“Trump’s escalating calls for revenge”

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. The days are longer, the calendar is filling up, and I want to feel as good as this beautiful summer weather. That's why I've been loving Grooons. It's one daily pack of gummies that covers my greens, vitamins, minerals, and even has 6 grams of prebiotic fiber. So I don't need to juggle a complicated wellness routine on top of everything else. They taste amazing. They're easy to toss my bag on the go, plus they're vegan, gluten-free, and HSAFSA eligible for reimbursement. Save up to 52% off with code podcast at grooms.co. That's code podcast at GRUNS.

judges around the country work very hard to get it right and if they don't their opinions are subject to criticism but personally directed hostility is dangerous and it's got to stop Hi again, everyone. It's 5 o'clock here in New York. I'm Alicia Menendez in for Nicole Wallace. With an unprecedented level of attacks against judges all across the country, Donald Trump is choosing to escalate his calls for revenge against those that rule against him. Here is what he said last night. The time has also come for Republicans to pass a tough new crime bill that imposes harsh penalties for dangers, repeat offenders, cracks down on rogue judges. We got rogue judges that are criminals. They're criminals. What they do to our country, the decisions that they hand down and hurt our country. And I could tell you something. I've gone through it. And the decisions that these people make. I got a decision on tariffs that's going to cost our country, not me. These new demands for a legal crackdown on sitting judges comes against this dangerous environment that they are now working in. NBC News reporting the, quote, there has been an increasing number of threats against federal judges in recent years, according to data maintained by the U.S. Marshal Service. There have been 314 investigations involving 202 judges since October, the agency says. But apparently, Trump's revenge campaign comes above the safety of the judges and the rule of law itself. That's not the only way this administration is going after the people that hold Trump accountable. Trump's retribution campaign against one of his perceived political enemies is also plowing ahead. My colleague Von Hilliard reports that, quote, after the Department of Justice failed to convict New York Attorney General Letitia James on charges of mortgage fraud last year, the Trump administration's federal housing chief, Bill Pulte, has filed a new criminal referral to the department. This time, asking prosecutors to investigate James for insurance fraud, according to criminal referrals obtained by MS Now. Bill Pulte sent the two criminal referrals to two Trump-nominated U.S. attorneys, Jason Redding Cignonis of the Southern District of Florida, and Andrew Boutros of the Northern District of Illinois. The referrals claimed James made misrepresentations in home insurance filings in Florida and Illinois, respectively, about how two properties associated with her would be used. James' lawyer, Abby Loll, blasted the attempts to revive the Trump administration's targeting of the New York AG, telling MS Now in a statement, quote,

Frustrated by repeated failures where judges and grand juries have rejected their attempts to charge Attorney General James, Trump and his political enablers keep abusing their power to pursue a vendetta against her. These desperate tactics will fail just as every previous attempt has failed and exposes an administration that has abandoned its responsibility to the American people in favor of petty political payback. That is where we start this hour. New York Times Justice Department reporter Glenn Thrush is here. Also with us, former U.S. Attorney and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Harry Littman, and former Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Mary McCord. Okay, Mary, let's take this conversation in two pieces. And let's begin with the threat that Donald Trump is making there, this idea of legislation that would criminalize judges who do their job. Am I understanding that correctly? That's what it sounded like, and good luck with that, because not only do I think Congress wouldn't go for it, but the Supreme Court and all the courts below wouldn't go for something. I mean, the judiciary is its own equal branch of the U.S. government. It has the responsibility, right, for saying what the law is. That is what the Supreme Court decided 100, you know, well more than 100 years ago in Marbury v. Madison, and judges cannot be... criminally penalized for doing their job. You know, there are other political processes that can be taken with respect to judges, but again, only for misconduct. And ruling against the president is not misconduct. It is just doing their job. But more, perhaps even more importantly than this ridiculous suggestion of criminalizing judges from based on their opinions is what this is doing to inject an atmosphere of, um, you know, a threatening atmosphere against judges. These are the dog whistles that we've seen from Donald Trump. His first administration, we're seeing them even on steroids in his second administration, is listen to my words about, you know, who I am vilifying and expecting that people will take action. And they will take action because we've seen it before. And, you know, I'm glad the Chief Justice is speaking out. But this isn't just about the judiciary. People and your opening, you know, has suggested it, people across the country, elected officials, people running for election, election officials, protesters, you know, people exercising constitutional rights are vilified by the president every day. And that results in threats to them and their families and real world impacts on them. Harry, to illustrate this threat environment, I want you to take a listen to what one federal judge said a few weeks ago about the threats he faced after ruling against the Trump administration on birthright citizenship. Some of it was very, very ugly. and very threatening. Death threats? Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Dozens of them. Dozens, if not hundreds. I've been at this for 44 years. I have never encountered the hostility toward the judiciary that has existed in this country in the last year. And I don't think it's because we're making bad decisions.

