this and essentially having someone say, hey, come to our consulting firm, [3:42] pay us and we'll get you the right introductions with the president. We'll get you that, you know, [3:46] Mar-a-Lago candlelit dinner where you can sit down and talk about whatever you need, as long as it's [3:50] for a million bucks a head. And the corruption story is broken through much more than I think [3:55] a lot of us who maybe are a little cynical about it in the press would have thought. But you know, [3:59] the Alina Habba, Rick Grinnell of it, I think makes it especially interesting because I saw that [4:03] Vice President Vance had claimed in an interview recently that, oh, I don't hear about this stuff. [4:08] No one really talks about it. I want to wait until I see the facts come out. I'll wait [4:11] until the facts come out. Fair enough. This is what these folks talk about all the time. [4:17] If your workplace had a bunch of rackets going on like that, you would talk about it with people. [4:22] Well, let me just, I mean, I wanted to share all the details, Angelo, because what's amazing [4:28] for anyone that's watched The Wire, right, is that they're putting criminal conspiracies in writing. [4:33] Like they're not just allegedly corrupt. They are doing the thing that like culture, [4:40] like the most, I think, brilliantly created sort of people in culture warned us not to put in [4:48] writing. I mean, this is such a flagrant either money laundering, or I mean, that's certainly what [4:54] it looks like based on the allegations that money from the Democratic Republic of Congo gets [4:59] siphoned through to someone else, gets laundered somewhere and ends up in someone else's bank [5:03] account. And the cherry on the top is FaceTime and access to Donald Trump. It's an unbelievable window. [5:10] Yeah. I mean, that's what it is. And they wrote, they wrote down, it is a scandal. Yeah. That's an [5:15] adjective. I would describe it that way, but it's also a business model because this is not a one-off, [5:20] right? I mean, this is part of what we've seen consistently with the Trump administration is this [5:24] idea that you put money into something and the result, the benefit that you get is access and [5:31] then maybe some other follow-throughs, right? So it's these meme coin dinners. It was what Guilfoyle [5:36] was doing, you know, and it is a constant refrain that we hear over and over again. And when that becomes [5:42] so core to how the administration operates, then you can casually write it down. You can casually write [5:47] down a thing that seems, if not illegal, really bad that you wouldn't want to be judged for because [5:52] it's so normal around you. And I think that's the part that's so striking about this is that [5:58] it wasn't treated as something sensational or sensitive. It was treated as just a common practice [6:05] as a part of this administration by people within it. And then also the people on the outside, [6:09] because that is basically how much they've managed to change the way that things get done. [6:15] Just how low should we be prepared for this to go? And can I stop preparing myself for that? [6:23] The answer is no, because if you look to Ohio's governor's race for the answer, it would suggest [6:28] that the bottom isn't there, that it's truly bottomless in the MAGA Republican Party. [6:33] That race took an ugly turn yesterday. The Republican MAGA candidate Vivek Ramaswamy put out an ad [6:40] featuring the estranged mother of his Democratic opponent, Dr. Amy Acton, who accused Acton of lying [6:47] about the hardship she faced as a child, as her child. This is someone Amy Acton has not seen since [6:53] she was 12 years old, because as the Washington Post is reporting, the Acton campaign actually went and [6:59] produced, quote, extensive documentation from court records and contemporary reports in local media [7:05] that corroborated Dr. Amy Acton's account that she and her brother were removed from their mother's home [7:12] after her mother's second husband, Cletus Arthur, was arrested and indicted in the year 1978 and charged [7:20] with the rape of Amy Stearns, being less than 13 years of age. He reportedly skipped town after being [7:29] indicted for raping her, and her mother stayed married to him. If anyone in Vivek Ramaswamy's [7:36] campaign had done their research, they would have known that. They would have found those disturbing [7:41] details. Or they did that, they found them, and they put it out anyway. Vivek Ramaswamy does not appear [7:52] deterred by making an ad about someone who was raped as a child or the swift bipartisan backlash he's [8:00] facing because of that ad. Axios reports he's doing the Trumpian thing and doubling down, [8:06] pouring $4 million into this despicable ad. As for Amy Acton's response to it, here's what she had to [8:13] say. I won't normalize somebody who has said that my childhood is something I'm just complaining about, [8:22] who today just released an ad using my birth mother, who I was removed from at the age of 12 for [8:30] severe abuse and neglect and sexual abuse. My brother and I were removed. The words our leaders [8:36] use matter, and I think it's going to take courage right now from all of us to stop normalizing this [8:44] sort of rhetoric. Do you know who was totally fine normalizing, quote, this sort of rhetoric? [8:53] JD Vance was. He happily, he didn't, he could have canceled his appearance with Vivek Ramaswamy, [8:59] who again, made an ad with a mother who stayed married to someone who raped her daughter. JD Vance [9:07] could have Googled that, seen that it was true, made sure the documents that the acting campaign [9:13] was citing were real, seen that they are, and then canceled his rally in Ohio with Vivek Ramaswamy. [9:21] But he didn't. I want to bring in the editor of Cleveland.com, Chris Quinn, also joining us, [9:27] political analyst, the former Senator Claire McCaskill before she served in the United States [9:31] Senate. She was a child sex crimes prosecutor. Claire, do you know from history how difficult it [9:40] was to prosecute child sex crimes in 1978 and prove