“Roughly half of six million documents have not been released”

Instagram teen accounts default teens into automatic protections for who can contact them and the content they can see. Explore teen accounts and all of our ongoing work to protect teens online at Instagram.com slash teen accounts. Your home holds the story of your life. Renewal by Anderson windows are built to weather every season with you. They frame the little moments and the big ones from first steps to graduation. to new beginnings. While life keeps moving, our windows stand strong through every chapter. Let Renewal by Anderson be part of your story. Windows built to last. Visit Renewal by Andersonholm.com to learn more. Hi there, everyone. It's 4 o'clock here in Washington, D.C. I'm Alicia Menendez, in for Nicole Wallace. Donald Trump's Department of Justice is continuing their desperate attempts to move on from the Epstein files. Days after Attorney General Pam Bondi told lawmakers they should focus on the Dow, instead of the heinous crimes of the deceased sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, her department sent a letter to Congress, claiming that they have released all of the documents that the Epstein Transparency Act required them to. That's despite the fact that roughly half of these six million documents the DOJ has have not been publicly released. In trying to defend the department's sloppy redactions with the files that have been released, the letter states that nothing has been withheld, quote, on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity. DOJ also release a list as required by law of politically exposed persons. It's a list of more than 300 notable names that appear in the Epstein files. But as MS Now reports, the list included people who, quote, had no direct dealings with Epstein and have long been dead, including Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, and Ronald Reagan. Adding, quote, the letter does not differentiate between people mentioned in news stories who likely had little or no connection to Epstein and those who were shown to have communicated with Epstein, Maxwell, and other associates. The co-authors of the law that required the files to be released slam the Justice Department's latest move. Congressman Ro Khanna writing, quote, the DOJ is once again purposefully muddying the waters on who was a predator and who was mentioned in an email. To have Janice Joplin, who died when Epstein was 17 in the same list as Larry Nassar went to prison for the sexual abuse of hundreds of young women and child pornography, with no clarification of how either was mentioned in the files, is absurd. Release the full files. Stop protecting predators. Redact only the survivor's names. And here's why Republican Congressman Thomas Massie said the Trump administration wants to forget about the Epstein files. Look, this is about the Epstein class. The people who are funding the attacks against me, they may or may not be implicated in these files. But they were certainly rubbing shoulders with the people who are in these files. Donald Trump told us that even though, you know, he had dinner with these kinds of people in New York City and West Palm Beach.

that he would be transparent, but he's not. He's still in with the Epstein class. This is the Epstein administration, and they're attacking me for trying to get these files released. As for the survivors of Epstein's abuse, there are still so many unanswered questions in their quest for accountability. From not being able to find details about their abuse and information about potential co-conspirators and what has been released to their treatment by the Justice Department, here's what one survivor, Liz Stein, had to say. We want to see all of the men who were complicit in this crime to be outed and to be exposed. I think that we are also looking for the network, right? Epstein had to have a network. Every page that I've looked at has some kind of investigative lead. So I think that this should be the beginning of an investigation into these crimes. And we haven't seen that yet. This isn't about politics. This is about a crime. We're victims of the crime of sex trafficking. And I don't think that anyone in our country, if this was happening in their community, could stand by and launch it. And so for us to see our Department of Justice just so willingly and willfully denying citizens of this country justice, it just, you know, it makes my brain explode. That denial of justice is where we start today with Justice Department reporter for the New York Times, Glenn Thrush. Also with us, legal analyst Christy Greenberg, which is a former criminal division deputy chief at SD&Y and hosted the YouTube show Courtside. And Ben Wheater is here as an investigative reporter for the Miami Herald Christie. That list from the Justice Department, those 300 names, it smacks of look over here, not over here. What do you think they were trying to accomplish? I mean, look, putting people like Elvis and Marilyn Monroe on there, it's a massive FU is the only way I can think to say it. It's very clear that they don't want you to be able to interpret the list in any meaningful way. You can't distinguish certain names from other names. There are a number of names of my former colleagues on that list. You know, that doesn't really tell you a whole lot because clearly, you know, they didn't have a role in this. They were prosecuting. So I really don't think in looking at that letter that they have complied with the law and certainly the spirit of the law. And so when you have so many documents that are being withheld for bogus claims of privilege, things like their deliberative process, which was the whole point of this act, was to find out. what decisions were made to prosecute or not prosecute and why those decisions were made. When that is the purpose of the law, that's the legislative intent that's very clear, and they're withholding documents on that basis to protect that information, that's when you have a clear dispute, that's when you have a clear violation of the law, and that's where... These members of Congress need to take this up in court. They need to file a lawsuit and move to compel the release of the files. There have been clearly files that have been withheld in violation of the law, and they need to not just post on X, but actually file a lawsuit in court. Well, Glenn, on this question of privileged material, the rationale that we're hearing from the Justice Department, I want you to take a listen to what Congressman Thomas Massie had to say about that.