I think it's because there are people who think that they can make a lot of political hay out of criticizing the federal judiciary. And then, Harry, you have the president of the United States saying that Congress should step in and legislate this. Yeah, so look, 300 threats, by the way, is a stunning number. But beyond that, Trump's tirade here is not only, as Mary says, legally bankrupt, but it's also completely empty and completely dangerous. It's empty because if you look at it, there's not a single word about the law. The whole notion is they disagreed with me, therefore they are rogue criminals and hurt the country. And it's dangerous for the reasons you say, and we heard the Chief Justice say it. That is in the tonal register of a Chief Justice, so it's kind of muted. It is for him like a bullhorn at top volume and then saying it has to stop. That is from the Chief Justice as strong and stride in a warning as you can give, and yet probably... It falls on deaf ears. We know it does in the White House and Trump, given that he doubled down just last night. Well, Glenn, I take both Harry and Mary's point that you shouldn't give too much credence to stupid, but let's just entertain the hypothetical of a law like this being passed that criminalizes judges doing their job. What does that then do to the relationship between the Justice Department and the judiciary? Well, it's not going to, it's not, you know. You're like three for three. This is not going to happen. Look, I love the term that Harry used, tonal register, which is an interesting turn of phrase. I just the circumspection that the Chief Justice had in terms of him saying these things needs to be contrasted with Trump's bombast. And at some point in time, and I'm talking to you, United States Congress, Some of these senators and representatives who very well know, A, that such a law would be on constitutional, never vote on it, and B, don't appreciate this kind of talk because in so many instances, the federal judiciary has been ruling in Trump's favor. They don't like this, but Trump is able to speak as if there is only one branch of government and only one article in the Constitution because... Because the legislative branch, principally, has not pushed back on that. You see a little bit of this happening. Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is somebody who's spoken out against this. Thom Tillis is another one, principally because he's not running for re-election. But until the tonal register of Republicans rises to rival what Trump's tonal register is, this is just going to keep happening.

I want to throw in one other point here about personal safety. This is an administration that began by removing, as we recall, the security details of Joe Biden's family and of other officials, including John Bolton, who was getting a lot of threats from potential Iranian sources, while themselves speaking passionately about the threats that they face. You know, I reported a couple of weeks ago, Pam Bondi has moved from her apartment. onto a military base in the DC area. A couple of her senior aides have done so as well, joining other senior administration officials who believe that they are being threatened. So there is very clearly a double standard in the way that this administration is handling credible threats to officials and judges. Okay, so we've talked about the presidents. idea that he's workshopping about the possibility of going after judges. Let's talk about the way in which he is now going after one of his perceived political enemies. I wonder, Mary, what you make of the fact that they are taking another run at Letitia James. Well, I mean, I don't know how far along it is. We certainly know that this is what Mr. Bill Pulte wants and he probably does things and we have seen him do things, you know, directly to try to serve the president. This seems to be just like sort of a repackaged version of Mr. Bill Pulte's previous accusations that did result, of course, in Trump's handpicked interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan somehow getting an indictment, which after it was dismissed. No other prosecutor was able to replicate twice. A grand jury denied indicting Letitia James on bank fraud that seemed to be based very closely to the same things that Mr. Bill Pulte is suggesting should be the basis for insurance fraud. This is an administration that doesn't want to give up, doesn't want to realize what they have is just not good enough. And even if it was, even if there was some new information, the directed retribution, the retaliation, the going after a person and not after a crime and digging and digging and digging to see if they could find something to possibly make a crime. I mean, that just shows the vindictive nature of this. And, you know, even if there is any success in getting a grand jury to actually a return an indictment, you know, yet for another try, I think we will expect to see motions to dismiss based on vindictive and selective prosecution. Let's talk, Harry, about where they are choosing to do this in Florida and Illinois. One of the referrals was sent to Jason Redding Cignonis, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida. As you know, he has already shown his willingness to target Trump's perceived enemies leading that grand conspiracy investigation that subpoenaed James Comey earlier this month. In this specific way... They do know what they are doing and who is most likely to be sympathetic to carrying their water.