them beyond a reasonable doubt to the point that [9:48] the victim of the child rape and her brother would be removed from their mother? [9:52] Yeah, that is exactly the era that I was prosecuting sexual assault in the courtroom and spent a lot [10:02] of time handling cases where children were victims. And Nicole, I think people need to realize that [10:08] right now at this moment, there are thousands of young girls in this country that are living [10:14] in fear and silenced by their rapists and by their abusers because it is someone who their mother, [10:21] quote unquote, loves. And this young lady was able to get out of this abusive situation. I don't know [10:32] if it was because a parent or a teacher or a doctor, many times it's someone from outside the household, [10:38] a neighbor that sees things, or the young girl tells someone and they tell someone, but the authority [10:46] stepped in and removed her from her parents. Now, that is a high bar in and of itself. Removing a child [10:54] from their biological mother is not something that is easy to do. There has to be proof to terminate [11:02] the relationship between a biological mother and her child. And I got to tell you, Nicole, [11:07] the cases I handled where the mother took the side of the rapist, her boyfriend, her husband, [11:17] her live in against her own daughter were the ones I can't forget because those little girls were taken [11:27] to a whole nother level of victimization. When the woman that gave them birth and who supposed to [11:34] provide unconditional love to them looks away from them and says, you know, I'm going to hang out with [11:38] your rapist instead. The trauma that Amy Acton went through and came through and became a productive [11:47] and strong leader and a woman who cares for others says so much about her character. And this ad tells [11:54] you everything you need to know about the Republican Party right now. There is no bottom. [12:00] Her, I guess, her stepfather or her abuser was indicted, not convicted. But I do want to show you, [12:10] Claire, the ad she put out having to deal with this with her brother talking about this painful [12:18] child care. I received a lot of abuse, but Amy always got the worst of it. She continued to receive [12:28] that abuse because she knew she had to protect me from, from that. And, and that if she hadn't done [12:35] that, um, who knows where I would have ended up. And she's 11 and 12 years old. And to think that [12:41] that's somehow a talking point, shame on Vivek. It's the contempt he has for Amy is the contempt he has [12:47] for Ohio. He's not fit to lead. So just, you know, to the, to the point at the, at the beginning, [12:55] Chris, I mean, I think I asked on the air once, the bottom's calling and wants to know if we're there [13:00] yet. And I vowed every year since 2017 to stop looking for the bottom. Like this will be the [13:05] year that I stopped being shocked and horrified. Um, this is for me, one of the most disturbing [13:11] stories that I've covered over the last decade. And it is very, um, much what Trump has ushered [13:17] in. I want to show you JD Vance again, could have canceled his trip, but he, he went and stood by the [13:22] ad and stood by Vivek Ramaswamy. Whether the ad was appropriate or not is not really my concern. [13:31] What is my concern is who's going to govern the next generation of American government, [13:38] who is going to win the Senate race in the state of Ohio, who's going to win the governor's race in [13:42] the state of Ohio. And I got to be honest that when I see Republicans, people in my party reacting so [13:49] strongly, especially elected officials, look, have the opinion you want to have on that ad. If you think [13:53] it was too tough, say it was too tough. If you think it wasn't tough enough, say that. But I have to [13:58] admit that I'm a little bit disgusted when I see Republicans across the country who are whining [14:04] more about that advertisement than they are about what the congressional Democrats and other Democrats [14:09] want to do to the United States of America. Now the media and the Democrats in the state of Ohio [14:14] are obsessed because guess what? Vivek Ramaswamy had the audacity to run a TV commercial, [14:21] which calls it out like it is and calls Amy Acton a liar. [14:25] Chris Quinn, if any gravity, you know, laws of physics return to our politics, those are [14:35] disqualifying for anyone who wants to be president. To call a child victim of rape, [14:41] where the facts and the evidence was sufficient to indict her stepfather for rape, to call her, [14:48] quote, a liar and say he's, quote, disgusted when he sees Republicans across the country who are [14:54] whining more about that ad than they are about congressional Democrats. I mean, this is someone [14:58] with kids. This is someone who's going to look every parent of a 13 year old girl and say that if [15:03] the evidence of rape is adequate to indict the rapist, then he's, quote, disgusted when Republicans [15:12] around the country whine about that being criticized. That is, again, I know we're not in normal times, [15:18] but let's pretend for the purposes of this conversation we are disqualifying. [15:24] Yeah. And actually, I think what Vivek did is disqualifying. If we're reading the tea leaves, [15:31] right, from what we're hearing from, I mean, I have 450 text messages from people today, [15:36] almost unanimous in condemnation of this ad. We're hearing from people that are saying, [15:41] I was on the fence. I'm not on the fence anymore. People want empathy in a candidate. And what he did [15:48] is re-victimize the victim. And the only reason the stepdad isn't convicted is he fled to Pennsylvania. [15:56] Now, I think today that wouldn't be effective. They would track you down. [16:01] Back then, you didn't have the communication that is available today. So fleeing to another state, [16:08] he got away with it. They issued, I think, three warrants going over four or five years to try and [16:13] track him down. This was a serious case. And yet that's what he's used. I do think you've hit