"Jay Clayton versus simple questions about who won the 2020 election”

Hi there, everyone. It's 4 o'clock in New York. One of the defining missions of Donald Trump's second term as president has been to do whatever he can think of to erase the humiliation of his defeat in 2020 to President Joe Biden. Donald Trump has made it abundantly clear what he wants in that regard from the nation's director of national intelligence in helping him pursue that mission. But, you know, that is the... person who heads the nation's 18 intelligence agencies. That job is created after 9-11 to keep us safe. And that is someone who, in Trump's view, should not just indulge his election conspiracies, but help him act them out and relitigate the 2020 presidential election. Today, in his confirmation hearing, to be the next director of national intelligence on a permanent basis, Jay Clayton did just that. He was repeatedly given opportunities to differentiate himself from former DNI Tulsi Gabbard and current acting DNI Bill Pulte. when it comes to their attachment to Donald Trump's election delusions, and he could not answer the simple question about whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Watch. Do you deny that Joe Biden won the 2020 election? Senator, I'm not an election denier. Joe Biden was certified as the president of the United States. Can you tell me why Joe Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 election? I really, I'm going back to my constitutional law here, but I don't want to continue to have a debate about this, but I believe he had the most electoral votes. So he won the election. He followed our process, had the most of electoral votes, was declared the winner. And who has the most electoral votes? Is it the person that wins or the person that loses? I think that's your characterization. You're here asking for the support of senators to lead America's intelligence community. We've established that you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with this committee. and with the American public, but you refuse to answer a simple matter of fact about the 2020 election. Is that right? No, that's not right. Then answer the question. Who won the 2020 election? I have answered the question. Answer it. What is your answer? I've given you my answer. What is your answer? You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election? But you asked to lead America's intelligence community? Isn't it humiliating to be unable to answer this question, to have to indulge the president's delusions? We know, you know, everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question. Why can you not give it? I think I gave you the answer.

Notably, the lack of an answer, the lack of an ability of a permission structure, if you will, for Jay Clayton to answer that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. He won it decisively. The reluctance or unwillingness to do that on the part of the person who presumably has enough support to be our country's next spy chief, absent any GOP revolt. It comes just a day ahead of when Donald Trump is set to give a primetime speech that's going to focus on voting machine security and alleged efforts by foreign nations to influence U.S. elections. Mind you, this speech is going to be a big reveal about stuff that happened while Donald Trump was president. The only election of the three in which he ran that he's going to allege his interference was the one of the three that he was in charge of. Not the one in 2016 when President Barack Obama was in charge of protecting our elections. Not the one in 2024 when that job fell to Joe Biden, just the one where he was in charge. Make that make sense. It's also reportedly going to release declassified intelligence documents on these subjects. Donald Trump's pick to be the nation's next director of national intelligence, engaging in Donald Trump's election lies in delusions during his confirmation hearing. That's not the bottom. I don't know what is, but it's where we start today with the former director of the CIA. Now our senior national security and intelligence analyst, John Brennan, also joining us former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI and national security and intelligence analyst Michael Feinberg. And joining me at the table are justice and intelligence reporter Candelanian. I can't get over the fact. that this person's going to represent the United States of America's intelligence assets around the world and won't say out loud who won the 2020 election. How does that work? He won't say it and he knew this question was coming. I've talked to folks who discussed this with him. He would be asked this. And this is like North Korea style. group think. I mean, we've never seen this in American politics. They just... Without the group, because Bill Barr called it bullshit. Chris Krebs said it was, quote, the most secure American election in history, quote, we did it right. I mean, all of Trump's last, all the last Jay Clayton said that there was no interference. But things have changed now. If you work for Donald Trump today in this administration... You have one answer, and that's Joe Biden was certified as president. You're not allowed to say he won. He couldn't use the double-word. You can't even say why he was certified. Exactly, exactly. And, you know, Jon Ossoff asked, wasn't it humiliating? And of course it was humiliating. You could see it in Jay Clayton's face. Jay Clayton is thought to be one of the normies, right? Like he ran the SEC in the first Trump administration and he emerged with a decent reputation. And people were relieved. People want him instead of Bill Pulte as the DNI or they thought they did.