They know who is most likely to be sympathetic there, Alicia, but that means bringing charges that they know have no purchase. So as Mary said, not only was the first one dismissed, but two other efforts. I've never seen that happened before, but you would think three strikes and you're out. But the bedrock rule is, do you have a case? And this isn't simply similar to the mortgage fraud allegations that they couldn't make happen in the Eastern Disarvention. the identical facts just with scratching out mortgage and putting insurance. So they, nor have they changed a theory in the different times, which of course you would do when a grand jury rejects it. So the fundamental corruption here is trying to bring cases. And as you say, Quignonez in particular, right? He's Mr. Grand Conspiracy, a term, by the way, that doesn't exist in federal law. They're just making it up. But to try to just have another forum to do what they couldn't do three times before with no effort to in any way augment the case. It's not there, and that itself is a grave miscarriage of justice, trying to make a case that they know doesn't hunt. Grand conspiracy may not exist, Harry Limmon, in federal law, but it certainly exists in the dregs of the internet, Glenn Thrush, which is where that all came from. I mean, listen, in the case of A.G. James, we all know this is about the process and the pain that comes with the process and the time that comes with the process and the money that comes with the process. And while everything else may not be real and may not be true, that remains real. That remains true. That is the effect and reality of his retribution. campaign, your sense, Glenn, based on your reporting, on where we are in the escalation ladder, when it comes to this DOJ being willing to target those who the president identifies as his political enemies? We're in a really weird liminal period here because it seemed like things were gaining some traction, middle, latter part of last year. But the wheels are coming off the bus a little bit. This is a Justice Department that is really weighed down by this Jeffrey Epstein Files fiasco. And a lot of the energy that were going into these selective prosecutions that Trump was ordering up like Uber's last year, they fizzled out. And they're having a lot of trouble finding. assistant U.S. attorneys to even bring any of these cases. So while this is still an enormously alarming set of circumstances, I think it is important to understand the degree of just fundamental dysfunction in the department right now. You have some of the senior leadership of the department from Pam Bondi on down. Janine Piro in D.C., you have Harmeet Dillon, the head of the Civil Rights Division, doing direct to camera, please. for law school graduates to come work for them. We've reported about the labor shortage in the U.S. Attorney's Office. Not surprisingly, good lawyers and even young lawyers don't want to come work for the Justice Department. That has become a profound problem. So I think while we're seeing a lot of these fireworks, and again, I've said this from the beginning,

