“Trump Justice Department hits a snag”

Say you've always wanted to have a backyard oasis. Here's the thing. If you get smart with your money, you can do things like that. With Empower, you can start making the most out of your money so you can go out and live a little. Isn't that why we work so hard to have some fun with our money? So use Empower and get good at money so you can be a little bad. Join their 20 million customers today at Empower.com. Not an Empower client paid or sponsored. 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. I think it'd be hard to watch the series of videos and not be troubled by it. But I have more policy questions than ever about the framing of the... mission, the rules of engagement. These incidents are happening a long way from the United States in the open ocean in the eastern Caribbean. I am not questioning how our armed forces are carrying out their orders. I'm questioning why the administration is engaging in this campaign and whether this is justified and the best use of these remarkable capabilities of the Navy and our special forces. Hi again, everyone. It's up five o'clock in New York. So strip away the particulars for a second, look past the granular details or the policies, and you can reduce this controversy at the Pentagon to its two most basic questions. The first one's pretty simple. Does Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth make any one of us, the American people, the men and women of the military, our friends and allies, more or less safe? We know what his answer would be. After all, he's defending a decision made under his leadership that may or may not, according to Republicans and Democrats, constitute a war crime. That depends, of course, on what we learn about that second strike on alleged drug traffickers shipwrecked after a first strike in the Caribbean. As we mentioned today, I'm Earl Frank Bradley, briefed a number of lawmakers in a classified setting on those strikes. But what have HECS has haphazard use of the signal messaging app deemed to have put military operations and service members at risk by the Pentagon's own inspector general? Ask again, how does that make any American, especially the men and women involved in that operation, any more safe? Think about the answer to question one while we try to answer question two. One that's a little more abstract, but no less important. Right now, the world watching, who are we as America?

The next bit of reporting from Bloomberg goes a long way toward answering that question. Quote, FBI headquarters is pressuring the Bureau's domestic terrorism agents to open a seditious conspiracy investigation into six Democratic lawmakers who advise military service members to defy unlawful orders. That's according to three people familiar with the situation. Quote, career leaders at the Bureau's Washington Field Office. have thus far pushed back on the request for a formal investigation, which would follow Trump's call for a trial into the Democrats' quote, seditious behavior, the people familiar said. The Washington office supervisors cited a lack of legal and factual basis to initiate a criminal case against the senators and House members who posted a video on November 18th reminding service members and the intelligence community of their rights to refuse illegal orders. That is where we begin the hour with one of those members, Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado. He's a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, one of the six lawmakers who participated in the video calling on American service members to not obey any illegal order. John Heilman is back with me. Congressman, first, your thoughts on that last bit of reporting. We just brought our viewers from Bloomberg that there's a fight within the FBI that is now spilled into public about its leaders wanting a counterterror investigation, basically, open into you and the five other lawmakers.

Well, Nicole, it tells us everything we need to know about the disdain for the Constitution of Donald Trump and those around him, the disdain for the rule of law, and the disdain for anybody who simply is reminding our service members what their oath, what the Constitution, and what the law requires them to do. And let's not forget that in 2016, Pete Hegseth filmed the video where he said the exact same thing. that we sit in the video. Let's not forget that Donald Trump has repeatedly made comments about using the military in an unlawful and reckless way from shooting protesters in Lafayette Square to using military at polling stations in the United States, which would be a violation of criminal law, or going to war with the city of Chicago and on and on. And now, once again, our point appears to be proven as we see the video and as more facts come to light about some of these strikes in the Caribbean, I look at as a former combat leader and I just unable to explain why a strike like that on unarmed people who were rendered helpless and a sinking ship would be targeted and murdered. Were you aware of the second strike on the burning ship that killed the two survivors of the first strike before you made the video? No, I was not aware of that. And no specific strike or instance was the impetus for the video because the video is reminding people what we already know. And that is... you have an obligation to follow the law and follow the Constitution. In fact, this is the training that the military goes through regularly. You learn this from the very first days you put on the uniform in the military. It's the same type of training that I gave my paratroopers and my rangers before we deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan every time I took them downrange. You talk about the law of war. You talk about combatants versus non-combatants. You talk about your responsibility when people are trying to surrender or retreat. or they have been rendered combat ineffective to refrain from targeting those individuals because that is well-established law. So we are reiterating that. This administration is trying to threaten us, trying to intimidate us, trying to get us to back away from our oath and their duty, but they have chosen the wrong people to try to threaten and intimidate. The example of not firing upon shipwrecked people is the example in the book about where the line exists. Why do you think a second strike took place? I don't know, and that's the answer that we need to get. That's actually why Congress exists for this very purpose, to conduct oversight, to do investigations, to ask the questions, to figure out the chain of command, who knew what, when did they know it, when were orders given, and to whom, and what exactly happened? This is squarely within the wheelhouse of the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, it is our job to investigate. And in this example, by the way, of shipwrecked survivors not being targeted,