I'll tell you, Mark Warner, who had had a good relationship with Jay Clayton before this, the ranking Democrat on that committee, went into that hearing, inclined to vote for Jay Clayton. And my understanding is he's not going to vote for him now. And he'd think he said during the hearing, he was incredibly disappointed with that performance. Director Brennan, what does happen if America sends its top spy chief to deal with America's allies, whichever ones remain? And that person can't say out loud who won the 2020 election? Well, as Jon Ossoff said, his answers lacked total credibility. And I think that's what our partners are going to be looking at. It's going to lack credibility in terms of being able to speak, as they say, proverbial truth to power and to make sure that there's going to be objectivity and independence in terms of our intelligence. You know, the whole hearing today was mind boggling. As Ken pointed out, both sides of the aisle, they're salivating for, you know, having Jay Clayton go in there and replace somebody as corrupt and as incompetent as Bill Pulte. And they wanted him to say the right things. And he could have easily said, yes, Joe Biden won the election. And yes, what Tulsi Gabbard did in Georgia in terms of showing up, you know, with the FBI agents there was inconsistent with the authorities of the Director of National Intelligence. Was Donald Trump going to, you know, pull back his nomination? This is his opportunity to be able to demonstrate to both sides of the aisle and internationally as well, that he is a man of integrity. And he did have a great reputation beforehand. I know Mark Warner and Jim Himes, the head of the Democratic member of the House Intel Committee, they all spoke very highly of Jay Clayton. But here he was just in one hearing. And, you know, for a prosecutor and a lawyer, I don't think he handled any of those questions very deftly. It was clear that he was quite flustered. And he was putting his answers through what was the equivalent of a Trump food processor. trying to think, okay, what can I say this, not going to get me involved in a perjury charge, but at the same time, what's not going to, you know, get Donald Trump mad? Well, you know, if he would have said those things very easily, I think it would have been overwhelming the support in the committee as well as in the Senate. Let's get this guy confirmed and let's get this, you know, spill Bill Pulte out of the director of national intelligence before he does even more damage. And I'm sure Jay Clayton today, you know, is just shaking his head in terms of what happened today. And I hope he does feel humiliated because he should. Well, I think Michael Feinberg, you add that it's in the record that Donald Trump said this, quote, I can't believe I lost to this effing guy. That's the sworn testimony of Sarah Matthews before the January 6th Select Committee. So you could have quoted Donald Trump. Yeah, there's lots of things that Jay Clayton could have done during this hearing that he chose not to. And I'll confess, I'm less mystified by his answers because this is sort of what we expect from Trump nominees at this point than I am by his general demeanor. His whole tenor in tone during this hearing was not very savvy. If he gets this job, which...

Given the way that Republican senators get behind each other, he probably will. I mean, let's be honest. You know, but if Congress flips in the midterms, he's going to have to deal with all these people. And the first opportunity that he had to build trust, instead he struck a match and threw it in a pool of gasoline. These are the people on the Select Committee for Intelligence or their House counterpart who he is going to have to brief. These are the people who are going to approve his budget. These are the people who are going to have oversight of his operations and analysis. He needs to interact with Congress as the Director of National Intelligence. He did not show that baseline understanding today. I think for a lot of reasons, I'm going to show you more of Jon Ossoff's questioning of Jay Clayton. Are you aware that Director Tulsi Gabbard was present at the Fulton County raid in Georgia earlier this year? You discussed that with me yesterday in your office. Are you aware that Director Tulsi Gabbard was present at the Fulton County raid earlier this year? You brought it to me, my attention. What is going on here? You've said at the beginning of this, you have an obligation to be honest and forthrighting with the committee. I'm asking a very simple question. Are you aware of a director Tulsi Gabbard was present at the Fulton County raid earlier this year? Yes or no? Are you aware? I just said I was made aware of it by you yesterday. The first time you learned that Director Tulsi Gabbard was present at that raid was in my office yesterday? It was the first time that in my recollection, I've thought about it recently. Now, was I aware of it before? What? Are you aware that former director Grabber testified that her presence at the raid was, quote, requested by the president? I'm not aware of that until now. If the White House chief of staff or the president asks you to travel somewhere across the United States and oversee the execution of a domestic search warrant on a sensitive election facility, will you do it? Is that appropriate? Is that appropriate for the Director of National Intelligence? That's a hypothetical.