It's difficult to discern the fireworks from the artillery. And for a period of time, particularly late last year and in the summer, it seemed like it was artillery. It's seeming at the moment like it's fireworks. Kenyonis essentially was placed in that position. with the assistance of Mike Davis, who's this right-wing provocateur who's in Trump's year. And one last thing at one point I want to make is we've got a housing crisis in this country. I covered housing for 20 years, low-income housing in New York and other places. What is Bill Pulte doing about the housing crisis? The R.A.J. is supposed to be doing that. Why is he spending his time? On the Justice Department's front lawn, when one of the big issues in the midterm elections is affordability, particularly at a time when interest rates are rising over the last couple of weeks, and young families can't afford even cheap parental housing. I know you mean it as a rhetorical question, but it is the problem with this administration top to bottom, which is an actual lack of attention to the very things that they ran on a disinterest in this question of affordability and an absolute... obsession, Mary, with going after their enemies. So I just want to throw into the dysfunction that I think Glenn did a very good job of articulating over at DOJ. The fact that somewhere in that dysfunction, they have found time, this is according to the New York Times, they're agreeing to pay Michael T. Flynn, President Trump's former national security advisor, $1.25 million to settle claims that he was wrongfully prosecuted for making false statements to federal agents, investigating ties between Russia and... in Mr. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. So just an absolute obsession with punishing enemies and what would seem like a rewarding of allies. It certainly does seem like a rewarding of allies. And remember, Michael Flynn had pleaded guilty to this offense. And the judge who was... Hearing his case, his then civil case after Donald Trump then, or actually after William Barr, then the Attorney General came in, directed the Department of Justice to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn after he had pleaded guilty. That case was dismissed. Donald Trump pardoned him. He filed a civil case seeking damages. That case was dismissed. The government was winning against Michael Flynn's efforts to get. money for a righteous case that he had pleaded guilty to. And now in the midst of having had the case dismissed, Michael Flynn refiling an amended complaint, we have this settlement and this payoff. And remember, this is when we've had payoffs to Ashley Babette's family after, you know, she was killed very unfortunately during January 6th riot where she was trying to go through a window to get to where the senators and representatives were. We have Donald Trump himself.

with civil litigation against the department for over $200 million. We have members of the oath keepers and proud boys who are talking about, and some have filed civil litigation seeking massive amounts of compensation. Is this the beginning of sort of paying off those who are friendly to this president? Because, you know, the message is clear here, right? If you cross him, you will be... pounded and prosecuted even for things that don't make a standard of prosecution. And if you subjugate yourself, you will be rewarded. It is impossible not to see that. Mary McCord, Glenn Thrush, Harry Littman, thank you all so much for getting us started. When we return a mysterious flurry of activity in stock trades and prediction markets, sometimes just minutes before Donald Trump makes surprise policy announcements. That's potentially making a very select group of insiders a whole lot of money. What Democrats on Capitol Hill are doing to try to put a stop to it, that's next. Also ahead, Donald Trump's absurd excuse for why he cast a mail-in ballot in that state legislature race in Florida, you know, the one that saw a Democrat win right in Trump's backyard, even as he rails against mail-in voting for everyone else. Deadline White House continues after quick break. Stay with us. 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? While 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. Normally in these ads, you expect somebody to ask you to buy something, but this is something different. I'm Julian Barnes, and I'm a reporter for the New York Times. I'm a national security reporter, and that means I'm reporting on military operations. These are fast-paced, quickly-moving situations. What exactly is happening on the ground is often shrouded in mystery. But we turn to trusted sources, satellite imagery, and expertise built up over years in order to ferret out the facts that wouldn't otherwise come to light. I'm here to ask you to seek out a news source that does firsthand fact-based reporting. If it's your local paper, great. If it's the Times, thank you. Because where you go for your information matters. The days are longer, the calendar is filling up, and I want to feel as good as this beautiful summer weather. That's why I've been loving grooms. It's one daily pack of gummies that covers my greens, vitamins, minerals, and even has six grams of prebiotic fiber. So I don't need to juggle a complicated wellness routine on top of everything else. They taste amazing. They're easy to toss my bag on the go, plus they're vegan, gluten-free, and HSA-fSA eligible for reimbursement.

