“A watershed moment”

This isn't the end of a fight. It's the start of one. Lioness, the critically acclaimed original series from Taylor Sheridan, returns August 2nd only on Paramount Plus. In the new season, hidden networks, foreign operatives, and personal betrayals collide while Joe walks the line between duty and family. Don't Miss Lioness. Starring Zoe Saldana, Michael Kelly, with Morgan Freeman and Nicole Kidman, streaming August 2nd only on Paramount Plus. 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.

Hi there, everyone. It's 4 o'clock here in New York. I'm Alicia Menendez, in for Nicole Wallace. Donald Trump's campaign to prosecute his political enemies, what could be a watershed moment for our democracy is reaching a fever pitch, with an indictment against former FBI director James Comey, expected as soon as today. As for the president, driving us towards that watershed moment, here's what he had to say about his former FBI director just today. I can't tell you what's going to happen because I don't know. You have very professional people headed up by the Attorney General and Todd, Todd Blanche and Lindsey Halligan, who's very smart, good lawyer, very good lawyer. They're going to make a determination. I'm not making that determination. I think I'd be allowed to get involved if I want, but I don't really choose to do so. I can only say that James Comey's a bad person. He's a sick person. I think he's a sick guy, actually. He did terrible things at the FBI. And, but I don't know. I have no idea what's going to happen. Trump's claim to not be involved in a criminal case against one of his most prominent critics, well, that does not square up with this reporting from the Wall Street Journal. Quote, Trump has pushed Pam Bondi repeatedly in private in recent days to bring charges against James Comey, even as she has expressed reservations about the case. And she's not alone. At all levels of the Justice Department, there is reportedly a sense that there is simply no there. MSNBC reporting this, quote, the Justice Department's plan to indict James Comey encountered a last-minute roadblock earlier this week when line prosecutors presented President Trump's newly installed U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia with a memo. Suggesting their case against the former FBI director is too weak to pursue. Two sources familiar with the case said the memo explained why prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to indict James Comey. The U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan can overrule their recommendation. Lindsey Halligan, who has never prosecuted a case in her entire career, she was an insurance lawyer and Trump's defense lawyer is, quote, rushing against the clock before the statute of limitations involving one charge believed to be central to the case expires within the week. That charge, allegations that the former FBI director lied to Congress about whether he authorized a leak of information to the media. Here's the exchange with Senator Ted Cruz that... is apparently at issue. Chairman Chuck Grassley asked you point blank, quote, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation? You responded under oath, quote, never. Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, as publicly and repeatedly stated, that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Who's telling the truth? I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017. So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak. And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth. Is that correct? Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today. Okay, so the question of whether or not James Comey lied right there has already been investigated, according to MSNBC's reporting, quote, an independent investigation by the Justice Department Inspector General concluded that James Comey did not authorize the release of the information and that FBI rules allowed McCabe as deputy director to speak to the news media without authorization. The Justice Department reportedly barreling ahead with an indictment of one of President Trump's political critics is where we start today.