An extraordinary display of, it looked to me like lying. I think even Fox News in a very complimentary way went back and covered the FBI raid in the Fulham County Election Office. So I don't know what rock he was under and maybe I can rent the rock. But I just don't believe that he didn't know until Jon Ossoff told him. I mean, it suggests if he didn't, he's not paying attention to the news because it was huge news. Like anywhere. I mean, it was everywhere. And given the- I think Trump tweeted it and Tulsi Gabbard tweeted it. So he's also not following Trump on social media, which I don't believe for a guy that ambitious. And this is one of the central questions if you're about to take this job is what are you willing to do and what are you not willing to do when it comes to domestic elections? Because clearly, Donald Trump wants a DNI that's going to be heavily involved in this issue of- Was there foreign interference? Was the 2020 election stolen? There's an FBI investigation ongoing right now of that. And if you're thinking about, do I want this job? What am I going to do in this job? This is one of the central issues. So how did he not know that? I mean, it's also not true to say, quote, that's a hypothetical. It's going on in Georgia right now. It's not even theoretical. It's an actual director, Brendan. I mean, what do you do with this lack of? candor today. Also, I think Senator Osloff and Mark Kelly's questions were very well put. And as you point out, it's not a hypothetical. Again, you can answer the question that. It is inconsistent with my understanding of the authorities of Director of National Intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence should be there when FBI agents are serving a search warrant. There are ways to do that. But I think as both Michael and Ken pointed out, he wasn't very agile in terms of how he was answering it. Clearly, you could see his mind going through the process of thinking about, how am I going to phrase this without getting on the wrong side of the president? And, you know, clearly, I think you want to be able to have somebody in that position of Director of National Intelligence who really is. is going to be able to speak truthfully and not put it through some type of political calculus, but you're not going to irritate the person who is going to be making some of these decisions. So I think by all accounts, he did not meet the requirements today for the director of national intelligence with somebody who oversees those 18 intelligence agencies, particularly at a time we're at war with Iran. We have challenges with Russia, China. across the board. You want somebody who really is going to fulfill, I think, what the spirit of the position, as well as just adhere to the principles and the ethics that I think are, you know, supposed to be incumbent in whoever is going to, you know, fill that, that rule. I want to show you something else he said today under oath. about SD&Y, which he currently leads, and their unprecedented subpoenas for five New York Times journalists, Michael Feinberg. Here's more Jay Clayton. I can't get into the specifics of an investigation, an ongoing matter. Let me say that I'm confident that the...

procedures that we have in place to protect the First Amendment and protect the freedom of the press and not result in intimidation of journalists or the like were followed. I mean, Michael, the General Counsel of the New York Times, David McCraud doesn't think so. It's called it a blatant violation. And I think press watchers around the world have described it as, quote, chilling. Your thoughts? Yeah, look, I spend an entire career oftentimes investigating the mishandling of classified information, oftentimes to journalists who are not allowed to receive it. And I'm probably more sympathetic than anybody else on this show right now to the idea that there might be circumstances under which reporters should be subpoenaed. But I'm also self-aware and savvy enough to realize that that is an incredibly... controversial opinion. And to actually act on it is going to divide the country. And if you know anything about the history of the First Amendment or its jurisprudence, you know the slightest bit about how the intelligence community, namely the CIA and the FBI wrote absolute rough shot over it for the entirety of the Cold War until the church committee. you would be a little bit more articulate and humble in justifying it. And we should point out one more thing in his answer. He said he is confident that all procedures were followed for the subpoenaing of journalists. There are no procedures anymore. The governing document was a memorandum enacted by... Eric Holder, when he was Attorney General, it has been in force, except for the first Trump administration, when there were still enough professionals who, even if it wasn't official policy, abided by its guidelines. It's been enforced for decades now. And Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and Emil Beauvais revoked it. So I don't know what procedures he's claiming that they followed in making this decision to get these records. But as near as I can tell, like the only procedural hurdle they might face is, you know, Donald Trump's uncheckable id any given day. Look, and Merrick Garland actually strengthened that memo and made it almost impossible to subpoena reporters because that chills our ability to do our job, full stop. I mean, it's a very destructive thing to do. There is precedent for it, obviously. The Valerie Plame CIA elite case, but generally they go through all kinds of hoops before they do this. This was done within 24 hours after Kash Patel was summoned to the White House. We have never seen this before in modern history. Director Brennan, I'll give you the last word. Yeah, I think what the government should be doing is looking at the source of leaks inside of the executive branch or the legislative branch, whatever. You don't go out to the press and, you know, issue subpoenas and trying to uncover the sources. You find out within your own ranks who is, in fact, leaking national security information. So there's an obligation to be able to stop those leaks. But going to the press with subpoenas in the first instance, I think is highly, highly irregular and quite frankly wrong.