the [16:21] rock bottom. This is the low where people are pushing back. I think he was going to lose before, [16:29] but this is just disgusted people in Ohio. I'm not hearing from anybody really saying, [16:36] oh, I support him. I know there's some things on social media that do that. But for our readers, [16:42] the people who pay attention to the news, not. I was heartened to see two Republican candidates in Ohio, [16:48] including John Huston, who's trying to keep the Senate seat. They didn't renounce the ad, [16:53] but they both said, I don't think I would have run that ad, which is a major step. It is something of [17:01] a criticism. I think every politician should renounce this. That's what we should do as humans. We should [17:08] protect victims. We shouldn't re victimize them. They are literally the elites they pretend to hate. [17:18] And here's the bottom line. If you're involved in any of this next year, you'll be raising your [17:25] right hand and swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you [17:30] God in front of the United States Congress. And everybody, it's now five o'clock in New York. [17:42] If you weren't fired up and excited to vote before, that ought to do it. Democrats have made [17:48] fighting Donald Trump and his administration's blatant, flagrant, in-your-face self-dealing [17:55] and corruption part of their closing argument to the country. And as poll after poll after poll shows [18:01] that all voters, even people that voted for Trump 20 months ago, are sick and tired of the grift that is [18:08] the central feature of Donald Trump's second term. For their part, Republicans are showing us the [18:15] alarming depths that they're going to sink to, I don't know, be in on the grift or protect Donald [18:21] Trump from any accountability for grifting. A brand new Washington Post-ABC poll finds that two-thirds [18:27] of all voters believe that Donald Trump is using the presidency to enrich himself. That includes, [18:33] as we said, many of his own voters. 34% of Republicans and independents who lean Republican [18:38] say Donald Trump is enriching himself. That's up from 22% in September of last year. Democrats have [18:46] seized on the message of being a check on Trump and reining him in. Here is Michigan Senator Alyssa [18:53] Slotkin pledging to tackle the corruption in our government that everyone agrees is a problem [18:58] in all its forms. Take a look. I want to look at these signature cases and not just focus on the [19:06] president, but on the people who enabled him. I want young people coming out of school to say, [19:11] should I go work for the Trump administration? Like, that sounds fun. I might get an opportunity. [19:15] I want them to be like, Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don't want, [19:22] and so let me avoid participating in that. I want that deterrence message. [19:29] The response from the party during the swamp fame, the MAGA Republicans, something about that [19:37] really triggered them. And they have done what they always do when they're triggered. They have [19:42] smeared the senator and issued outright threats of violence, some of them. For his part, Republican [19:50] Senator from Utah, Mike Lee, responded on social media like this, quote, it's absolutely disgraceful to [19:56] threaten young Americans for participating in politics and serving their country. [20:00] Very telling that participating in politics and stealing from the taxpayers, including their [20:05] own voters, are now one in the same for Mike Lee and Donald Trump. One conservative lawyer and Trump [20:11] ally named Mike Davis went even further. He responded to Senator Slotkin this way, quote, [20:18] Try it, Alyssa Slotkin. Learn about the Second Amendment sweetheart. That's Donald Trump's GOP. [20:27] It's also Republicans meeting an anti-corruption mood in the country with threats of violence against [20:34] anyone that talks about it. That's where we begin the hour. Democratic Senator Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan. [20:39] Senator, thank you for being here. Since we wrote all that up, Donald Trump has attacked you. I want to [20:44] just read a little bit of his attack. It sounds like his corruption is showing, but I'll let you respond. [20:49] Unquote. They weaponized government. Slotkin is a lowlife who's ruining her state, just destroying her [20:55] state. What they're doing is really discouraging people from going into politics. They weaponed [21:00] government, the Democrats. That's why they're done. Your thoughts? [21:04] Well, look, I mean, this isn't my first rodeo with this president. I just think this is what happens when [21:12] you touch a nerve because the average person understands the level of corruption that's [21:18] going on. Like, it's not hard to see, whether it's the reflecting pool or the East Wing of the [21:23] White House or any of these things that are very visible to, you know, the average person. They [21:29] understand and believe, per your opening segment, that the president is enriching himself and using [21:35] taxpayer dollars to do it. So, my whole point is, like, that triggers them clearly. And, you know, [21:43] it's almost like, you should just be able to say, like, look, no one's violating the law. No one's [21:49] going to get in any trouble because they're not violating the law. Like, they're worried because [21:53] they know and they understand the level of enabling that's gone on is just, at this point, transparent and [21:59] obvious. And that's my point. Like, if you commit a crime or you aid and abet a crime or you participate [22:05] in a frivolous lawsuit, like, your bar status is going to be looked at. Like, just follow the law [22:11] and we don't have a problem. Well, to me, it is the absolute parallel to how they responded when you [22:20] and Senator Kelly and four other lawmakers said to the men and women of the military, you know, FYI, [22:26] this is in your manuals. But let me remind you, you may not follow an unlawful order. You must [22:32] disobey an unlawful order. They lost their minds. It's something so standard in a normal time. I