Yesterday, the DOJ sent Congress a letter explaining the reason for all these reactions. So you are not satisfied with that. No, they're citing deliberative process privilege in order not to release some of the documents. The problem with that is the bill that Ro Khanna and I wrote says that they must release internal memos and notes and emails about their decisions on whether to prosecute or not prosecute, whether to investigate or not investigate. Help me understand the excuse that DOJ is using and whether or not it would cover the millions of files that they still have not released. I think the simple answer to that is we don't even know the excuse that DOJ is using. They have had so many missteps, not only in the Epstein fiasco, but in every single other controversy that they have been involved in. I would just remind everybody out there, we've just had in the last 10 days several instances in which the DOJ and Department of Homeland Security have been caught dissembling, making things up in significant law enforcement actions. And in the course of covering this department over the past year, over and over, they've made assertions in court, never mind assertions to the press that have turned out to be patently untrue. So I would just like to start off from the top and say, even this assertion, I don't even know what they're talking about in terms of the deliberative process. The other thing I want to point out is Pam Bondi's appearance before the House Judiciary Committee last week was a catastrophe. It was... It was probably, and I've gone to dozens and dozens of these things, probably the most self-damaging performance I have seen before a congressional committee. And that is because the tone that she needs to strike is one of understanding. contrition, listening. She did none of these things. She used the same cut and paste approach she used in the Senate last year. Attack. It's the Trumpian book. Attack, attack, attack, attack. It works for Donald Trump. It doesn't work for Pam Bondi. That is not the stance that the American people want to see out of the Justice Department. Right. And it's, Ben, this actually, she could have taken it as an opportunity. She could have said, of course, we care about survivors. She could have acknowledged the survivors. She could, obviously, in action, follow through by actually meeting with the survivors, many of whom say they have volunteered numerous times to meet with the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice has not taken them up. I am struck by some of the sound we heard from Liz Stein, who've had on this program many times, who says, Look through the files that have been shared and it becomes obvious that they're investigative leads in file after file. Why aren't you tracking those down? No, I mean, I think that the survivors have made it very clear that they want accountability that they're not getting from the Justice Department and it's important to go back.

you know, 20 years to the fact that the Justice Department cut them out of the initial prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and the deals that were being struck. And not much has changed 20 years later. Liz Stein, I should point out, was one of the few survivors who made the track every day, nearly every day of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial in 2020 and had to fight sometimes with the administrators of the court, the federal court in New York City, to get access to it. And on the day that the jury rendered their verdict in that case, there were no victims present. And the reason I bring that up is to say that victims have been fighting for access to the judicial process for years, have been fighting for access to the Justice Department for years. And this would seem to be a pretty easy thing for Pambani to address the victims, to center her comments on the victims and say, hey, we're trying to get to the bottom of this. we are committed to figuring out what's happening here. That's what the Republican Party is calling for. That's what Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail. This would seem to be an easy thing, and yet they can't seem to get out of their own way. You know, they're more concerned, you know, in that hearing at least, you know, she seemed to be more concerned Pam Bondi with scoring political points than with addressing, you know, what the Justice Department is doing. You know, they still haven't addressed the many alleged co-conspirators, what they, what choices they made about who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. Liz Stein first met Ghislaine Maxwell in the store Henry Bendel in New York, which was owned by Les Wexner. Les Wexner is someone who has appeared all over these files as someone who was an alleged co-conspirator in the eyes of the Justice Department at one point. Why they chose not to prosecute Les Wexner is a question that I think survivors like Liz Stein would like to know, the public would like to know, Donald Trump's voters would like to know why they can't answer that question. I just don't understand. Well, it's going to be interesting, too, when he shows up on Capitol Hill, whether or not there is a way to pose that question to him. Christy, I'm very struck by the messaging that we're now hearing from Congressman Thomas Massie, right? This idea of there being an Epstein class that So as much as we have talked about the names that appear in these files, that he is almost positioning it as though there is a universe of powerful people who are protecting the people whose names may or may not be in these files. And I wonder what accountability looks like. Because fundamentally, yes, we are we are. interested in investigating and litigating what has transpired specifically. But I think we're also interested in interrogating these circles of power that continue to protect the most powerful and make it hard to protect the most powerless. I think that's right. Unfortunately, you have a situation where these are victims showing up to Congress, and you have an attorney general who won't even turn around and look at them. I mean, if you ever needed a picture vividly drawn for you of how powerless...