Former director John Brennan, Kendallanian, thank you so much for covering this with us today. When we come back, the other confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill, Donald Trump's former personal attorney who's been nominated by Donald Trump to be the Attorney General, Todd Blanche. One single Republican vote against him could kill his chances. We'll dig into how that went. Plus, Todd Blanche also at that hearing, says he can't meet with the Epstein survivors. We're expected to hear from many of them this hour. We'll bring that to you when we do. Also ahead. Our friend Rachel Maddo will join. me right here at the table on all of the day's news much more head don't go anywhere a morning walk some bird watching it's another easy sunday united health group makes these ordinary days possible with partners like the university of tennessee health sciences helping communities manage their health closer to home 54% of participants have lowered their blood pressure, meaning fewer heart attacks and more Sundays at the park. This might feel like an ordinary day. To United Health Group, it's the healthcare system working better for everyone. Learn more at UnitedHealthgroup.com slash commitment. In a country that never stops moving, reliable energy is essential. People need oil and natural gas for heating, transportation, and everyday items like clothing, cell phones, and contact lenses. Behind the scenes, one of America's largest pipeline operators, energy transfer, works all day, every day to transport the energy that our communities depend on. Energy Transfer invests in modern infrastructure as technologies like AI drive greater need for reliable natural gas. Learn more at energy transfer.com. Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters.

Other than politicizing intelligence, the other hallmark of Donald Trump's second term as president has been to turn his rhetoric about retribution into a single governing philosophy. And no agency has carried out that philosophy as completely as Donald Trump's Department of Justice. There are the prosecutions and investigations into people like James Comey and Letitia James and Jerome Powell. There are the pardons for the January 6 rioters, investigations opened into the spouse. of a woman killed by ICE, the ongoing cover-up of Epstein-related materials. All of it has transpired under the leadership of the current acting Attorney General and now nominee to be Attorney General, Todd Blanche. Today, the Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee gave him an opportunity to articulate a direction different from any of those flagrant abuses of norms and power in this confirmation hearing. an opportunity he did not seize. Senators Cory Booker and Adam Schiff were specifically powerful in their condemnations of him. So this isn't a confirmation hearing. This is more of a performance review. And clearly, when it comes to the treatment of Epstein victims, when it comes to politically motivated prosecutions. When it comes from avoiding appearance of impropriety with corporations, you failed. You seem to be favoring the interest of a president and the powerful. You've chosen Trump over truth. What happened to the prosecutor who once respected the rule of law? What happened to the prosecutor who said that there wouldn't be a whiff of political partisanship and then prosecutes the president's enemies over seashells, cases, over making a video stating the plain law and constitution? What happened to the Todd Blanche of the Southern District of New York that could convert him into you? Someone willing to say the president has both the right and the duty to prosecute his political enemies? I cannot imagine that Todd Blanche. of the old days would have ever done that. Now, importantly, Todd Blanche's confirmation is dead, doomed over if he loses one single Republican vote. And the one Republican who seemed to take the hardest sort of posture against Todd Blanche today was Texas Senator John Cornyn, who pressed Todd Blanche on that $1.8 billion slush fund. I believe you have said that the weaponization fund is a moot issue. Is that your position? Yes, it is a moot issue, meaning there is no weaponization fund. The website fund is dead. It's not moving forward. On page four, this settlement agreement may be modified only upon the written agreement of the parties. Has there been a written agreement of the parties to modify the settlement fund? No, the settlement fund's just not moving forward. There's no modification. It's just never started. Is a settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties?