This actually has a long history, and this is the classic example that military officers are actually trained on. This came out of World War II. After World War II, when there was targeting of shipwrecked survivors. All sides came together and said, this is madness, this is immoral, and it should be unlawful. So they created the modern laws of warfare, the Geneva Conventions, and we made this illegal, and it's been well understood and has been trained on that in the 80 decades or 80 years, eight decades since then. My colleague, John Heilman, has a question for you. Congressman, you know, we have had this conversation now for some days in which we have framed this entire thing in terms of whether it's a war crime or not. And as I know you know, there is some dispute over that because there's some question about whether this is really a war in any meaningful sense. It's clearly not a declared war. All Donald Trump has said is that on this topic. back in October was, I don't think we're going to ask for a declaration of war. I think what we're going to do is we're going to kill these guys. We just want to kill them. That's what we're going to do. They're going to be dead. We're going to kill them. And so it begs the larger question, which is whether Congress wants to accept the notion that the administration has put forward, which is that anyone who's involved in trying to bring drugs into the United States is now considered a designated terrorist organization and that bringing drugs to the United States as bad as that is constitutes an armed attack on the United States. Do you accept that premise? And if you don't accept that premise, what can Congress do about getting to the more fundamental question here, which is the policy that underlies the strikes on these fast boats to begin with? Yeah. Well, there's a lot happening in that question, John. Number one, I don't accept that premise because we haven't even had that debate and discussion in Congress, right? It is Congress's role to authorize military force. You know, absent a need for immediate, urgent self-defense, which the president always has the authority to act upon. Congress actually has to have that debate and appropriate funds and convince the American people why they should spend their money. and why we should send our sons and daughters in the harm's way. You know, we spent over 20 years, $3 trillion, 7,000 American service members' lives, tens of thousands that bear the visible and invisible scars of those wars. And we, you know, I deployed three times the combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. And during that time, Congress basically stopped debating. We stopped deciding to spend money, so we did it on debt. We stopped debating it. We stopped authorizing it. We gave president after president blank checks. And nobody's ever going to tell me that those wars would have ended differently than they did. And sooner had we not put that responsibility back into Congress where it's supposed to be and held people accountable for those votes.

So that needs to happen. And then on top of it, there does need to be a very real strategy to end drugs in this country in the scourge of fentanyl. But guess what? This president isn't doing this. He actually just pardoned one of the most notorious cocaine dealers of the 21st century, a guy named Cocaine Juan, a former president in Central America. And they've done nothing to stop the flow of fentanyl. They haven't destroyed a single pill of fentanyl in this. whole process. America deserves better, parents deserve better, and kids deserve better. Congressman, you have more Republicans speaking publicly against the Trump administration over this incident and it all started. at least publicly, with the Washington Post report over the Thanksgiving holiday. How do Democrats sort of pull Republicans through and achieve what you were talking about? Oversight, accountability, the normal traditional functions of Congress with an executive branch? Well, I'm in my seventh year in Congress right now, and I have continued to expect and hope that my Republican colleagues would do the right thing because it's the right thing and it's the interest of their colleagues and it's what the oath requires. I've been disappointed time after time after time. And what I've learned is they are simply going to do the right thing when they are forced to and when they feel like it's no longer politically expedient. So, you know, their courage has increased. as Donald Trump's popularity in polling has decreased, right? So there's no coincidence there. Our job is to continue to put the pressure on them to do the right thing. And I mentioned Rand Paul, who's been a loud, a consistent critic of the entire policy, including the second strike. Thom Tillis, Congressman Turner, Congressman Bacon have suggested that the act constitutes a war crime. But Tom Cotton had a different reaction. Let me show you what he had to say. What exactly did you see in terms of the video of the second strike? Were there survivors? I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat, loaded with drugs, bound for the United States, back over, so they could stay in the fight. Time said it's one of the most disturbing things he's seen in his career. Who did? Who did? No, I didn't see anything disturbing about it. So, again, you've got Thom Tillis, Don Bacon, Rand Paul. You've got more than a dozen Republicans who have spoken out, the legal analysts over on Newsmax saying these are the act, the act is a war crime. The debate about who issued the order is happening on a parallel track. What do you think Tom Cotton saw that makes him, quote, not see anything disturbing about it?