the victims are seen by this Justice Department. Not that they are, because I actually think they have a lot of power. The fact that this act was able to be passed was a show of not only their power, but how much the American public supports them, but of how this Department of Justice perceives them to be powerless, to not even be worth the dignity and respect of turning around and looking at them and saying, we want to hear from you. If our department has not spoken to you, we will reach out to you. Make sure to give your contact information to me before you leave. I will make sure somebody contacts you. I mean, this is very basic. It's not just a courtesy to these victims. It is actually the law. There is a law, the Crime Victims Rights Act, which requires that the government confer. with victims in cases. There are two criminal cases. Maxwell case is technically still pending. She has a pending motion before the court. They need to be conferring with these victims. They need to treat them with fairness, dignity, and respect. And the fact that they aren't, and yet they are so concerned with redactions of various alleged perpetrators, that tells you everything about the power in balance and how this Department of Justice who it is that they are responding to who it is that they actually care about. Glenn, I want you to read to you something that Republican Congressman Nancy Mace wrote online this weekend. She wrote, despite the memo released by DOJ last night, not all the Epstein files have been released, and the excuses provided for not releasing all the files will not hold up in a court of law. This isn't going away until people go to jail. I wonder if that is your read on the public's appetite to really get to the core of this. And I also, to go back to the question I was asking, Christy, have sort of... For those of us who are covering this story, in as much attention as there has been to the files and what is happening inside of DOJ, if part of our attention and curiosity needs to begin to shift to what Congressman Thomas Massie is classifying as an entire class of people who are now wrapped up in this. The phrase that struck me was the Epstein administration. That one is going to... Look, it's really fascinating to watch Trump being wounded by his basic populist elites message. Look, he's, from the very beginning, you know, I covered politics for a long time. He has skated on very thin ice, both being one of the world's, you know, being conspicuously wealthy, but also being anti-elitist, which is a seemingly contradictory position. And this Thomas Massie is...

Plus, the stark contrast playing out over this President's Day weekend, with Trump flailing about from behind his social media posts, waiting until you see where former President Barack Obama spent his weekend and how a sold-out crowd reacted. And later on the show, the terrifying fallout from Trump's immigration crackdown, sending fourth and fifth grade kids fleeing from their school bus stop. All those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after this. There's a lot of news to cover. Money. The economic fallout from the war. Is it temporary? Power. Is this White House for sale? Politics. What is your message to the country right now? Money power politics with Stephanie Rule. Weekdays at 9 a.m. Eastern on MS. Now. Pam Bondi's Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files has been, above all else, a slap in the face to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse, whose rights to both justice and privacy should have been paramount. But as our next guest pointed out last week, it seems that this DOJ remains much more committed to protecting someone else. Also found an email that I have right here. From Jeffrey Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell that was unredacted. And it included notes of statements that Donald Trump made about his prior relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Now, there is no reason for this to be hidden from the American people. There is no privilege. There is no attorney-client privilege, and I see you're checking with your staff, and I can assure you staff, this is not under attorney-client privilege because it was sent from Jeffrey Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell. Will you commit to publicly providing the unredacted version of this so that the American people can understand the extent of Donald Trump's lies about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? You're about as good of a lawyer today as you were when you tried to impeach President Trump in 2016. Have you apologized for that in 2019? Will you apologize for that? Will you underdact this? Will you underdact this? You're a lead counsel on that privilege. Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman of New York joins us now. He is a member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committee. As Congressman, thank you for taking the time to be with us. That email you referenced, has it been unredacted yet? Nope. It has not, and there will be more to come. And the importance of it is as far greater in my mind than simply what is in there. It is clearly not permitted to be redacted under any privilege. And the fact that it is redacted from public view, but allow for members to see, when it relates to statements that Donald Trump made, makes it very, very clear that it is a part of a cover-up. And that's why the two and a half to three million documents that are being withheld without any explanation are so important to be uncovered and to be handed over to Congress and for the American people. to see because we have evidence that they are covering up for Donald Trump. So that's what we can actually see what members of Congress can unveil by going over there. Imagine what we can't see in those two and a half to three million files. And, you know, if Trump wants to put his name on everything as he does, then let's start calling this the Trump Epstein files.