Kendallanian, Justice and Intelligence correspondent for MSNBC, White House correspondent for the New York Times, author of 2024, Tyler Pager, is with us. Plus, former Department of Justice Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer, who was fired by Trump's Justice Department back in March. It is good to see you all. Ken, you and our Carol, Carol, you and our colleague, Carol Lennig, you are the first report on this. What is the latest? Good afternoon, Alicia. Yeah, we believe that the U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan, is moving forward with the case despite that memo that she received recommending that she not do so. And again, that memo said that not only do these lawyers think they can't win the case and convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that James Comey is guilty of lying to Congress, they don't even believe there's probable cause, which is the lower standard by which you obtain an indictment. Although the Justice Department rules, the ethical rule, rules say that a prosecutor should believe they could win a conviction if they're even seeking indictment. But we think they're moving forward. We believe the grand jury is sitting today. They may be presenting to the grand jury today. We're waiting to see what happens here. And look, I mean, you laid it out really well. There was a saying in Stalinist Russia, find me the man, and I'll show you the crime. And that's really, that looks like what's happening here. I mean, this was James Comey and his conduct in the Russia investigation was scrutinized. by a different Trump appointed prosecutor John Durham, the special counsel, who looked at everything and didn't charge James Comey or very few other people, actually, didn't even criticize James Comey in terms of his candor to Congress in his final report. And this issue with the divergence between James Comey's account and McCabe's account on this particular leak to the Wall Street Journal, this has been around for years. Five years ago, actually, is when he delivered that testimony. That's why the statute of limitations lapses early next week. Just because there's a disagreement over what happened, that doesn't make a perjury. In order to make a perjury charge, you have to show evidence that James Comey intended to deceive Congress, that he knew he was lying, that he had criminal intent. And I'm not aware of any evidence of that. And it appears that career prosecutors inside the Eastern District of Virginia didn't think there was enough evidence of that either. But of course, Donald Trump has been pushing Pam Bondi, he did it publicly on truth, social, to indict not only James Comey, but Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, and Adam Schiff, the senator from California. And it looks like the machinery of justice is... is doing his bidding. And that is a place we have not been before as a country, particularly since Watergate, but even before that, the idea of a president ordering his Justice Department to charge his political enemies, whether they think there's evidence or not. That is a very dangerous place that we're in as a country right now, Alicia. Liz, I agree that this does feel fundamentally different than even the long line of attacks against the system of justice that we have seen from this administration. I want to read you something from ABC News about those line prosecutors that Ken Delanian was just talking about.

They would argue that seeking the charges would violate DOJ policy, raise serious ethical issues, and risk being rejected by the grand jury. She plans to pursue an indictment anyway, carrying out the clear mandate she received when she was installed into the position over the weekend. Before we even talk about Lindsey Halligan and what this means for her and why she is there, if you are those career prosecutors and you have been making this case to your new boss that there is no there, that this cannot clear the lowest possible bar and standard of the Justice Department's own rules and regulations. And she says, I'm going to do it anyway. What does that say to you as a line prosecutor? And how much longer can you stay in that role in good faith? I think people in the Justice Department now are in a very hard situation where they have to choose between fulfilling their duties to uphold the Constitution and follow the rules of the department and pleasing their boss. And for those folks, I hope that they choose to lead with integrity and not to let their principles and duties be compromised to achieve a political objective. Essentially, what's happening now is the longstanding practices of the Department of Justice are being turned on their head. prosecutors are required to start with facts and evidence and pursue cases from there. It is quite the opposite to start with a target and then try to build a case around them, which is what they're being asked to do here. This is the type of thing that a lawyer could lose their law license over. So I hope that people are taking a long view of this within the Justice Department and intend to stand up for what's right and allow themselves to be fired or to quit if that's... what it takes to avoid doing something that would be very destructive to our system of justice. And Tyler, I want to remind us all because there is such a wild history here. This is not the first time we have seen this film. The New York Times reported back in 2018 that Trump told then White House counsel Don McGahn he wanted to order an investigation in James Comey, but McGahn, quote, rebuff the president saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution to underscore that point. Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo. Get another memo for Mr. Trump, warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment. The difference now, Tyler, is there is no Don McGahn there. Yeah, I mean, he is surrounded by loyalists in the White House and in the administration. And I think we've seen him take steps when he has encountered roadblocks for these larger objectives. He moves to replace those people with people who are willing to serve his purpose. And so I think we saw him. I mean, the truth social message he put out over the weekend where. He said, Pam, Colin, referring to the Attorney General, and very explicitly told her he wanted her to prosecute James Comey, Letitia James. This is something we haven't seen as public before, right? My colleagues reported that he would say these things privately to his aides, but he has now dispensed with any sort of caution across the board. And we've seen that particularly play out as it relates to these specific individuals.