think [22:37] it's carved on a building somewhere. Why do you think they freak out and don't just I mean, the [22:42] response to that should have been we would never issue an illegal order. Next question. The response [22:46] to this should have been we're not committing any crimes. Why is it we watch out sweetheart Second [22:52] Amendment? Yeah, I mean, I think, look, I think when you choose to call out their corruption, [22:57] they clearly don't like that. They're clearly trying to change the conversation, given what the [23:03] midterms are and the state of the economy, the state of things around the country. I do think [23:08] there's something about being a woman and criticizing them and calling them out on that corruption that [23:13] really gets under their skin, obviously, or they wouldn't respond, you know, remember the Second [23:17] Amendment's sweetheart or all that crap. But I think it's more that it's not speaking to them. [23:25] It's speaking to the people who are potentially going to be asked to follow illegal requests, [23:31] right? It's speaking directly to the people who are on the receiving end of this administration [23:35] and reminding them that if you are forced to sign a contract and you are told from an advisor in the [23:41] White House, you know, go ahead and sign this contract at the Pentagon and give this company that happens [23:46] to have Trump Jr. on the board, it is putting those people in a terrible position. And people should [23:52] think about that, because it is important to remember that the president has immunity, right? [23:59] The Supreme Court gave him a lot of immunity, but the people who commit illegal acts on his behalf [24:04] do not have that immunity. And if you break the law, you should be held accountable. [24:08] Well, the other piece of his comment about you specifically [24:12] comes within 48 hours of news breaking that Cassidy Hutchinson is under criminal investigation. [24:19] I mean, he it's always a projection with him. He is the one running around the country [24:25] sicking his DOJ on people who didn't commit any crimes. He tried to indict you, but who angered him. [24:34] Yeah, I mean, I think and look, someone will with a psychology degree will have to understand why [24:39] it tends to be women who he he really goes after. He's fired mostly women from his administration. [24:45] He's blamed mostly women. He's gone after former aides. He has something with women. I think we know [24:51] that. But I think the bigger, broader point is if it didn't touch such a nerve, if they weren't so [24:58] concerned about breaking the law and corruption and violating their oath of office, then they wouldn't [25:04] respond so crazy. It's kind of like a child, you know, who's caught with the hand in the cookie jar, [25:09] and they know they're caught and they're angry, you know, that they got caught. So, but there's [25:15] something there and someone with a PhD and something is going to have to figure that out. [25:19] Let me read your response to Mike Davis, and we'll talk about who he is. You responded, [25:29] this man, Mike Davis, who's suggesting I be shot was in the mix to be President Trump's next [25:33] Attorney General after he fired Pam Bondi for not prosecuting more of his political opponents. [25:39] He's now in a MAGA dark money group mobilizing death threats against me and my staff for sport. [25:44] This should not be controversial. If you aid in stealing taxpayer money or directing it to enrich [25:49] President Trump or his family, then you should be held accountable for that crime. That's what I said, [25:52] and I stand by it. And if you use the justice system for frivolous lawsuits used to intimidate [25:57] and jail your political opponents, you should be held accountable for that via your bar status. [26:02] No abuse of power and not violating the law, then we have no problem. Why do you think Mike Lee, who [26:09] was once smart—not really fluent in his current state of mind—but would conflate public service [26:19] with corruption and breaking the law? [26:20] You know, I think, again, [26:23] like they were retweeting a clip that if they just listened to it, it would be very, very clear, [26:29] but it kind of got into their machine. And I think it's important for people to understand that [26:33] that network, it's a play that they're running, right? They want to manufacture outreach. [26:39] They all start repeating the same talking points. It's like they're given their marching orders, [26:42] whether it's senators or people at think tanks or accounts that are anonymous, whatever it is, [26:48] they all start repeating it. And they kind of gin themselves up to a froth to distract, [26:53] but then also to kind of like try to play, you know, reverse Uno or whatever on you and push back. [26:59] And I think the goal, by the way, is to intimidate. The goal is to create so many threats against you, [27:06] your family, and your staff that you shut up. My staff has been doxxed today. I mean, it has been a [27:11] very tough day for us purposely. They're doing that purposely. And I think people need to understand [27:17] that these are kind of the authoritarian tactics that are used across the world, not just by this [27:22] president, but by people who understand that threats of physical violence get their opponents [27:27] to shut up. That's their goal. And I just—they want you to be small and to stop talking, [27:33] and therefore you have to do the opposite. You cannot—I learned that very, very clearly when [27:38] they tried to criminally indict me for a 90-second video, okay? If you just kind of go silent because [27:43] people tell you that it'll just blow over. It's the opposite. You have to punch them in the mouth [27:48] verbally because they just believe that the goal is to crush your spirit, and we—like, that fear [27:55] becomes contagious. We can't let it. I've been on the receiving end of an op like this [28:03] and been swatted. And they also—the human reaction is to do all those things, right? To sort of—to [28:09] recede and regroup. And you're obviously out here, and you were last