Let's talk about that list they released over the weekend. I'm sure you've seen it of, quote, politically exposed persons. It included figures like Elvis Presley. Marilyn Monroe, what's the Justice Department's goal here? It's to muddy the waters. It is to lump in obvious people who have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and his sex trafficking ring with other people who may be accomplices or may have been involved. And it's a further effort to cover up for the pedophiles and the co-conspirators. And juxtapose that with the limited efforts. failed efforts and I believe intentional efforts to out the survivors and the victims to violate the law and reveal their identification to intimidate them so they will not come forward. And as you also saw in that hearing last week, none of them have been able to speak with the Department of Justice, even though all the ones in the room have asked to speak with them. And they've been all denied, but they're all willing to do it. And the idea here is let's just wash our hands of this, case closed. And we'll move on because we don't want to collect any more evidence. Right. I mean, Congressman, I think you, your colleagues have been very clear that the DOJ is out of compliance with the Epstein Files, Transparency Act. And so then the question becomes, well, what now? What efforts are left that can actually get them to comply? So let's start with a conversation that you and I have had before your sense of the appetite among your colleagues to hold Pam Bondi in contempt. Well, look, I think it's growing, and you're starting to see Republican senators and members of Congress speaking out against what is such an obvious cover-up. And it is particularly egregious when you hear them talk about the deliberative process privilege. The bill very specifically requires them to turn over all of the types of documents that would be included in the deliberative process privilege. Now, it's one thing for Congress to demand that. It's another thing in a piece of legislation that Donald Trump signed into law for him to then turn around and say no. I'm not complying with the law because of some other privilege that I have. He very expressly waived that privilege by signing that bill. And if they're going to rely on that for so many of the redactions and for so many of the withholdings, even though we don't know what the basis is for the withholdings, then they're just completely violating the law. So our first step is to make sure that the American public understands the degree to which this is a massive

massive cover-up that is trying to protect at least Donald Trump and others in his orbit and Jeffrey Epstein's orbit and at the sacrifice of the survivors and the victims who have suffered so much from this massive, massive sex trafficking ring. Okay, I hear you on the fact that the first step is communicating the breadth and depth of the cover-up, that there may be emerging appetite to hold Pam Bondi in contempt. We just had Christy Greenberg on a program. I know you have been on with her before, former SD, NY. And her big question was, will Congress... Take DOJ to court for having violated this act. I'm not sure whether you see that as a potential path forward. If you see that as being more of an escalatory act, then holding Pam Bondi in contempt, your sense as you talk to your colleagues of whether or not that is one potential off ramp here. Well, it's definitely something that we're going to need to pursue. Obviously, we'll have to use a discharge petition since Mike Johnson is completely in the pocket of Donald Trump and has been in on this cover-up from the very beginning. But you're starting to see more and more members. We got a discharge petition on the floor for the original bill. And there's that's certainly a pathway that we can take to hold Pam Bondi in contempt. and to refer this to the lawyers to file civil litigation. That's the point, though. Let's be real, that Donald Trump is just trying to get this hung up in the courts, because this is all part of the cover-up. And ultimately, what our pressure is going to do is similar to what it did with the original bill, when all but one members of the House voted for it and every senator voted for it. The reason is that the American people... want to see what is in there. And they are clearly covering it up. And if Donald Trump wants the Democrats to have a majority of 50 plus members in the next term and have free reign to do all sorts of oversight and accountability, which I certainly intend to do, then he can keep going down this path. Or he can just uncover everything, lay it out there, and let the American public see what he's trying to hide. Congressman Dan Goldman, thank you so much for joining us today. After the break, a public outing this holiday weekend for former president, Barack Obama, serving as a split screen and a reminder of how commanders in chief used to act on the job. We're going to bring that to you next. 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.