Save up to 52% off with code podcast at grooms.co. That's code podcast at gruns.co. There's now an alarming pattern of well-timed trades and bets made just moments, sometimes minutes before major policy announcements from Donald Trump. It's prompting speculation about possibly insiders being tipped off on everything from tariffs to war and getting enormous payouts in the process. A few examples, as the Wall Street Journal explains, before Trump ordered the U.S. military to proceed with its operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro in late December and early January, A mystery trader placed about $34,000 on Venezuela-related bets, mainly on contracts that would pay off if Maduro lost power by the end of January. The final wager was placed less than an hour before Trump's order. And last month, after U.S. and Israeli forces began to strike Iran, an analytics firm said a group of, quote, suspected insiders made $1.2 million. most of the accounts had bet on a strike by February 28th, which turned out to be the exact date of the operation. And most recently, on Monday, a mysterious flurry of trading activity in oil and S&P 500 futures about 15 minutes before Trump de-escalated tensions with Iran with a Monday morning post on truth social. And while there's no evidence that this means insiders are being tipped off, The Wall Street Journal says, quote, still, some market veterans believe news is trickling out from Trump's orbit ahead of these official announcements. Senator Chris Murphy responded to one report about a massive $1.5 billion oil stock trade just five minutes before Trump's post this week. Quote, who was it? Trump? A family member? A White House staffer? Quote, this is corruption. Mind-blowing corruption. Let's bring in Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat from Oregon. He is introducing new legislation today that would ban prediction market bets on elections and government actions. Senator, thank you for being here. Do you agree with your colleague that this is corruption? Oh, absolutely. This is not just where there's smoke, there's fire. Like the fire is so obvious that people are getting information right before critical decisions or actions are taken. Talk to me about the legislation that you're introducing today. Yes, this legislation says, in part, you shouldn't be voting or it shouldn't be betting on elections because that's very corrupt because people can place huge amounts through the dark money on campaigns to change the outcome of elections at the last minute. So that's an unacceptable marketplace that diminishes the integrity of our elections. It says that you can't. place a bet on either military or government decisions because they're inherently there's so many people involved in those decisions those

places where you are placing a wager and there is a ratio on how much you'll receive based on how other people are betting the insiders are going to win every single time so it's a it's a corrupt setting and it's a place where where people in government or their friends or their family are going to place these bets because they have that information they can't resist temptation and they can place those bets with crypto and which makes it hugely anonymous. So they feel the odds of ever getting caught are very low. The legislation that you're introducing today, you would introduce legislation earlier in the month that would specifically ban elected officials from using these prediction markets. I mean, theoretically, that should be a layup when you talk with your, yeah, I know. When you talk with your Republican colleagues about that, do you sense hesitation, resistance? Yes, I sure do detect reservations or hesitation. You know, over a decade ago, I started campaigning to end stock trading by members because it's inherently corrupt. We know information the public doesn't have, but you can't prove insider trading. So people are making trades all the time. Or it's also influencing their stock holdings or influencing what they're going to do. It's the same thing with prediction market. I mean, think of prediction markets as a massive casino where you can. bet on anything. Well, that's a problem and certain areas should be off limits and that's what this bill does. But my earlier bill was focused directly on members of Congress not being able to place these bets. I think folks understand the corruption and folks who are able to benefit financially from placing these bets with insider information. But speak to me about what you see as the consequence of just anyone being able to bet on something as sensitive as military strikes or Congress passing a bill. I mean, what is the sociological effect of such an action? Well, let's step back and think about the arena where this is happening. It's a Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That was all about being able to essentially arrange beforehand to sell or buy commodities of price. Think of pork bellies. Think of wheat. Think of aluminum. Think of oil. Those are commodities. These are not commodities. So this is an enormous loophole that creates gambling on everything. and with huge amounts of potential insider information flowing in ways that can never be detected. But it also can corrupt the process because say there are huge bets placed Well, let's say on whether or not the U.S. will restore oil to Cuba. And somebody says, hey, now that I've got millions of dollars hanging on this, I'm going to use my influence to try to make sure the government acts to fulfill my side of that bet. So that's another form of corruption where pressure can be brought to bear on officials. And then you have the other side where people are using insider information. So both directions, no integrity.