time as well. [28:17] How's your staff doing? I mean, look, this is what this tactic does. They come at you, [28:25] and you think to yourself, okay, I'm going to communicate back. And then you think, like, [28:29] is this going to do scary things to my family or to my staff? Is this going to make things worse? You [28:35] know, I have other people's lives in my hands. So, it does—like, any human being would have that [28:41] pause and say, like, what are we doing? But that is what they want. They are hoping and praying that [28:48] you shut the heck up. And I just—I think my staff, we got on an all-hands meeting today. We're trying to [28:56] give them alternatives. We're trying to keep them safe. But it is a sign of the times that just by [29:04] saying something on a podcast, you can end up with death threats against your family and your friends, [29:12] I mean, and your staff. It's—no one is proud of this politics. It's a symptom that our politics are [29:18] ill. And I refuse to believe that we're just always going to be this way, that we're going to threaten [29:23] violence against each other when we don't agree. I refuse to accept that. [29:28] Donald Trump and his administration ramp up their efforts to undermine November's elections. [29:33] We're facing critical tests of whether or not our democracy and our election systems [29:38] will be strong enough, resilient enough, to resist his brazen public attempts at election [29:44] interference in the midterms, which are less than two weeks away now. Yesterday, a California judge [29:50] blocked the Department of Homeland Security from carrying out most operations in nine states. [29:56] They include California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, [30:02] Washington, and Wisconsin, allegedly aimed at uncovering the highly, highly rare phenomenon [30:09] of non-citizen voting. In a scathing opinion, the judge writes this, quote, [30:13] The operation empowers federal officials to target and interview individuals who DHS believes to have [30:19] engaged in voter fraud based on flawed data, including instances where DHS simply did not [30:25] have data to determine that the individual did not engage in voter fraud. The surge, including the [30:31] implementation of a social media campaign showing arrests and interactions with armed officials, [30:38] create a reasonable fear of harm to those assisting and mobilizing voters. Defendants' threats have [30:44] already caused plaintiffs to withdraw from participating in electoral activity because they reasonably fear [30:50] being subjected to physical, legal, or reputational harm to themselves and their loved ones. That fear is [30:57] compounded by defendants' use of data that is widely known to inadvertently include U.S. citizens, [31:04] leaving citizens afraid that their name will be wrongly included in the hundreds of thousands [31:09] identified for investigation. The judge then barred agents from carrying out interviews that, quote, [31:16] involve or are likely to involve persons who agents know, suspect, or should reasonably know or suspect [31:22] are U.S. citizens. The New York Times reports, though, quote, Given the unreliability of federal [31:28] citizenship data at issue in the case, it was unclear how significantly that would hamper the department's [31:34] activities. And to be clear, the department's activities means armed men showing up at people's [31:42] homes with their children present, as seen in these photos posted by regional homeland security [31:47] investigations offices. This is stuff we know from them. And while the battle against voter intimidation [31:57] continues in the courts, Democrats in Congress are already preparing for Donald Trump to look for ways [32:03] to interfere in the midterms. NPR reports this, quote, The top Democrats on the House and Senate [32:08] Intelligence Committees say they are operating under the presumption that President Trump and his allies [32:14] will allege voter fraud related to this year's midterms in order to justify election interference by [32:20] claiming foreign interference in the voting process. And if any of these warnings sound hysterical or [32:28] overblown to you, here's Donald Trump's Attorney General Todd Blanche earlier today. [32:34] It's not DOJ's intention to, and it's never our intention, to improperly interfere with elections [32:41] or the state confirmation process or certification process. But, you know, to say that there's no [32:46] circumstances that we would ever do that, of course, I'm not going to say that. [32:49] Of course, I won't say that. I know what Donald Trump wants me to do. So of course, [32:56] I'm not going to rule it out. This existential question and threat coming from the White House [33:03] about free and fair elections and whether or not they will survive. Donald Trump's full-on assault [33:09] is where we begin today. Former DHS chief of staff during Donald Trump's first term, [33:14] Miles Taylor's here. He's the founder and executive director of Defiance.org. With me at the table, [33:20] senior political analyst, host of the Runaway Country podcast, author of the Substack, [33:25] How the Hell? Alex Wagner's back. But we start with Democratic Congressman from Connecticut, [33:30] Jim Himes. He is the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, tell me what [33:35] you know and what you're warning about in terms of anticipating that Trump will claim voter fraud, [33:43] which he is already claiming, and then point to foreign interference. [33:48] Yeah. Yeah. I mean, a couple of very simple facts up front. Number one, our elections are secure, [33:52] safe and fair and always have been. And of course, you know, Donald Trump, since he emerged into the [33:56] public imagination, has denied that over and over and over again. And every time an election doesn't [34:01] go his way. And actually, even when elections do go his way, he claims that they are corrupt. [34:06] He claims that there are illegal aliens voting in those elections. He's claiming, as he did in July [34:10] in a speech to the nation, that foreign powers are interfering in our