Well, yes, it's an enforceable document. So I suppose if President Trump's counsel sought to enforce it, they potentially could. Including the weaponization fund. Well, they could try to enforce the contract. They can't force the Department of Justice to move forward with the weaponization fund. They could potentially say that, I suppose, that we breached by not moving forward. They haven't done that, and I'm not aware that they're planning on doing that. I mean, why would you be aware unless you were also acting as Trump's attorney? Now, John Cornyn told reporters after that exchange that he still had more concerns, leaving Todd Blanche's confirmation in question, at least for now. I want to bring in the former senior prosecutor on DOJ's January 6th insurrection case, Mike Gordon. He was fired by the Trump administration. He's now suing. Alleging his firing was politically motivated. And joining me at the table, legal analyst Christy Greenberg is here. She's a former criminal division deputy chief at SDMI. She's also the host of the YouTube show Courtside. Michael Feinberg is still here. Mike, just take me through what you saw Todd Blanche trying to do today. I saw him try to justify the turn he's made in his career. Todd Blanche was in AUSA, like I was, like Christie was. He has done this job. And he understands that on day one of becoming a federal prosecutor, you learn, or if you didn't already know, that your client is not the president. It's the American people. That when you stand up in court, you don't say, Todd Blanche for Donald Trump. You say Todd Blanche for the United States. And so you're not his personal attorney anymore. And if the president's whims conflict with the law or the Constitution, your duties to the Constitution and the law. And so what I saw was Todd Blanche tried to justify all the things that he has done over the past year that showed that he has forgotten who his client really is and what his oath was. Mike, let me show you what he had to say about the January 6 pardons.

Trump, France. Among those who were pardoned by the president are individuals who've gone on to commit serious crimes against innocent victims across the United States. Do you think that blanket pardoned by the president of January 6 rioters was the right thing to do? I think that the Constitution gives the president the full power to pardon anybody for any reason he wants. And so I don't question President Trump's authority or is a decision to do so on January 20th. I mean, Mike Gordon, I guess the answer from a law student might be okay. I read the chapter on what the Constitution says the president, maybe not even law school. I guess we'll put that back in high school civics. But the answer from the nation's top cop. about the crimes that the people that were pardoned for their violent crimes, in some instances on January 6, have gone on according to NPR to carry out child sex crimes. And they told one of the victims, according to NPR's reporting again, to be quiet about the molestation because he was coming into money from this slush fund. I mean, what does it say when the country's attorney general won't speak to the recidivism of the pardons that were issued on his watch? It says that he's essentially left his judgment. and his ethics at the door, and that whatever the president says is that he's what he's going to fall in line behind. And the attorney general historically has been independent from the president, ever since Watergate, for the reasons that we need the nation's top law enforcement officer to be loyal to the law first. You know, it's not, and it's not just the pardons. I want your viewers understand that the way the weaponization slush fund and the tossing of the seditious conspiracy convictions, how it plays in to the pardons. The pardons didn't cover the 14 members of the oathkeepers and proud boys who were convicted of seditious conspiracy, right? The ones who spent months plotting the overthrow of our government, and a jury convicted them of that. The pardons didn't cover them. It just commuted their sentences, let them get out of jail. But the conviction stood. Todd Blanche recently asked the court to toss their convictions to so that they will forever onward be in the eyes of the law, never guilty, applauded to overthrow the government. And I don't know how Todd Blanche can justify that. Michael Feinberg, weigh in on what this means for the people who remain inside the department if violent crimes prosecuted by their predecessors, and I guess in some instances their former colleagues, are erased because of perceived political affiliation being on Trump's team.