Shouldn't happen. We should put those off limits. In the case of both pieces of legislation, the legislation that is aimed at members of Congress, the legislation that is more broad on this question of just fundamentally what folks should be able to place wagers on, their perspective. It's about what could happen in the future. I think there's still the alarming reality here that it would seem there is insider information regardless of who that insider information went. too. Do you think it makes sense for Congress to use their oversight power to really get to the bottom of how this information is being shared with whom it's being shared and how it is then making its way to these markets? Oh, absolutely. That's a key function of Congress's oversight of the executive. And it's a key function that's been absolutely missing. We have a rubber-stamp Congress and both the House and the Senate. They have no interest in investigating these types of corrupt actions because anything associated with Trump, they are just saying, we will let Trump be as corrupt as he wants, no oversight. And so that's where we stand. Congress is failing that mission. Senator Jeff Merkley, sir, thank you so much for spending some time with us today. When we return, how gullible does Donald Trump think we really are? His excuse for why he voted by mail after years of railing against it defies all logic. We're going to have that after a short break.

The days are longer, the calendar is filling up, and I want to feel as good as this beautiful summer weather. That's why I've been loving Grooons. It's one daily pack of gummies that covers my greens, vitamins, minerals, and even has 6 grams of prebiotic fiber. So I don't need to juggle a complicated wellness routine on top of everything else. They taste amazing. They're easy to toss my bag on the go, plus they're vegan, gluten-free, and HSA-FSA eligible for reimbursement. Save up to 52% off with code podcast at grooms.co. That's code podcast at GRUNS. Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co-founder of Angie. From roof repair to emergency plumbing and more. When you use Angie for your home projects, you know all your jobs will be done well. Angie, the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find a pro for your project at Angie.com. At DSW, we ask the important questions. Like, what shoes are you going to wear? Whether you're prepping for wedding season. festival season, or just planning the ultimate vacay. The right shoes can make or break an RSVP. So own the moment. You've got big plans and we've got just the shoes at the perfect price, of course. Get ready to get ready with designer shoe warehouse. Head to your DSW store or DSW.com today. And let us surprise you. Donald Trump is struggling to defend his hypocrisy after casting a vote by mail in a Florida election earlier this week. Even as he rails against mail in voting and demands the government stay partially shut down over it. This was Trump's response when asked about his decision to vote by mail in that Palm Beach special election on Tuesday, which, you know, a Democrat won. Take a look. Tell me about mail-in ballots going. You may not use a mail-in ballot? You probably said, yeah, I did. You know what? Because I'm president of the United States, and because of the fact that I'm president of the United States, I did a mail-in ballot for elections that took place in Florida. Because I felt I should be here instead of being in the beautiful sunshine taking... But you were on Tall Beach, sir, the last few weekends. That's right. And I decided that I was going to vote by mail-in ballot because I couldn't be there because I had a lot of different things. But, you know, we have exceptions for bail-in ballots. You do know that, right? So if you're away, we have an exception. If you're in the military, we have an exception. If you're in a business trip, we have an exception. If you're disabled, we have an exception. And if you're ill... If you're not feeling good. So I was away, mostly in Washington, D.C., so I used a bail and bell. We thought this story was so outrageous. We needed to bring back Voting Rights Attorney and founder of Democracy Docket, Mark Elias, also with us, New York Times reporter, Nick Korsanti. He covers voting and elections. All right, Mark, I know we just talked about the GOP efforts to undermine election integrity, but this was just to... outrageous to not bring back to you. One, talk to me about the rationale being, I'm the president of the United States. And two, his lack of understanding about how these exceptions would work under his own legislation.