And the reason all of these rules about the law of warfare, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague, all of these things exist is because terrible things have happened on the field of battle in years past. And we have decided that it's also in our interests that, guess what? When we were in Iraq, U.S. soldiers were taken prisoner there. When we were in Afghanistan, U.S. soldiers were taking prisoners there, right? We will always be in a position of our men and women needing to be saved by these rules too. And the reason why we don't kill people who are wounded or people who are trying to surrender or people who are floating in the water clinging to shipwrecks is because guess what? Our sons and daughters might be in a position someday, probably will, where they're going to need to be saved and these rules are going to apply to us. That's why it matters. Congressman Jason Crow and Donald Heilman, thank you both so much for starting us off this hour. When we come back, there is brand new reporting that the Trump Justice Department is planning on indicting New York Attorney General Letitia James again. That's after the initial charges were thrown out last week because Donald Trump's handpicked prosecutor was deemed illegally appointed. We'll bring you that new reporting next. Plus, our friend and colleague Jacob Soberov, who spoke with the Babson College freshman who was deported to Honduras after she tried to visit her mom and dad in Texas for Thanksgiving, what she's saying about her ordeal and the efforts to bring her back to the United States later in the hour. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Say you've always wanted to have a backyard oasis. Here's the thing. If you get smart with your money, you can do things like that. With Empower, you can start making the most out of your money so you can go out and live a little. Isn't that why we work so hard to have some fun with our money? So use Empower and get good at money so you can be a little bad. Join their 20 million customers today at Empower.com. Not an Empower client paid or sponsored. 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. Now you can watch Ali Valshi five nights a week in prime time on MS Now as he takes command of the 11th hour. The Justice Department is facing its own legal obstacles over this case. Putting today's stories in perspective. This one is perhaps one of the more interesting surprises. And tomorrow's headlines in focus. Economists are warning that American consumers are soon going to feel the hurt. The 11th hour with Ali Valsh weekn, weeknights at 11 p.m. Eastern on MS Now.

If at first you fail in your politically motivated prosecutions, then try, try again. On that note, today we learned that the Trump Justice Department is trying to re-indict New York's Attorney General Letitia James, and that could come at any time. MS now is reporting that federal prosecutors are likely to present information to a grand jury today. on charges related to alleged mortgage fraud. It comes one week after the dismissal of criminal indictments against James, as well as former FBI director James Comey, both plagued from the start with factual problems in the actual cases, as well as the ruling that the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed and therefore lack the authority to prosecute anyone in federal court. Carol Lennox and Ken Delanian, our colleagues report this, quote, according to multiple sources, top DOJ. leaders have been debating their strongest path forward and concluded they must seek to re-indite both James Comey and James. I want to bring in my colleague, MS Now Senior Investigative reporter, Carol Lenig, and former top official at the Department of Justice, MS now legal analyst, Andrew Weissman. Carol, what are you hearing? A lot. I'm sorry, it's been a day, Nicole. So yesterday we learned and confirmed that the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Virginia, the leadership at least, was planning to seek to re-indict Letitia James in Norfolk starting this morning before a grand jury. And as you know, because you've been watching this so closely, there was a lot of confusion about what the Department of Justice was going to do after a federal judge on November 24th dismissed this indictment as well as the indictment of former FBI director. James Comey. We've had people from the MS team in the field all day in Norfolk and elsewhere monitoring this situation, and so far there has been not a peep from the grand jury in terms of news of whether or not there has been indictment. Seems that they have run into trouble in seeking one today, and we will keep you posted with everything that we learn about this. But so far, no indictment. some trouble that they ran into with this grand jury. We're not sure of all the details, and when we know it precisely and with confidence, we'll be back to you. Are you pursuing a line of reporting about the grand jury rejecting the evidence they were shown, or is it more about what has tripped them up in the last instance where they didn't have people legally authorized to be there bringing these cases? You ask exactly the perfect question, which will make me squirm a little to answer exactly precisely and to say, this grand jury was not particularly ebullient about indicting Letitia James. That much we know, and what we don't know is what the final resolution was.