It's very difficult for me to speak about this in an entirely objective manner. I was a supervisory special agent in the Washington field office on January 6th. I was called from home along with every other special agent to come respond. I spent a 24-hour period providing security at the homes of prominent members of Congress, including some. who, to be blunt, are no totally on board with these pardons, but at the time they were rattled. I don't understand how anybody who has ever taken an oath to the Constitution, or, as you put it, a basic high school civics class, can be okay with these pardons. Every single person who trespassed against the Capitol on that day was attempting to halt the peaceful transition of power in their own country. A large number of them assaulted police officers who were trying to protect our democracy. Another number of them actually were convicted of seditious conspiracy, as Mike noted. And if you look at the history books, that is not a common charge that gets thrown about lightly. That signifies how serious this was taken by everybody involved, including the Trump officials who began the January 6th investigations prior to Biden's inauguration. As for people still at the FBI and still at DOJ, I don't know. I left, obviously. So. Maybe let my actions tell you my gut instinct. There is an argument for staying. If you're a good person, if you value the rule of law, perhaps once or twice maybe, you might be a bulwark against some of the more offensive instincts of this administration. But at the same time, I think there's a legitimate worry that by staying, you give a professional sheen to a fundamentally now corrupt enterprise. I don't think there's a right answer. I think it's between every attorney, every agent, and every employee and their own conscience and their families and what they think they can do in terms of good and what they can live with compromising. I don't envy them. I will note that every week that goes by, the number of personal friends I have in the FBI or at the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. building of Maine Justice,

grows smaller because people just can't do it anymore. I want to press all three of you on what that means for U.S. national security on the other side of the break, also on the other side of the break. Todd Lynch faced questions from some Republicans on the Justice Department's handling of one issue, and that was the Jeffrey Epstein files. We'll tell you about that on the other side. Home to the Rachel Maddo Show. Morning Joe, the briefing with Jen Saki, and more voices you know and trust. MS now is your source for news, opinion, and the world. Learn more at MS. dot now. Todd Blanche was essentially in charge of the administration's handling of the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files after it became the law of the land. He oversaw the Justice Department's botched incomplete release of what they did put out publicly. At his confirmation hearing today, Todd Blanche got into a tense back and forth with Senator Dick Durbin, going back and forth specifically about whether he would meet with Epstein survivors. Here's a little bit of that exchange. Can I get your word under oath that within the next 30 days, you will personally sit down with these 10 victims and hear their case in terms of what needs to be done by the Department of Justice? Chairman, I appreciate them being here today. I also have somebody from my office who's spent her entire career working on cases like Mr. Epstein. She's in charge of our task force investigating human trafficking. She's available to talk to them. She can sit right next to you. She can sit right next to you when you meet with these survivors. I have never said I will not meet with survivors. Will you meet with these 10 survivors? I'm asking you on the record. If they have lawyers, as you know, I'm prohibited from meeting directly with them. Will you get it done within the next 30 days that each of these survivors? I will get it done today if that's necessary. My point is there's somebody here who can meet with them today, get their information arranged to meet with them. I think you ought to be in the room. Pardon me? I think you ought to be in the room because you ought to hear this. You had singular responsibility for these files. There was a delay in meeting the statutory requirement and disclosure. You were involved in that. I think you ought to be part of this. Important to note that Todd Blanche did think it was important for him to meet personally with convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. Christy Greenberg, where are we? Oh, that was just such crap.

