'Zero credibility': Fmr. prosecutor reacts to Trump's expected speech on 2020 election

[0:00] With the integrity of America's elections on the line, let's bring an MSNOW justice and intelligence reporter, Ken Delanian. [0:06] Vaughn Hilliard is our senior White House reporter. [0:08] Charlie Sykes writes the newsletter to the contrary on Substack. [0:12] And Ankush Khadori is a former federal prosecutor and author of Open File. [0:16] Vaughn, why this? Why now? [0:18] I don't want to get in front of too much reporting that we're actively working on, Alicia, here. [0:22] But we should have updates here soon on exactly what the framing of this Thursday announcement is going to be and what documents that we are looking at. [0:31] I think that we just need to set up this as the reality that Donald Trump, one and a half years into office, was frustrated and angry by the lack of the intelligence community proving that he, in fact, won the 2020 election that he had it stolen from him. [0:48] We looked at Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. [0:52] You're looking at CIA director Radcliffe, folks that now for a year and a half before Gabbard left, of course, who had access to this raw material, folks across the intelligence community that made determinations that there was clearly no evidence that would suggest that there was vote changing and that Donald Trump actually won the election. [1:14] Fast forward to where we find ourselves now. It's here in July of 2026. [1:20] And the president of the United States has turned to other folks, people like Bill Pulte, people like John Solomon, people like Cleta Mitchell. [1:28] These are folks that have been at the forefront of his election in nine claims, and he has brought them into actual White House positions where they have access to the type of raw material. [1:39] And now he has turned to them to make allegations on Thursday, we at MSNOW are told, that involve foreign governments interference in the election. [1:50] And there's much that we could do in terms of picking through the layers of what this intelligence says and what the evidence is. [1:58] But what we know is that the president of the United States on Thursday intends to make the declaration that the foreign governments essentially stole the election from him. [2:07] And it's going to be up to us in the media and other public officials to make the case that there is no evidence, at least from what the public has seen so far, to suggest what he is trying to been propagating to the American public for the better part of five and a half years. [2:24] Ken, I just want to note that the president is now taking questions at that bilat. [2:29] We have our producers listening. [2:30] Anything newsworthy, we're going to break in. [2:32] We're going to bring it to our audience. [2:34] I am struck by the fact that Vaughn name-checked Bill Pulte. [2:38] And you saw that clip that we played of the president saying exactly what it was he wanted Bill Pulte to do. [2:46] Any sense in your reporting how the timing of this relates to the fact that the Clayton hearing is now back on? [2:52] And has Bill Pulte accomplished exactly what he was put in the acting position to do, Ken? [2:58] Well, here's what people need to understand about this whole enterprise, Alicia. [3:04] The U.S. intelligence community collects a vast amount of information every day. [3:08] They're intercepting phone calls. [3:09] They're hacking computers. [3:10] They're talking to human sources. [3:12] And there is a lot of reporting inside the repositories of U.S. intelligence agencies that says a lot of different things, much of which is not true. [3:19] That's why they employ thousands of analysts to try to sift fact from fiction and try to put all the strands together and come up with finished intelligence products like the one you referenced in your introduction, which talked about what there actually was in terms of foreign interference in 2020. [3:36] Russia tried to help Donald Trump. [3:38] Iran tried to hurt Donald Trump. [3:39] And China was sort of neutral. [3:41] That was the conclusion of the intelligence community. [3:43] And these were all influence operations. [3:44] There was no evidence that any foreign government influenced any votes or hacked into any voting machines. [3:49] But you can find raw reporting inside U.S. intelligence community repositories that says almost anything. [3:56] And that's why this is so dangerous, because we have no idea what they are cherry picking here, what Donald Trump is going to present to the public that would be very misleading. [4:06] For example, there was there was reporting that China was trying to flood the country with fake driver's licenses. [4:11] That was several years ago. [4:14] Some senior FBI officials withdrew that report because they realized it was bogus. [4:19] Some of those people were later fired in this administration because the Trump administration didn't like the fact that they withdrew that report. [4:25] Nonetheless, it was a false report. [4:26] It wasn't true. [4:27] These were fake IDs designed for teenagers trying to get into bars. [4:30] So those are the kind of things that are circulating in U.S. intelligence repositories that we are concerned that Donald Trump may present to the public as evidence that the election was stolen when, in fact, this information says nothing of the kind. [4:44] Alicia. [4:44] Charlie Sykes, I'm not sure if you're clairvoyant or if you're just paying attention, but your latest column, you write about all the ways we've already seen the president change election rules. [4:53] You've said that it's, quote, cosmic naivete to think Trump won't try to interfere in the election. [4:59] This isn't actually about 2020. [5:00] This