Andrew Weissman, we know, take this grand jury in whatever does or doesn't happen today out of it for a second. We know that the former U.S. attorney who, acting attorney who ran this office, thought the evidence was so crummy. He refused to do this thing that has happened today in Norfolk. He refused to take whatever evidence has been gathered about Letitia James, Attorney General Letitia James, to a grand jury because he said it would not result. in a successful prosecution, which is the standard for the Justice Department. What are your thoughts on what's happening today? So a number of things. Remember that we know with respect to the first James Comey indictment that the grand jury rejected one out of the three charges. And with respect to the two that they did vote, it was quite a remarkable vote. It was 14 to 9. Remember, the jury, the grand jury, does not have to be unanimous. It only has to be a majority. But the standard's so low. And usually you have so much proof. that you might occasionally get one or two grand jurors who... don't see what's going on and they don't vote to bring a case. But to have it be 14 to 9 really suggests that they're going to have a huge trouble at trial. So the idea that they're going back in this case and in the Letitia James case is, you know, it's not surprised by it, but it suggests that they're not complying with the DOJ. rules, which are that you aren't supposed to bring a case unless you have a lively prospect of being able to win at trial, not in the grand jury. It doesn't seem like they're complying with that. The other thing that could be going on, I just want to make sure viewers know that grand jury is Even if they're having problems with the presentation, they could just ask a lot of questions. They could say we want to see additional evidence. We want to know additional things about the presentation. And because these cases got so much press, they may have heard things about it and so have various questions. That could slow down. the presentation, and you don't know if they're good answers to the questions they're raising. But that is sometimes what happens when you think you might get an indictment on a certain day. And in fact, the grand jurors, who are the ones who are in control, say, wait a second, we have a lot of questions that we need to have answered before we're ready to deliberate and decide this issue. So that may be one of the things going on. Final quick...

point is if James Comey is re-indicted, remember there's a statute of limitations argument he has that this all should have happened and, you know, a while back, and that at this point, a new indictment is outside of the statute of limitations, the time period in which the case had to be brought. So that might be yet another reason. And I guess I should say, and finally, one thing that I think is. It's not good for Letitia James or James Comey, but if you remember, one of the arguments they made that was pending before the courts in both of their cases was vindictive and selective prosecution, that is something, at least personally, I would like to see get resolved because that's something that really is of public import, not beyond the individual cases here, as to whether judges think that is what this administration is doing. the case out based on that ground. And so now if they re-indict one or both of these people, those issues of vindictive and selective prosecution will now be front and center for the court to be able to decide. Carolyn, are there developments? There are. We have two sources confirming that the grand jury did not agree to indict Letitia James today. That does not mean that the Justice Department won't attempt again to do this. We've sought Department of Justice comment, and they have given us comment and not discuss the grand jury decision, not discuss the details, but have said that there should be no premature celebrations, quote unquote. But our understanding from two sources is that... The grand jury did not agree to indict and charge Letitia James with mortgage fraud today. So that's called no true bill, right? And that doesn't happen very often, but it's been happening a lot. It happened in Washington, D.C., with a lot of cases they sought to bring. Is this the first time, Carol, that we know of that it's happened in Norfolk? You know, I don't know Norfolk as well as I know D.C. and the Southern District of New York, so I can't say with surety, but your summary that this doesn't happen very often is on the money. I remember when we were reporting for our book Injustice that Andrew McCabe was being, the government was seeking to prosecute him under the first Trump administration. And. prosecutors were stunned that there was no true bill in that case because they couldn't remember a time that that had happened before. It's very rare. And to Andrew's point, It's not just rare. It's embarrassing to the Department of Justice because precisely they don't just bring cases to win them in the grand jury. They bring cases that are so deafening and obvious and clear and convincing that the probable cause standard is an easy bar to jump.