I mean, first of all, yeah, he met with Ghislaine Maxwell with her lawyer. The idea that you can't meet with a victim if she's represented by counsel. Just the felon is absurd. I mean, I met with how many different victims with their attorneys in the room. I mean, that's how you investigate sex trafficking cases. So that's just a lie. Second of all, he's saying wants to punt it. Oh, this person from DOJ is here who investigates human trafficking, talk to her. You wrote the memo. You wrote the memo that said, There's no other, you know. Let me just stop you. Why didn't that person meet with Ghislaine Maxwell? Exactly. Why didn't somebody from SD&Y who prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell meet with Ghislaine Maxwell? Why were none of the agents or the prosecutors in the room? Why did he do that? And the reason, at least according to the New York Times reporting, based on what was going on in the situation room, is that's what they came up with to basically have a narrative for this story, to figure out if she could essentially exonerate. Donald Trump. That was the purpose of that meeting, whereas these victims actually want to talk about leads. They want to talk about cases. He has clearly no interest in doing that. And that is shameful. Mike, what is the sort of conversation among prosecutors who've been purged, fired, sort of menaced by Todd Blanche, Pam Bondi, Emil Bove, about Todd Blanche rising to the top of that heat. Everybody's dismayed. You know, this is the classic example of somebody kind of rising to the level of their willingness to put their morals and their ethics and their training kind of underneath their ambition. So, you know, those of us who have either been purged from the department or have left because we can't kind of stand to be part of it because we, you know, look at the risk that Mike Feinberg was, you know, illustrating earlier about do you stay in. be complicit or do you leave and keep your principal intact? You know, all of us are planning for the day when the Department of Justice can be restored to what it's supposed to be, to what it used to be, and trying to think, how do we build this in the future so that when the day comes, and it will come, I still have that hope, that when that day comes, the... The principal of the Department of Justice don't just depend on norms. They don't just depend on good people being in place, but there are actually laws and rules that, you know, require it to be so. Because what we're seeing is that we can't just count on good people doing the right thing. Because Todd Blanche is showing that somebody who used to be a buy-the-book AUSA, when he gets to this position of power, he throws that out the window.

And he seems that he was personally involved in the firing of people who didn't carry out Trump's will. Is that the case, obviously, with your dismissal and firing, Mike? Yeah, I don't know if he was involved in mine. Part of the issue with my case is that it's never gotten to the discovery point. We're still waiting on Judge Cobb in D.C. to decide on jurisdiction. But beyond that, I certainly suspect it because of all the things I've heard about his oversight of the weaponization working group and the weaponization working group being the place where the names for heads to be put on stakes like mine came from. Mike Gordon, we really appreciate getting to talk to you today. Michael Feinberg, we always appreciate getting to talk to you. Thank you both for joining us today. After the break, exclusive new reporting from our friend Carol Lenig on JD Vance and his relationship with the Secret Service. We'll tell you all about it next.

Our colleagues, Caroleneg of Von Hilliard, are out with some gobsmacking exclusive new reporting on simmering tensions within JD Vance's Secret Service detail over... Crazy request by JD Vance and his family considered completely unprecedented compared to every past vice president of the United States. From that new report, quote, on Thursday last week, secret service agents groused amongst themselves as they prepared to deliver another perk to Vice President JD Vance's family. Join a military helicopter crew to fly his young son to his golf lesson, end quote. The trip was canceled due to weather, but three sources tell Carol and Vaughan this, quote, The Secret Service staff's complaints about a planned chopper ride for an elementary school student reflects a building morale problem inside the team of agents assigned to shield JD Vance and his young family. Agents have shared concerns internally about JD Vance and his office, pressing them for trips and assignments that some agents consider an inappropriate or even unprecedented use of government resources. compared to prior vice presidents. The agents pulled in to protect JD Vance and his family have also become fed up with the last-minute travel demands that JD Vance and his wife, Ushah JD Vance, frequently placed on the security team. The vice president's office provided a statement to MS Now, saying this in part, quote, the vanses are grateful to the men and women of the U.S. Secret Service who serve our country with distinction. Joining us at the table, senior investigative reporter Carolynic. To the last sentence of this story, it is a holy, you know what. Thanks, Nicole. Thanks for being patient as we tried to work with this story and work with our sources to make sure that it was above reproach. You know, the Secret Service doesn't complain a lot. I've covered them for a long time. But this was the kind of tip. I felt like we should try to figure out if it was true. Because when they're angry in this way, it's sort of a red alarm. They're an overworked. under-resourced agency and now they're being asked to go on a military helicopter flight on Marine 2 with the son of the vice president to take him to a golf lesson from DC across town to Andrews, former Andrews Air Force Base, Andrews. Usually that kind of travel takes place in an SUV. In this case, we learned from sources that The vice president was planning to go on this trip as well. The trip ultimately got canceled because of thunderstorms that day. But they flagged it to me these sources because it's reflective of this bigger problem you just beautifully outlined. They are feeling really strapped by the last minute travel and the unprecedented requests from JD Vance. And some of them use the word royal treatment, you know, that they're not used to providing royal treatment to the children of a vice president.