The problem we have is we've got some folks out there that are trying to stir the pot on this, you know, allegation that it somehow is a barrier for married women to be able to vote because they've, you know, got to deal with getting IDs with name changes and all those things. Although, frankly, I'm trying not to elevate the issue too much. My chief of staff had to go get a new ID in Virginia. Virginia's adopted the real ID system. So she had to go through a bunch of hoops. She's going to have to go back to DMV twice. because they want the paperwork for it. That's just part of the issue with how we try to set up the ability to identify people. But there's no barriers at all to married women being able to vote. I mean, it's not internally consistent, but just give me a second because two months later, Roy said this, quote, perhaps the most absurd narrative peddled from the left, including twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, is that the Save Act will somehow disenfranchise married women or anyone else who has changed his or her name for voting in federal elections. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sir, you just said the truth yourself. I mean, they know how bad this is, Mark. They just don't care. I think you put your finger on it right there. They don't care, right? Like from their standpoint, well, if some women don't get to vote, you know, no problem, right? Like they're not overly concerned about the disenfranchisement of married women or for that matter women in general because they figure, you know what? More women vote Democratic than vote Republican, and therefore if that has to be the way it is, then that's the way it is. You know, as he said, his chief of staff had to go back. I think he said a couple of times, a couple of times, right? Not once, but a couple of times, you know, in order to just sort out the differences that women who change their last name as a result of marriage have to do. And sure, it's not a big deal to him, and it doesn't affect people. It affects women. And so that's why he's so quick to dismiss it and just say, you know, let's not talk about it too much. I want to zone in, Nick, on some of the reporting that you've been doing about states working to counter attacks on mail-in voting, including the potential Supreme Court ruling that would limit how late ballots can be received. You write, 18 top election officials in states and territories across the country are bracing for the possibility that the Supreme Court will require major changes to election law just months before the midterm election in November. Part of the urgency, getting the message out to voters that late arriving ballots may no longer be counted. Such a decision could affect hundreds of thousands of voters. Voters are human, and we know that one tap, one message doesn't get through, said Kathy Bookvar, the former top election official in Pennsylvania. And it might take seven or ten or fifteen times with a voter hearing something.

To fully understand the changes, you know, in the early part of my career, I did a lot of voter engagement, rock the vote, Democracy, USA. This is hard work. It requires going door to door. It means a lot of peer-to-peer contact. How much harder do these state election officials believe it could be as soon as this midterm election? Well, there's so much going on right now, right? There's a war in Iraq. There is economic distress. There's inflation. There's gas prices soaring. There's so much that's affecting their day-to-day lives, their minute-to-minute concerns that one of the last things that's going to be on their mind now in March is voting and changes to voting rules. So even if it's on the front page of New York Times, it's leading an MS now, it's not something that's registering with voters yet. We're still so far away. When this decision comes by the Supreme Court or whenever laws are passed in Congress that could change voting rules in the middle of an election, it's almost guaranteed that some voters are going to be left in the large, no matter how hard these election officials tried a message to them. There's just more things going on. And as former Secretary Bookbar told me, you know, voters are used to what they did last. If you give them the box, they're going to fill it out the same way they did. So if laws are changed, there's always going to be mistakes. And we could just look at a recent election. You know, in Texas, just a few weeks ago, there's a primary election. And in Dallas, there was a change in the way that precincts were assigned due to the County Republican Party not wanting to have joined primaries. Now, there was, that was about a six-week runway. Both parties, election officials were trying to get the word out. They were putting it on social media, really doing their best to educate voters. Still, on election day, there were hundreds of voters who were confused, who missed their opportunity to cast a ballot, all due to recent law changes. What's going to be really hard for election officials is if some of these major changes, especially the potential Supreme Court decision to not allow late arriving ballots where to arrive, to have voters understand that is just such a tall task. Thank you so much for that example because it is a great reminder that none of this is theoretical and it's not something that is going to just happen in the future. It is something that is happening right now. All right. No one's going anywhere. I got to sneak in a quick break. We're going to be right back.