I mean, Andrew, let me try to put this in sort of non-legal context for folks. I actually remember this is how different the first Trump term is from the second. I had a source. I'm sorry to break in. I have to go. I apologize. Go, go. If you learn more, wave your arm and come back. I remember being on the phone with the Senior Justice Department official when that grand jury in D.C. refused to indict, deliver the no true bill. or a refusal to indict James Comey. And it was a seismic blow. It reverberated around the Department of Justice. It's a marker or an indication of how... shameless or hostage, this DOJ leadership is to Donald Trump's political operation, that they don't seem to care, that these terribly weak cases are getting rejected by grand juries. I mean, what is this, how does this reflect back on Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche today? Well, going back to what I said about, you know, it would be interesting to have the courts decide the vindictive and selective prosecution claims. If this reporting is accurate that a grand jury refused to find probable cause to indict Letitia James today, that is finding vindictive and selective prosecution. As Carol mentioned and you mentioned, this does not happen. I was a prosecutor for 21 years. I never saw in the district in which I was raised a no true bill. The only time I had ever heard of a grand jury saying no to a proposed indictment is when... There was almost collusion where the prosecutor actually sometimes in police cases around the country, you would see that the grand jury didn't vote to charge a police officer. And there was a real odor of that the prosecutor kind of wanted that out. And so they weren't actually rejecting what the prosecutor wanted. They were kind of carrying it out to say, yes, we presented it, but they said no, so it's not our fault. That's the only time that I'd actually ever heard of anything like this because it shows both vindictive and selective prosecution, and it shows they're not good at it because they can't even sort of put together a cohesive case. And it really is the kind of thing that... You can't just say, oh, I blame the judges and I blame the juries every time you lose. At some point, you have to look at a mirror and think, you know, it's not them, it's me.

And remember, this is the same department that couldn't and literally couldn't indict a ham sandwich in the case of someone throwing a sandwich at an agent in D.C. and the grand jury refused to indict there. So it had to be brought as a lesser charge where you didn't have to go through the grand jury. So to me, this is such a black mark. on the Department of Justice and a stain on it. And it's something that it carries with them every single time they go to court where the reason you're seeing the judges reject what's called the presumption of regularity and giving the government the benefit of the doubt is that you're seeing judges and not so-called Biden judges, not Obama judges. You're seeing judges across the country appointed by Republicans and Democrats, including appointed by Donald Trump in his first term, rejecting what is going on here and finding that the government's representations cannot be believed. And it's this kind of conduct that it leads to that result. But I also think we have an administration that's impervious to self-reflection about what's going on. Well, self-reflection, yes. But what about all the losing? I mean, these are people, people like to describe Todd Blanche as someone who comes down on the normal side. There's nothing normal about going and sitting with Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted child sex trafficker who raped underage girls and participated in sex acts with Jeffrey. Epstein. I mean, Christi, of all people, said that it's a highly abnormal thing for a deputy attorney general to do. She's now submitted an application for a commutation and a pardon. Under Todd Blanche's leadership, he runs the department and they're losing. It's keystone cops-esque, not to insult the keystone cops. But they've got an illegally appointed U.S. attorneys who are failing to bring the cases that Donald Trump wants most. And not to separate out the different stories. I mean, the FBI has now got a feud that has spilled into the public about opening a counterterrorism investigation into six lawmakers, most of them former members of the military, who told the men and women of the military not to follow any illegal orders days before we find out in the Washington Post about. a double-tap strike on shipwrecked people in the Caribbean? I mean, what is the United States Department of Justice today right now? I would add to that litany, and by the way, you can just go on and on, but remember that after that interview that the Deputy Attorney General himself conducted, Ghislaine Maxwell was moved to a camp, to a low-level prison facility where the reporting is that she, unlike the other inmates there, is playing with a puppy that is brought in to make her feel good.