Let me read more from the story, which is absolutely extraordinary and incredibly. detailed. First of all, quote, the White House military office, which reports to the president, would have to authorize the use of the helicopter for the golf lesson. Operating the helicopter costs taxpayers between $16,000 and $24,600 per hour to use. That's according to a 2022 Defense Department budget estimate. An administration official familiar with JD Vance's travel said the vice president planned to accompany his son. to take your kid to golf, to cost, charge to taxpayers, $25,000 an hour? You know, It's reflective for me of how much more VIP helicopter travel there was right from the get-go of the Trump administration. This presumption that anybody important could basically use a helicopter as an Uber. And it preceded that horrible, horrible fatal crash between a passenger jet and a military helicopter that was training, at least. to do a lot more VIP travel. There is just buzzing all over Washington, D.C. with these helicopters. And in this case, the Secret Service is kind of waving the flag. Like, is this where we want to go with the use of our resources, which are pretty limited? Let me read a little bit more from the story. They have a strong culture, ticket service. Anyone who's ever been privileged to travel with the president has the privilege of benefiting in that sort of umbrella protection. I certainly did when I traveled with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, especially after September 11th, and they were very cognizant of how anxious people felt. And it is a real... tight culture, you're sort of walking in small groups in and out of helicopters and in and out of tight corners and walking through kitchens of hotels. I mean, you really spend a lot of intimate time together, and they sort of have some gallows humor. Let me read this. Quote, the frustration over the last minute asks from the JD Vance's has boiled over to the point that agents have made custom coins and stickers. to mock the frequency of the vice presidents and his family's last minute travel. Using JD Vance's secret service code name Bobcat, according to images reviewed by MS Now. Featuring an image of a Bobcat's head, the coins and stickers read, quote, Bobcat OTR, which is an off the record, right on plan stop, Bobcat OTR Survivors Club. Explain.

These challenge coins and stickers are, you know, kind of a black market token for agents to share some sort of arduous assignment they've had together to also foster sort of mutual respect and trust about their adventures. Some of them hijinks, some of them really deadly serious, right? And in this case, we were steered to look at some of these images because they're basically now making fun of the fact that they are. survivors of working for JD Vance and his family. I want to say something with care and in fairness to the JD Vance family. They're the first vice presidential family with really, really young kids at the Naval Observatory in a long time. But I'm so glad you mentioned the history of Dick Cheney because it was a threat after 9-11 to Dick Cheney's children that led to vice president's children and grandchildren getting... you know, more and more protection. That's where it all began historically. Biden wanted the same for his children and his grandchildren. But the JD Vance family is in this situation of like, how do we take care of our kids, raise them in the city, and also have JD Vance serve as a vice president. You know, we want to put our hands together for a father who wants to spend time with his children, but maybe it not. The agents maybe don't want to do it at $26,000 an hour. Well, and there's no reporting in this piece at least that suggests that anyone objected to driving them to the lesson in an SUV. This was about the helicopter specifically, right? It absolutely was. And JD Vance being on the helicopter makes it more justified, if you will, because JD Vance, every time the helicopter travels, you know, it's Marine too. It's an official trip. but a golf lesson raises serious doubts about how official or how necessary it was. And, you know, the vice president should be allowed to spend time with his family. Agents are kind of crying out, we've had enough of this, and this is the worst example for them of a series of cases in which they feel the agency is being burdened. It's unbelievable new reporting. Carolyn at Christy Greenberg. Thank you so much for joining us today. After the break, Rachel Maddo will be here at the table, for real. Quick break. We'll be right back. Home to the Rachel Maddo Show. Morning Joe, the briefing with Jen Saki and more voices you know and trust. MS now is your source for news, opinion, and the world. Learn more at MS. Now.