A timely lesson in contrast this President's Day weekend. On one hand, Donald Trump, stress testing that office threatening powers not afforded to him, seizing the public's attention through the sheer force of social media rantings and ravings. And on the other, President Barack Obama, doing nothing more than appearing in public speaking on the issues, and in doing so, exhibiting the gravitational pull of pure political magnetism. Start with his podcast conversation in which he addressed the blatantly racist video on social media shared, then deleted, but never apologized for by Donald Trump. First of all, I think it's important to recognize that the majority of the American people find this behavior deeply troubling. It is true that it gets attention. It's true that it's a distraction. There's this sort of clown show that's happening. in social media and on television. And what is true is that there doesn't seem to be any shame about this among people who used to feel like you had to have some sort of decorum and a sense of propriety and respect for the office. I want to bring in Democratic strategist and Columbia University professor, political analyst Basil Smykel, plus Prince University professor and political analyst Eddie Gloude. What a tale of two presidents. Indeed, you know, there is a sense, it gives us a measure how far we've come, Alicia. First of all, it's great to see you. But it's also, I think... How can I put this? And this is going to sound strange. But flip the two sides of the same fantasy wish. Those who support Donald Trump long for a world that never was. They have a nostalgic longing for a world where white folk dominate and black folk and other folk play their minor bit parts. And then I think the way in which President Obama is often figured, it's this idyllic moment when the nation wasn't explicitly racist, right? When we had our better angels were in evidence and we know that moment wasn't true either or either. You know, it's, it was a moment of contrast, indeed, indeed. But I think it's two sides of the same fantasy wish, perhaps. Well, I just think about the words, Basil Smychle that that former President Obama spoke about, right? Decorum, respect for the office. I mean, those sound like they're from a yesteryear. Yeah, to my friend, Eddie's point, decorum for the office, yes. He had it, but a lot of people who were on the opposite side of the political aisle didn't have it for him in that office. And so the question of decorum, I guess, is relative at that point, right?

You know, just listening to him, you long for the days of a president that could speak in a very thoughtful manner, someone who was aspirational in a sense, whose ideas and delivery and even the way the gravitas that he carried with him, that there was something about who he is now, but certainly who he was as president to remind you about what a president should be. I'm a member of an organization called 100 Black Men and the motto is they are what they see. And so when you reflect on this moment and we think about a Donald Trump, what are you supposed to tell young people about how do you aspire to that? How do you explain to young people what his presidency has been like and what message that sends? to the next generation that is looking at the presidency. How do you explain what you're seeing? And so I think with President Obama, it was never easy, but it was always something that you wanted, which is a person that really was about, that had an aspirational quality to them, I should say. The former president was also at the NBA All-Star game. He got a standing ovation. But then there was this. Take a look. The deflection out of bounds. Look at Barack. He's even cool when the balls coming at him. No problem. Look at him. Look at him. Just crossed the leg. I mean, Eddie. Eddie, your point is so thoughtful, and I totally get it. But at the same time, like, we used to have that. Oh, yeah, we did it. By the way, you see how Devin Cory Booker, my homeboy, he's from Moss Point, Mississippi, by the way, not jokage out of the way. And, you know, it was wonderful, right? So, you know, you're right, it would be really nice to have a politics that wasn't overrun by bile and vitriol, that it would be nice to have a president that wasn't so obviously narcissistic and implicated in Epstein files. But I want us to be careful here. Right, because the average cost of, the average price of a ticket at that NBA All-Star game was about $2,000. So, you know, in a moment of affordability crisis, that's not a representative population. And so, yes, I want us to be, to see what was, but unlike my friend Basil, I don't long for it. And why am I saying that? Because we are in the midst of a five-alarm fire with regards to our democracy. All hell is breaking loose around us. I don't want propriety. I don't want decor. I want reasoned arguments to call these people out for what they're doing to our republic. And I think it's incumbent not only on President Obama, given his cachet, but on all of the living presidents to begin to speak out because our democracy's at stake.