And this is somebody who the judge said was participating and complicit in the sexual abuse of women and minors. And that's the judge's term in sentencing occur to 20 years. You also have the Deputy Attorney General announcing in a speech to the Federal Society that there is a war, a war on judges. And just to be clear, that would include judges like Judge Wilkinson and the Fourth Circuit, a leading conservative who took the government to task in terms of what they were doing with Mr. Abraga Garcia, saying that this was the... road to lawlessness. It includes judges like Karen Amhergut on the West Coast, who said that what the government's position was in trying to justify the military being used in a domestic setting, that their views were untethered to the facts. That's her words. These so-called rogue judges that get vilified by the likes of Stephen Miller and by the Deputy Attorney General. are their own judges. These are people who should be, they should be thinking if you lose them, what is going on. And so it's just a charade. To me, this is a Department of Justice that is just run out of the White House and is a political arm. The final example of that is when Pam Bondi announced on Fox News, I believe it was, that Mr. Obraco Garcia is a terrorist. and a bad guy, that sort of tells you everything you need to know about this Department of Justice. Even if that were true, it's irrelevant to whether he was entitled to due process and the Department of Justice had to comply with a court order that said he could not be removed from this country. And so Pam Bondi knows that she is a lawyer. She knows very well that what she was saying was a political statement. to try and make people not care about him because he was being smeared. But this is the Attorney General of the United States. And so, you know, every single thing that I was taught for 20 years is really gone by the wayside. By the wayside, as we are learning this breaking news coming from our own Carol Enig, that a grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, when presented with evidence by Donald Trump's Department of Justice, refused to bring an indictment against New York's Attorney General Letitia James. Andrew Weissman, thank you for being here for our breaking news coverage. We'll continue to monitor. If we have any reaction from Attorney General Letitia James, we will turn it around and bring it to you right away. When we come back, we're going to turn to the Massachusetts college student who was detained at the airport and deported after she tried to go home to visit her family in Texas for Thanksgiving. Our friend Jacob Sobrav will bring us his raw and excruciating and powerful interview with that student who is now stuck in Honduras. We'll have that for you after a short break. Don't go anywhere.

Listen to your favorite MS Now shows anytime as a podcast. Enjoying new episodes of Morning Joe, Deadline White House, and the Rachel Maddo Show. Every small D Democratic muscle that we have is flexing. Plus the last word with Lawrence O'Donnell, the beat with Ari Melburgh, the weeknight, and more. On the go, wherever you get your podcasts. For ad-free listening to all of your favorite shows, subscribe to MS Now Premium on Apple Podcasts. As Donald Trump continues to escalate and ramp up his immigration practices and crackdown, despite its deep unpopularity with the American people, his claim that the only people impacted would be the so-called worst of the worst, has been exposed as a flagrant lie over and over again. with the parents of veterans, daycare workers, U.S. citizens, grandmas, all caught up in this mess of Donald Trump's mass deportation strategy. Our friend Jacob Sobrav sat down with one of those people, the college student whose story we brought you earlier in the week, Annie Lucia Lopez-Belosa, on her experience of being taken into ICE custody and deported to Honduras, a country that she has not been to or lived in since she was seven years old. Take a look. When I got here, my immediately instinct told me to call my parents. And thank God I was able to and let them know, Mom, I was like, Mom, I was like, Mom, I got deported. I'm here. And she was like, it's okay, it's okay.

She was just like, it's okay. We already knew. We found out. Everything's going to be fine. And it hurt me because I wasn't able to let them know that I was going to get deported. And I didn't even know that I was going to get deported until I was on the plane. And... My friend and colleague, MS now senior political and national correspondent, Jacob Soberoff, is here with us. Also joining us host of Fast Politics, New York Times, contributing opinion writer, political analyst Molly Jong Fast is here too. Jacob, I want to play one more piece of your extraordinary interview about what she wants Donald Trump to know. What's it like for you to hear people? Like you described in that way as being the worst of the worst, as being a criminal. I mean, people are always going to talk, say their opinion, but they don't know what we go through. For example, like many people like me, many undocumented people.

