Will networks air Trump's speech? President expected to focus on election security

[0:00] Let's get smarter with the help of our lead-off panel. Michael Schnell is here, [0:03] MSNOW congressional reporter, Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times, [0:08] Dave Weigel, political reporter for Semaphore, and MSNOW White House reporter Laura Barone-Lopez [0:12] is with me in New York. You are one of the reporters that broke that story on what's in [0:18] store for what we're in store for tonight. What more can you tell us? So what we're expecting [0:22] the president to do is to also inside of this speech talk about what he is going to allege [0:29] was influence interference by China, by Chinese actors. And what we know, though, is that this [0:38] was looked into in 2020 by President Trump's intelligence community, and that the president [0:45] is going to simply declassify documents that have been classified up until this point that were [0:53] include intelligence gathered by his analyst at the time. And those are likely going to sow confusion [1:02] and distrust, because ultimately, no one that I talked to, the sources that we talked to, whether [1:08] it's current administration officials or former intelligence officials who worked in that first [1:13] administration, Trump's first administration, no one says that the Chinese interfered and influenced [1:19] so much so that they influenced the outcome of the 2020 election. They did not at all touch or [1:26] manipulate voting votes and the outcome of the election. So we expect the president, though, [1:32] to really zero in on China and those around him, like Bill Pulte, who is the acting DNI, have encouraged [1:38] him to declassify all of these intelligence documents that have to do with the 2020 election, [1:44] whether it's regarding China or Iran or other foreign actors. [1:47] And that's what we expect the president to talk about and to do later today. [1:51] Peter, I'm guessing he's not going to reference the Mueller report, which actually started [1:55] by saying there were sweeping efforts by foreign actors, i.e. Russia, to influence the election. [2:01] I'm guessing he's not going to talk about that. But you have covered many, many presidential [2:05] addresses to the nation over the years. Can you put into context for us how unusual this one sounds [2:11] like it's going to be? [2:13] It does sound like it's going to be unusual. Oval Office addresses to the nation traditionally [2:17] are on matters of great national import that are not political. They don't usually have a [2:22] political sheen, right? They're times of war. They're major disasters. There's large challenges [2:28] to the nation when we have some overarching concern that have people at home worried and a president [2:34] is trying to find ways of addressing their concerns after riots or remember the BP spill in the Gulf, [2:42] that kind of thing. They don't usually concern things that are so overtly political and particularly [2:48] overtly partisan. That's in fact one of the reasons why the networks didn't take President [2:54] Biden's speech in September 2022, which was meant to be an Oval Office address. Sorry, not Oval Office. [3:00] It was in Philadelphia, but a nighttime, primetime speech to the nation. The networks decided not to take it live [3:04] because they felt it was too political. That's the choice they have tonight. Do they take something [3:09] that seems to be about advancing the president's political interest and the narrative that he has [3:14] been trying to sell people on about the credibility of elections, meaning particularly elections he [3:18] loses? Brendan Carr is making these veiled threats against the networks. But for fact's sake, in the run [3:25] up to the 2022 midterms, President Biden gave a speech about the future of democracy and the three [3:30] major networks did not air it. And I'm not talking about them having the World Cup. You know what they [3:35] aired? Reruns of Law and Order and Young Sheldon. Dave, what do you make of this latest push? [3:42] The Brendan Carr piece of it is the most interesting, the pressure on networks to air [3:47] the speech. The political impact is, I wouldn't say it's nil, but if you listen to Democrats, [3:53] especially Georgia Democrats and Senator John Ossoff, the person who would be most implicated, [3:58] if that's the right word, and what the president's going to talk about in 2020, they relish him doing [4:02] this. They love when Republicans, egged on by the president, question the 2020 election. It is [4:08] very far from the front of voters' minds. It was very far from the front of their minds in 2022, [4:13] when Democrats overperformed a lot of states against Republicans who were obsessed with [4:17] relitigating 2020. So the impact of the speech politically in the short term, Democrats are [4:23] happy about this and Republicans. You've seen at the same time Republicans, when pressed on what the [4:27] president might say, whether the 2020 elections in Georgia were rigged, they now, including the [4:33] leader, John Thune, have been evasive about it. The president is able to move Republican rhetoric [4:40] and positioning and reality to an extent in his own direction. So what Democrats are more worried [4:46] about, I think, from the speech is not even where it airs, what it contains. It's more what actions [4:51] would he take, would Bill Pulte take, that interfere with vote counting, mail ballots, et cetera, [4:56] in the upcoming election. This speech, they're happy to have him do it, maybe a little bit too [5:00] happy from the conversations I had. Peter, is the White House weighing that? Because to Laura's [5:05] first point, you know, a speech like this sows distrust, what it really can do, to Dave's point, [5:10] is have people distrust our president and puts Republicans in a tough spot. Yeah, this is a [5:16] president who is singularly obsessed with this topic. And no, he doesn't care that other Republicans [5:21] don't want him to revisit it. He has come into office with one almost overarching goal, [5:28] which is to prove that he didn't lose the 2020 election. He's not a loser. He hates the idea that [5:32] he was a loser. And he has been talking about, he's been, you know, not only talking about, [5:37] but using instruments of government to rewrite history for the last year and a half, whether it [5:42] be taking, you know, voter, you know, records from Georgia with Tulsi Gabbard down there, whether it [5:49] be, you know, firing people who were part of the probe into his effort to overturn the 