election. None of that is true. [34:16] Fact one. Fact number two is that the federal government, Todd Blanche, and the president have [34:20] absolutely no jurisdiction over our elections. And you don't have to be a lawyer to know that. [34:26] You can just go read the Constitution, which gives authority over our elections to the states [34:30] overseen by Congress. And fact number three is he is going to claim that the election that is coming [34:37] up in 12 days is corrupt in some way or another. One of the ways in which I and Mark Warner, my counterpart [34:43] on the Senate side, are very attuned. There's all kinds of things he may try. You know, again, [34:48] he loves that trope of of, you know, millions or thousands or whatever it is of illegal aliens [34:53] voting in our elections, which has never happened. But one of the things he might try is to say, [34:57] well, I've just received information that the Iranians or the Russians or the Chinese [35:01] or the Venezuelans have taken control of the voting machines in Michigan, which, again, [35:06] is not a thing. But it's one of the one of the eventualities that we're preparing for. [35:11] John Solomon was caught on the north lawn of the White House after Trump's address to the nation [35:17] by my colleague, Vaughn Hilliard, in which he said that there's no evidence that a foreign power [35:22] flipped votes in 2024, 2022 or 2020. So we know from the guy who's a special government employee that [35:30] went in there looking for fraud that there isn't any or there hasn't been any. What is your sense of [35:40] what they will allege in terms of this barrier that I think President Obama came out in 16 and said, [35:47] yes, Russia sought to interfere in our elections, but we can attest to the fact that no voting machines [35:53] were hacked. John Solomon is our most recent source saying that in in in 2022 and 24 that was the case. [36:02] What is your sense of who will be able to trust since they've gutted people like Chris Krebs from inside [36:09] the federal government? Yeah, Nicole, it's really important that we be precise in what we're [36:14] talking about here. You know, in the trade, we say interference is somebody getting into the voting [36:21] machines, getting into the voter rolls, changing the voter rolls, changing the results. Enormously hard [36:27] to do because, of course, our elections in this country are very fragmented and run by states and [36:32] municipalities and very loyal, you know, in some cases, elected secretaries of states, etc. Anyway, [36:38] that's interference. And you can go back to time immemorial. We have never seen successful [36:44] interference in that sense of messing with the actual tabulation or the process of voting. [36:49] That's as distinct from influence. Now, influence is what the Russians have made sort of a, you know, [36:55] a hobby of, which is just kicking up all sorts of dust, running ads on Facebook or, you know, having bots [37:02] attack presidential candidates or whatever it may be. Lots of that goes on. But we have never seen [37:08] our elections themselves subject to an operation to screw up the results, which, by the way, [37:12] apart from the fragmentation, would be really, really hard because but for the state of Louisiana, [37:18] looking at you, Speaker Johnson, every other state has a paper trail record of the votes that were cast. [37:24] So it's important that Americans remember that their elections are safe and secure and reflect [37:30] the will of the voters. What is your sense of how much heat will be behind Trump's claims of voter [37:39] fraud? Obviously, the violent recent history is the January 6 insurrection, but Trump's less popular with [37:47] his own base. But he is two years into his second term. I mean, how are you anticipating what the [37:54] threat of real violence could be this time? Yeah, I mean, again, as one of the last people [37:59] out of the chamber on January 6, I take it's very personal for me. And I mean, I got up close and [38:04] personal with people who wanted to hang Mike Pence and, you know, that killed police officers that [38:09] committed all sorts of acts of violence that day. So, of course, we take that seriously. But, [38:14] you know, I would divide the risk into three parts. There's Election Day itself, [38:18] where, you know, the president might try to stop actually voters from going to vote in states that [38:24] are very sensitive, you know, where there might be close races. Then there's after Election Day, [38:28] when he's certainly going to say that the results are corrupt. But, you know, at least at that point, [38:32] the ballots will be secure and not in some warehouse of the Department of Homeland Security. [38:38] And then we're going to watch that period of time between November and January. And we've seen this [38:42] movie before, right? Last time it was Giuliani standing in front of Four Seasons Landscaping and [38:46] ridiculous lawsuits, all of which were thrown out of court. And then, yes, there is that moment [38:52] where I work in the House of Representatives. There is that moment when we convene [38:56] and the clerk of the House of Representatives calls us to order and there's a quorum call. And in all three [39:02] of those moments, there's no reason to believe that the president isn't going to try to suggest that [39:07] it's corrupt and that Mike Pence should do that. It won't be Mike Pence this time, but that, you know, [39:11] Speaker Johnson should do the right thing or whatever it'll be. So, look, the president does [39:15] not get the benefit of the doubt on this stuff. And so we are prepared and working to make sure that [39:19] we have an answer to whatever it may be that he decides to use to deny the, you know, the fairly, [39:27] I think George W. Bush called the midterm election in his first term a shellacking. I think that's what's [39:32] coming for the president and he's not going to accept that. Facing the very real possibility [39:37] of major Republican losses in these midterm elections and Donald Trump's efforts to overturn [39:43] any results he does not like have