And, you know, I think, I'll say this really quickly, Alicia. I think it's really important that if you listen to the entire video interview, Barack Obama was giving us that Niberian political realism stuff. You know, you got moralism on the other hand, and you got political reality on the other. We're in the midst of a five alarm fire. Either you're for democracy or you're not, and we need to speak in those melodramatic, stark terms, because a lot is at stake in this moment, it seems to be. Professor Cloud, you want reasoned arguments. I got more of that coming for both of you after this break. Let's sneak it in. We'll be right back. We are back with Basil and Eddie and that reasoned argument that I promised all of you. I want you guys to take a listen to what the former president had to say in that podcast interview about Democrats. They're doing such crazy stuff that it shouldn't be hard for our side to coalesce around the areas where we agree on and focus on that. And I think that, you know, that is going to happen. If we are effective in winning the midterms, if we then have a robust primary for who's going to be the next Democratic president, we shouldn't be afraid of having a robust debate. And so he's talking about legislating and then he's talking about a presidential debate, but it would seem to me that we're already seeing the early signs of Democrats coalescing around some core arguments. Yeah, I agree with that, with particularly around affordability, which he talked about before the break. We saw during the shutdown, the earlier shutdown, that there was a lot of attention on the cost of health care. So I think in some ways, yes, there has been an emphasis on some of the policies, as long as we can get out of our own way. And one of the things he also referenced there was the... the age of people who are in office, that actually really does need to be part of the conversation as well. And I think that's where a lot of the tension has been, right? It's the establishment slash institution versus the movement that the party is undergoing, which to be honest, happens every 30 years. But around the policy issues, yeah, I think there is some coalescing around that. All right, Eddie, I've mostly made you speak to vibe, so I want you to take a listen to one more piece of sound from the former president. Are aliens real? They're real, but I haven't seen them, and they're not being kept in, what is it? Area 51. There's no underground facility unless there's this enormous conspiracy, and they hit it from the president of the United States. Okay, that was not the sound I was talking about. I would love to hear your thoughts on aliens, especially since I just real quick want to say that the foreign president did release a statement saying I was trying to stick with the spirit of the speed round, but since it's gotten attention, let me clarify. Statistically, the universe is so vast that the odds are good. There's life out there. All right, you get the idea. Do we have time to play the other piece of sound? All right, let's play it. The role behavior of...

agents of the federal government. It is deeply concerning and dangerous. But we should take a moment to appreciate the extraordinary outpouring of organizing, community building, decency, not just randomly, but in a systematic, organized way. citizens saying, this is not the America we believe in, and we're going to fight back. Eddie, take your pick there. I mean, that message of hope, look around, look at what your neighbor's doing, look at the organizing. You want to touch on the aliens. You can do that, too. No, no, no, no. I think it's really important. The organizer that was about, you know, the Ares Foundation that was Obama before he became a politician came out. He's right to point to the power of everyday ordinary folk, the expression of democratic energy that we've seen, that we continue to see in the Twin Cities, the insistence on a large number of Americans, that this, the behavior of ICE, the behavior of the federal government isn't consistent with our understanding, the power of we, the people. That's important. I just, you know, I understand the measured tone, but it's not enough just to appreciate. is to understand that they're going to try to steal the election, is to understand that we're on this road to authoritarianism, that neo-fascist forces, white nationalist forces, have seized the executive branch, and we need the voices of people like President Barack Obama to be even more forceful in their description of our current malaise, because a lot hangs in the balance, it seems to me. The urgency of this moment. Eddie Gleaud, thank you so much, as always, for joining us. Basil Smigler, you're going to be back with me in the next hour. After the break, an update to a shooting this afternoon in Rhode Island. Stay with us.

Some breaking news to bring you out of Rhode Island. Officials just briefed on a shooting that happened this afternoon at an ice rink in Pawtucket, where a high school hockey game was taking place. The police chief confirmed that two people were killed and that the shooter is dead from what appears to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Three people are in the hospital and all are in critical condition. The police chief says that the shooting is believed to be targeted was possibly a family dispute. We're going to continue to monitor this, bring you any updates. But when we come back, how more and more Americans are saying enough to what the Trump administration and ICE are doing to their communities. And now, to their children. We've got much more to come right after this quick break. 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.