We are back with Mark Elias and Nick Corrassanti. I am curious about the fact that the President of the United States chose not to attend CPAC, Mark Elias. But I am also even more curious about the fact that a DOJ official, Todd Blanche... did choose to attend, and that in his remarks at CPAC, he seemed to endorse the president's idea of having ICE agents show up at polling places. What does that tell you about how far they are going to normalize this idea? So they've normalized it. I mean, at least from their standpoint, they have. I mean, you know, we've seen the same progression here that we see on a whole host of issues with Donald Trump. First, he tells a bit of a lie. And it's kind of easy to dismiss because it doesn't seem all that important. Then people around him deny, deny, deny. And then eventually they're like, oh, yes, well, of course that's the truth. And you're kind of left being like, wait a second. You know, how did we get here? And so originally it was... You know, there's no reason why we would send ice to the polls. We have no plans to send ice to the polls. And now it's like, well, what's wrong with sending ice to the polls? And you're right. It's coming not from, you know, someone who is a political operative in the White House. It's not coming from someone like Steve Bannon, who, by the way, you know, predicted this. Like he actually said this on his podcast weeks ago. But it's coming from one of the top DOJ officials. I mean, talk about normalizing. I mean, we used to say that no one at the Department of Justice could like attend a reception if it had a partisan veneer to it. That, you know, when Bill Clinton ran across, you know, Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. When he was no longer the president and exchanged pleasantries, that was treated as a potential scandal. And now we have the White House dictating who gets criminally prosecuted. We have the people at the, you know, senior members of the Department of Justice giving political, you know, going to CPAC, you know, political events to give speeches about deploying federal agents. at the polling places. And, you know, to the last story you covered about, about, you know, the mail-in ballots, I mean, I'm not giving up hope that we're going to win this case in the U.S. Supreme Court. But let's not forget, you know, it's not all up to the voters. It's not all up to the election officials. I mean, does anyone think Donald Trump's not going to slow down the mail? I mean, you could tell voters, you know, your ballot has to be in by Election Day. But that's not up to the voter. I mean, the voter still just puts it in the mailbox. I mean, Lord knows the Republicans have been banning ballot drop boxes that would do away with the problem. What's to stop Donald Trump from just saying, you know what? The mail is the mail.

No more first class mail treatment for ballots. No more free postage for ballots. No more election mail at all going through the mail. And so, you know, I hope the Supreme Court is listening to this and recognizes that what's at stake here is not, you know, whether it's one date or another date and some voter education. This is a different kettle of fish. This is a weaponization of government against voting from top to bottom. And nothing is off the table when it comes to Donald Trump. Mark Elias, thank you so much for coming back. Nick Corsini, I've been saying your last name wrong my entire life. Thank you so much for being with us. I appreciate your time. I'm going to take another quick break. We'll be right back. A reminder, this week's guest on The Best People podcast is none other than the journalists who has been at the forefront of covering the Epstein story for years. Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie K. Brown. Listen to what she told Nicole about why the release of the Epstein files is such a game changer. Sometimes people have this distrust of journalists or anybody, even on these public platforms, you can actually go in and you can look at these files. And that is huge because the public can see with their own eyes. And they're looking at these files and they are saying, oh, my God, they're seeing this stuff themselves. So I think that that is. huge because it's no longer being filtered that anybody can go in there really. And, you know, it is a lot of work to sort through them like looking for a needle in a haystack sometimes. But you could put Trump's name in there and you can just look and see what comes up and you can get lost in them. But I do think that it is a good thing. To listen to Nicole's entire conversation with Julie K. Brown, just scan the QR code on your screen or download the best people wherever you get your podcasts. You'll take another break. We'll be right back. Thank you for spending part of this Thursday with us. I'm going to be back in one hour alongside Michael Steele and Simone Bernie Sanders Townson for the weeknight. Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co-founder of Angie. And one thing I've learned is that you buy a house, but you make it a home. Because with every fix, update, and renovation, it becomes a little more your own. So you need all your jobs done well. For nearly 30 years, Angie has helped millions of homeowners hire skilled pros for the projects that matter. From plumbing to electrical, roof repair to deck upgrades. So leave it to the pros who will get your jobs done well. Angie, the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find a pro for your project at Angie. com.