started. Overnight, his Department of Justice filed a preemptive lawsuit [39:50] against the state of Alaska to block the results of the Senate race there, if and only if anyone other [39:56] than incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan wins. As Democracy Docket reports, the preemptive lawsuit [40:03] quote, claims that voters may be confused by the candidacy of Daniel J. Sullivan, another man [40:09] running unaffiliated, and that mistaken votes for him rather than Senator Sullivan would undermine the [40:15] election's integrity. They add that, quote, it is unclear how election officials could distinguish [40:20] between votes intentionally cast for Daniel J. Sullivan and those mistakenly cast for him. [40:26] The issue of the other Dan Sullivan appearing on the ballot, though, has already been litigated. [40:32] The Alaska Supreme Court ruled back in June that Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher and fisherman, [40:38] could stay on the ballot along with GOP Senator Dan Sullivan and Democratic candidate Mary Peltola. [40:44] Despite the state's highest court weighing in, here was Donald Trump's message to Todd Blanche last month. [40:50] I'm going to have to work. I'm going to go up to Alaska for Dan Sullivan. Think of it. They have a man [40:58] named Dan Sullivan running against him, the Democrats. I think, Todd, you have a legal case on that. [41:03] They sued to be, it's how crazy. So they have somebody running, and then they found a man who never was [41:10] political before, never ran, never thought about running, and his name was Dan Sullivan. So he's [41:16] running in the race against Dan Sullivan. And he actually got two and a half or three points [41:22] in the race and he qualified for the final. So let's say he takes two or three points away. That's [41:27] the difference between winning and losing. It should be illegal. I don't know how the judges [41:32] are ruling it, but it really is terrible. [41:36] It shouldn't be illegal to be named Dan Sullivan just because the Republican guy is named Dan [41:42] Sullivan. If there's any doubt that this latest move by Donald Trump directing DOJ, this is the [41:51] second preemptive election lawsuit this week directed by Donald Trump, who put to rest any [41:57] mystery around who's calling these shots. [41:59] I'm the one that said do it. They have two guys around named Dan Sullivan running. [42:11] I'm the one that said do it. The race in Alaska has emerged as a crucial one in terms of determining [42:19] which political party will control the United States Senate next year, with Peltola and Sullivan [42:24] running neck and neck. Now, with this lawsuit 11 days before Election Day, one former DOJ attorney [42:30] tells the New York Times this, quote, DOJ making this claim this late smells of political interference [42:36] and is against DOJ policy. The feds have absolutely no authority to tell Alaska when and how to certify. [42:44] The state officials are following Alaska state law as the Constitution requires Donald Trump seeking [42:50] to block election results. He thinks he isn't going to like with the help of his DOJ is where we start [42:57] today with some of our favorite experts in front. President and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at [43:02] NYU School of Law. Michael Waldman is back. Also joining us, former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI, [43:09] national security and intelligence analyst Michael Feinberg is here. And joining me at the table, [43:14] host of The Weeknd and our senior Washington correspondent Eugene Daniels is here. Let me set [43:19] the political table first because Donald Trump is nothing except obsessed with sort of the political [43:25] vanities of losing. Where does this race stand? It is, Peltola's to lose at this point. When you talk to [43:33] people on the ground in Alaska, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, they're kind of surprised [43:37] by that, right? Because she is someone who has been very clear, fish, family and faith, right? [43:42] Like, those are the kinds of freedom. Those are the things that she is talking about [43:46] in the state. She has won a very, very Alaska-based race. And when you have Sullivan, the senator, [43:52] who is very Trumpy, that's how people see him there. He doesn't do well in these debates. He's actually [43:58] very bad at debates when he's sitting next to her. There was one point where he was, like, [44:01] kind of looking at her answer when they were doing the debate and they asked a question. [44:05] So this is a race that Senate Democrats feel very good about. I know for a fact that Senator Chuck [44:10] Schumer feels like this is one that is probably good for them to put in the windbasket. It's still, [44:16] you know, days left, what, 10, 11 days left till the race. But it has been something over and over [44:20] and over again that has surprised people. This should not be a race that Democrats are doing well in. [44:24] It is Alaska, which is, as you know, a very conservative state. And it is changing because [44:28] all of the things that Donald Trump is doing. So not only did he make it a rough place to run as [44:32] a Republican, he is now, according to experts, trying to finagle and steal that part of the election. [44:39] Well, she's uniquely strong, but his economic—the damage he's done to the economy is particularly [44:46] acute in Alaska. Yeah, lots of—the tariffs, the gas prices. People—it's hard to tell people [44:52] unless they've been there. And I've never been there. But when I talked to Alaska— [44:55] I've been there. I did my time, and it was still on my friend. [44:58] But like all of the ways that you get around, the amount of gas— [45:03] The amount of gas matters. [45:04] How expensive it is. Groceries. [45:06] Alex Tabbit was there, and he was talking to a man who runs a gas station. And he said he would have [45:11] to change his whole system because they couldn't go over $10 on the gas. And the gas was already [45:19] $9 of gas. $9 a gallon for regular gas in the state. So all of the ways in which Donald Trump [45:25] has operated