is about 2026. [5:02] This is about 2028. [5:04] No, that's exactly right. [5:05] Look, I mean, you know, he wants to relitigate 2016 Russian interference 2020. [5:11] But, you know, make no mistake about it. [5:12] This is about undermining confidence in elections for 2026 and 2028, perhaps providing a pretext for more election interference, including the declaration of an emergency that would allow the federal government to control or interfere with the electoral process. [5:30] This is what he is doing. [5:32] And none of it is subtle. [5:34] You see it in the firing of members of the, you know, bipartisan election commission. [5:40] You see it in the, you know, a letter of extortion going out to a state saying that we will withhold counterterrorism funds unless you change your election rules. [5:49] His passion for the SAVE Act. [5:52] And this is part and parcel of this. [5:54] And Ken uses a key word. [5:56] The president will cherry pick certain elements to try to make this case. [6:02] Much of, you know, many of the conspiracy theories have already been debunked. [6:07] Some of the key players here have, you know, to say that they have sketchy credibility is putting it mildly when you're talking about John Solomon or Bill Pulte. [6:18] These are people with a very, very shaky track record. [6:21] But it's a primetime address by the president of the United States who wants to cast as much doubt on the integrity of future elections as he does about past elections. [6:31] That's the point. [6:32] That is the point. [6:33] And it's why, Ankush, for a president who likes to cast everything, he wants to make sure that the cast of characters behind him is going to make it look even more official. [6:41] Kash Patel, Radcliffe, Bill Pulte, DHS secretary, Mark Wainemol, and they're all supposed to be at the speech on Thursday. [6:47] If there was ever a chance for the intelligence community to put some daylight between themselves and the big lie, this would seem like they are moving in the opposite direction. [6:56] What is the danger, not just what Donald Trump is doing, but everyone around him? [7:02] Well, look, I share the concerns that everybody's already articulated. [7:06] I would say these people have zero credibility, actually, on this subject. [7:10] And I think everybody should go in not being prepared to believe, frankly, a word that we hear or is reported out of this conference. [7:17] I mean, I think the dangers are very real. [7:19] The risks are very real. [7:21] I think it is very, it was a dramatic sort of convergence this week because, you know, Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing, of course, is also this week. [7:30] And he, too, has lent himself to these same sorts of conspiracy theories, saying that there's tons of evidence that the 2020 election was rigged and saying, you know, why should people care if we send ICE agents to the polls? [7:41] So, you know, I think to Charlie's point, it would be naive for us to be just ignoring all of these signs, which all seems to be pointing in the same direction, at least setting the groundwork for the ability to cast doubt around the election and maybe even more aggressive interventions like, you know, trying to go in and see voting machines and things, things of that nature. [8:01] So the risks here are very real. [8:02] I mean, it's one thing, you know, for him to be re-litigating the past. [8:06] He's tried and failed to persuade people that he won the 2020 election for years. [8:10] But the forward-looking risks are very, very potent. [8:14] Charlie, I want to talk about Blanche, which Ankush just brought up. [8:18] The New York Times did a deep dive into some internal emails. [8:21] They really fleshed out the role that he's played as a kind of enforcer for Trump's retribution campaign. [8:28] That's not new for us. [8:31] He said as much back in April. [8:33] I'm not going to play that sound because we're continuing to keep an eye on what's happening inside the White House. [8:38] Charlie, if you were a U.S. senator and you got to ask questions of Blanche, of Clayton, what would you want to know, especially in light of the fact that they're going to be testifying on Wednesday and on Thursday night the president is slated to give this speech? [8:53] Well, with both of them, the big question is where do you actually begin? [8:58] Because, you know, Todd Blanche has his fingerprints all over so many of these elements, whether it is the cover-up of the Epstein files, the weaponization of the Department of Justice, and election denialism. [9:10] I mean, he has made it clear, this is a very important point, that this attorney general nominee has endorsed many of Donald Trump's absolutely flat-out false claims about the elections. [9:21] And obviously the Department of Justice will have a critical role, again, going forward with the elections. [9:27] So, you know, you need to go through all of the things, all of the questions that Todd Blanche has not answered about Donald Trump's orders to him, about whether or not he claims any independence, and also what he has done to the Department of Justice and the role the Department of Justice may play. [9:45] We have had one federal court after another not just rule against the Department of Justice, but suggest that they have violated fundamental rules of, you know, fundamental rules of the legal system. [10:00] And all of that needs to be on the table. [10:03] And this, I think, is going to be a decisive and incredibly revealing vote for all the United States senators who may have some buyer's remorse about voting to confirm Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, and Tulsi Gabbard. [10:16] But all of that is wrapped up with the votes coming over the next couple of weeks.