who are getting themselves ready to go to college, it's really difficult for us because we try to find the best that we can to be able to fulfill our dreams and people saying, like, we're criminals. It's just not right. Jacob, I mean, she's a dreamer. Are we now, is America now, is Donald Trump deporting dreamers, obviously now? That's certainly what it looks like. And it's not just not right. It's just it's complete BS that they are going after the worst of the worst. And I think it's so important that you point that out and we pointed out time and time again because I do think that there is a risk of people getting tired, people wanting to know less, people not feeling like this is as bad or as egregious as the family separation policy where people being ripped apart deliberately during the last administration. But as we've talked about. Over and over again, that is exactly what's happening. It is what happened in this case to Annie. It is what is happening in 26 federal plaza, in New York City on a regular basis. It is what's happening in states like Florida where the local law enforcement is deputized. And the thing about Annie's case that I think probably resonates with so many people is that she was going home, as you discussed with her attorney, to meet and surprise her parents for Thanksgiving. She was a college freshman on a scholarship in business school. This person is as American as you or I or anyone watching this broadcast right now, which is why I encourage everybody to scan that little QR code in the corner of the screen and watch our complete interview to see who the people really are that Donald Trump and Stephen Miller and Gregory Bovino, who called this specific person, Annie, a criminal, are kicking out of this country. It's also deeply unpopular with the American people. No, I mean, what's amazing about this administration is that this stuff is not popular. Voters don't like it. And when you see interviews like this... I mean, you have to imagine that this is changing hearts and minds, right? There's no, you know, she's in college. People come, by the way, think of the foreign students who are watching this, thinking, like, do I want to send? Because, you know, America gets a lot of money, and American education gets a lot of money from foreign students. Think about the affluent parents who are like, oh, I could send my kid to the United States, and they could get deported or sent to a Louisiana. facility as we've seen, or I could send them to Dubai and they'd be safe. I mean, this is a decision that people are making while watching things like this. And again, it's also just, you know, the dream of America is not that we lock up college students. And, you know, legally it's very dicey. And also, remember, she's still better off than all of the people who have been deported who don't speak perfect English, who are being deported to places they never even were, have any, you know, relationship to at all. I mean, we've seen this administration do some really shocking things. I want to play some more of what she said about how she wants this to end.

What are your hopes for the future? My hopes for the future is to first see my family, be able to hug them, and also be able to finish my college. And from there, since I'm, I don't know, be able to open up a business, which it was my dream, and try to live a better life. I mean, she still has hopes and she still has dreams. But she has been separated from her family, Jacob. This is family separation. This is why Dick Durbin read her name into the record on the Senate floor literally yesterday as the 150th dreamer that he has done that for as he reintroduced again the Dream Act, which obviously will be to no avail and will not pass under this administration, despite the fact Donald Trump during his first terms said, we've got to do something for and about the dreamers. They say one thing and do another consistently. And when Jonathan White... from the Department of Health and Human Services during the first term, during family separation, said harm to children was the point. This is what Stephen Miller wants. This is what Stephen Miller has intended for the government to do, and he is continuing to carry it out. And just like Molly said, we just have to keep telling these stories every single day. Take us so Robb. You make that possible. So thank you for this incredible interview and for joining us to talk about it. We'll give Molly the last word on the other side of a very short break.

Molly, the Times is out with some incredible reporting about how the ice crackdowns have captured scant immigrants with any violent criminal records. In Washington, D.C., 2% had violent convictions. 84% had no criminal charges at all. In Illinois, 3%, in Massachusetts, 2%, and L.A. 6%. Yeah, and I think it's really important. We see Donald Trump has done hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pardons for a lot of... For actual criminals. Right, for actual criminals and a lot of white-collar criminals, which he doesn't... Clearly, there's some sense that that's not real crime. And then you have this girl who's a college student. who is being called a criminal and deported. And I think it's really important to realize, like, this has nothing to do with, you know, this is about hypocrisy. This is about hurting people. This is about, you know, anti-immigrant racism. This is not about the law or being, you know, in the way that America is supposed to work. And it's... It's really a sad day. And it's why what Jacob is doing is so important. And it's why even on immigration, which Democrats seem to think is a strong issue for Trump, Trump is underwater in a big way. You know, those people with the mass deportation now signs, they didn't know what it would look like. And what it looks like is very sobering. Yeah. Molly, thank you for being here. A quick break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes tonight. We're grateful. Join MS Now Live in Texas for our biggest event yet with Rachel Maddo, Jen Sagi, Michael Steele, and more. MS Now Live Together in Texas. September 26th. Get tickets today at MS. dot now slash together.