as a president have made it very difficult to run as a Republican in Alaska. [45:30] Yeah. And I mean, Michael, I lay that out as a predicate because [45:36] Donald Trump has associated losing with cheating. And there's no evidence that—I mean, this was [45:44] examined. This question was examined. I want to put up what the ballot looks like, [45:49] so that people know what the voters of Alaska will see and what the Alaska State Supreme Court [45:54] adjudicated. So these will be the choices for the voters of Alaska. [46:00] When you get to the Sullivans, one is Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., and the next one is Dan S. Sullivan, [46:06] registered Republican incumbent. It couldn't be clearer which one is the Republican, which one holds the [46:14] seat now. So with all that stipulated, how do you see this playing out? [46:20] Well, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I knew both of my two Michaels. Michael Wallman first. [46:28] Oh, they also have ranked choice voting in Alaska, which means that any voter who's confused can vote [46:37] for both people named Dan Sullivan. There's no evidence that the voters there are particularly [46:41] confused. And the Alaska Supreme Court has already put this issue to bed. And the Constitution makes [46:47] it very clear that it is a state law matter and that it is a state legal issue. And so when you [46:54] actually look at this fairly outlandish filing and lawsuit from the Justice Department, the legal [47:02] technical term is it's bonkers. There is just no legal basis for doing it, for saying if the Republican [47:09] doesn't win, the federal government is going to stop the election from taking hold, no matter what the [47:15] voters say. You know, Michael Feinberg, the tell in all of this, whether it's the settlement for military [47:24] families who have claims in Camp Lejeune or the $5,000 for every voter, that they only get their legal [47:31] settlement, they only get their $5,000 stimulus, they only file for a lawsuit based on the outcome [47:38] of an election, is to me proof positive that there's no legitimate legal claim. [47:45] Not. I mean, no matter what legal school of interpretation or philosophy you subscribe to, [47:54] whether you are the world's most devouted proponent of the unitary executive, whether you are a [48:01] strict originalist or a slightly less strict textualist, there is no reading of anything [48:09] in federal law or the Constitution which gives the Justice Department the authority or power to file [48:16] this kind of lawsuit. And any judge whom this comes before at the federal level is in all likelihood going [48:24] to laugh it out of the courtroom. Calling this sort of filing, calling this bad faith [48:34] is understating the case by orders of magnitude. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand this. [48:40] You need to have gone to basically one week of constitutional law as a 1L to understand the [48:48] division of powers in a federalist system between the national government and the state governments. [48:53] Quite frankly, DOJ and the federal government and the executive branch have no dog in this fight. [49:00] Michael Waldman, let me play for you, Todd Blanche, basically saying the opposite, [49:05] telegraphing that they're going to run all the dogs in all the fights. [49:10] The action from the Justice Department in terms of certification process of states, [49:17] is there any scenario in which DOJ would weigh in on that certification process or try to block states [49:22] from certifying? I mean, is there any scenario? Yes. Of course, [49:25] there's scenarios that we could all come up with, hypothetically, you know, some doomsday scenario, [49:30] for example. Right. So I don't think it's proper to to make any kind of conclusory statements about [49:38] what's going to happen in the future, because I have no idea what's going to happen in the future. [49:41] It is not DOJ's intention to and it's never our intention to improperly interfere with elections or [49:47] the state confirmation process or certification process. I mean, Michael Waldman, we now know today that [49:53] he was lying when he said that yesterday, because unless the brief was being written without his [49:58] knowledge and when it came from Donald Trump's mouth twice at a public podium, I doubt Todd Blanche [50:03] was unaware that Trump had ordered him to do something. They were doing exactly what he just [50:08] said they wouldn't do. This isn't a doomsday scenario. This is straight up election meddling. [50:13] Oh, undoubtedly. It is sort of the bottom of the barrel. It looks like they run out of things to [50:19] do in some ways to try to undermine the election. The bottom line, basic fact we always need to [50:25] remember over and over is the voters make the decision. And once the voters have voted in all [50:30] the states, there's certification that takes place. And that generally happens at the state level. And [50:36] there are all kinds of rules and laws that apply to it. And once that certification has happened under state [50:41] law, and it's properly done, the voice of the voters is what is supposed to matter. [50:47] And so for the Justice Department to be even contemplating meddling in such an overtly partisan [50:52] and political way is really one more terrible count against Todd Blanche and against the destruction [51:00] of the credibility of the Justice Department. I do think this case, again, as the other guests have [51:07] said has no legal merit, but the Justice Department should not be in there as a partisan pudgel trying [51:13] to pummel the system for Donald Trump's candidates. Hey, it's Rachel. I am so glad to see you at the [51:19] end of that clip because this is where I get to tell you about a new way to watch all our clips and all [51:24] of our shows and everything on MSNOW on your phone or your tablet or your laptop. You can watch things live [51:31] or recorded. Plus, you can ask me and all the other hosts and reporters questions in our weekly live [51:36] chats. You can go to ms.now slash membership or just click below. Thanks.