2020 election, [5:56] whether it be creating a litmus test for anybody who is hired into his administration. They were [6:00] asked the question, who won the 2020 election? If you gave the wrong answer, you didn't get the job. [6:05] He has been trying to rewrite history ever since. And that seems to be, you know, such a priority for [6:11] him, even if it's not helpful politically to his own party. Yeah, that's why it again came up [6:17] yesterday in the confirmation hearing of Jay Clayton. He was asked about the 2020 election. [6:23] And I want to share a bit of sound. Do you deny that Joe Biden won the 2020 election? [6:31] Senator, I'm not, I'm not an election denier. Joe, Joe Biden was certified as the president [6:36] of the United States. Can you tell me why Joe Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 election? [6:48] I really, I'm going back to my constitutional law here, but I don't want to continue to have debate [6:55] about this, but I believe he had the most electoral votes. So he won the election. [7:00] Who won the 2020 election? Like I said, I'm not, I'm not going to get into that with you. [7:04] But you do have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee. [7:07] Is anything that I just said, not honest or forthright? Yes, you're not being honest or [7:12] forthright. Who won the 2020 election? I think I've answered the question. [7:15] We can keep doing this. Well, we're going to keep doing it because [7:18] you're not being honest and forthright with the committee. I'm not going to engage in the theater. [7:24] He's not going to engage in the theater. Please tell me, Michael, what are folks on the Hill saying? [7:28] Because here in New York City, where Jay Clayton has a whole lot of support, definitely from the [7:32] people that I cover on Wall Street, he's a real guy. I always say he's a real guy. He's a smart guy. [7:36] He couldn't just answer the question, who won the 2020 election? What are people on the Hill saying? [7:42] Yes, Steph, it's a concern for a lot of folks, but it's also a shock. Remember, [7:46] this is somebody who would be taking the reins of the Department of the Office of Director of [7:50] National Intelligence from Bill Pulte, who Democrats did not like, who Republicans did not like. [7:55] When Jay Clayton's name came around, Democrats were thrilled. They said, [7:58] we respected him when he led the SEC. We respected him when he was at SDNY. [8:02] And we are OK with this guy overseeing the intelligence community. And that changed [8:07] for a lot of Democrats yesterday. He could not simply say that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. [8:13] Mark Kelly really got to the heart of this, of the difference between Jay Clayton saying that he [8:17] was certified the winner and won the election. If you're certified, why are you certified? Because [8:23] you won. But Jay Clayton could not say that. And this is not just existing in a vacuum. This is [8:28] an issue for the specifically for the director of national intelligence, because there's a concern [8:33] among Democrats that the person who oversees the intelligence community could cast doubt on [8:37] incoming elections. By the way, the one that's just a few months away, the November midterm. [8:42] This was an acute concern with Bill Pulte. It comes after Tulsi Gabbard had backed President [8:47] Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen. After Tulsi Gabbard, the former DNI involved herself [8:53] in that search warrant in Fulton County, Georgia, she was spotted there helping as the FBI had seized [8:59] those voting records. So beforehand, before yesterday, I think a lot of Democrats were saying, [9:04] we can actually support Jay Clayton. I like the guy. He's better than Bill Pulte. I was talking to [9:09] a Democratic senator after the hearing yesterday who said Jay Clayton definitely lost a lot of support [9:14] among Democrats after he could not answer that simple question of who won the 2020 election. [9:20] That's what's amazing. Democrats I spoke to in the last two weeks have said the same thing. Like, [9:25] listen, he's the best of the bunch. I think he'll be okay. He's a responsible guy. And the tone was [9:29] different last night. Let's talk about the other hearing, the confirmation hearing for Todd Blanche [9:34] as attorney general. It's not over. Today, it's going to continue with testimony from witnesses. [9:38] That includes an Epstein survivor and a member of the Department of Justice who Blanche fired. [9:45] Talk to us about what's in store, Michael. [9:47] Yeah, the Epstein files are going to be on center stage today, Steph. We are going to see Danny [9:52] Bensky, an Epstein survivor who's been very vocal about her experience and what she saw. We're going [9:57] to see her testify. But I think this is all going to come back to the anti-weaponization fund, [10:02] that $1.776 billion fund that the DOJ had set up. And then Todd Blanche had said it was dead during a [10:09] previous hearing. But President Trump has still flirted with this idea. He recently said, [10:14] I love it. He thinks it's a great idea. And Democrats and Republicans are concerned that [10:18] actually it may not really be dead. This is all going to come down to Senator John Cornyn. He's [10:24] the Republican from Texas. He had concerns before yesterday's hearing. He pressed Todd Blanche on that [10:30] anti-weaponization fund. Blanche a number of times saying it was a moot point because he already [10:34] declared it dead. But then again, senators noting, well, it's one thing for you to say that, [10:39] but the president has not said that, pushing for it to be in writing that this will not be [10:44] resurrected. Todd Blanche refusing to go there. John Cornyn, after that hearing, said that he didn't know [10:49] how he was going to vote. He was not in favor of Blanche at that moment, still undecided. [10:55] Significant step because if Todd Blanche loses just one Republican vote on that Senate Judiciary [11:01] Committee, he stalled in committee. There are not the votes large enough to then advance him to the [11:06] Senate floor. And let's not forget, John Cornyn doesn't owe Donald Trump anything. [11:10] Donald Trump is the reason why John Cornyn will not be returning to the Senate next year after Trump [11:15] backed his primary opponent and ultimately ousting him from office. Cornyn has been no shy person to [11:22] criticizing the president and criticizing the administration. If he wants to put those words [11:26] into action, it could come in the form of a vote against advancing Todd Blanche.