what he perceives as his political opponents, that he wants his Justice Department to prosecute them. And so this wall that most presidents, you know, at least since Watergate, have put up between the White House and the Justice Department, has just fallen completely. Can... I wonder what your reporting is telling you about Pam Bondi and what those conversations with the president where she has, quote, expressed reservations actually look like just how ardent she has been in those conversations. And what happens to Pam Bondi should her counsel be rejected and this move forward? I can't claim to have perfect visibility on that score, Alicia, but I do know from reporting on the Justice Department that Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, you know, they're real lawyers. They have long experience in the practice of law. Todd Blanche was a... Prosecutor Pambani was the Florida Attorney General for eight years, and they know the pitfalls here that Liz described. They understand the situation, and by all accounts, they tried to protect Eric Siebert, the U.S. attorney who was fired, who was Trump's pick, remember, to run that office, but he didn't want to bring these cases, and so essentially he was forced out. So they're not comfortable with this, but it's also very clear that... Pam Bondi wants to keep her job and she wants to stay in Donald Trump's good graces. And I saw a photo last night of her dining with the president smiling the other day. That's a photo that Merrick Garland would have done anything to avoid taking. He didn't even want to be in the same room with Joe Biden when the Justice Department was investigating Joe Biden's son and when there was a special counsel reviewing whether Joe Biden mishandled classified documents. He tried to keep the Justice Department completely isolated from the Biden White House despite the charges that Republicans were making. that's not how Pam Bondi's running this Justice Department. She's been very clear. She's a Trump loyalist. And so despite her misgivings, I don't envision her trying to, for example, put a stop to this indictment. If she does, that would be a new chapter in the Pam Bondi tenure as Attorney General. Okay, but Liz Oyer, if Don McGahn in 2018 said no. And Eric Siebert in 2025 said, no, I refuse to do this. And Pam Bondi allows it to happen on her watch. And Lindsey Halligan signs off on it. What does it say about the independence of this Justice Department? This Justice Department has no independence from the president, and Pam Bondi has already made that clear. She sent a memo to the entire workforce on her first day in office saying, we all work for Donald Trump. She believes this is an army of lawyers that amount to Donald Trump's personal law firm. If she were to sign off on this case, on this prosecution moving forward, that would be alarming. But honestly, either way, the situation that we're at really is a crisis. There is a five-alarm fire racing through the Justice Department.

At this point, we are counting on career people with integrity and political appointees who may have some integrity to stand up for what's right and not let the whole place burn down. Right. I mean, and I think part of what we have to also acknowledge, Ken, is that that five alarm fire is going to reach the feet of about a dozen ordinary Americans who might be impaneled on that grand jury if they say. What folks inside the Justice Department have said, there is no there there, and they reject this indictment. What happens then? Well, yeah, they'll return what's called a no-true bill, and I assume that we will find out about that. And, you know, it's interesting. Those are incredibly rare. I was talking to somebody who said the last time that happened in the Eastern District of Virginia was back in, like, 1993. involving Chuck Rob, the former governor. But we've seen an increasing number of those happening in both in Los Angeles and in Washington, where regular grand jurors, and these are often retired people who come in and spend a lot of time reviewing these cases. They've just been rejecting the cases that have been brought to them by Trump Justice Department prosecutors. We saw it with the man who threw the sandwich at the law enforcement officer in D.C. They refused to indict that as a felony case. case. So you could see something like that happening here. I would just caution, though, that grand jury is a prosecutor's tool. They're only hearing evidence from the prosecution. And this is not Washington. This is the Eastern District of Virginia. So I don't think we should count on the idea of grand jurors standing up to this and saying no. I wouldn't rule it out, though. So it's going to be interesting to see what happens. Tyler, I want to just turn to the... political element, all of this. You got some new polling out. It shows 54% of adults think it is unacceptable for the president to direct to the Department of Justice to investigate political opponents. That includes 30% of Republicans. Actually, surprise those numbers are not higher if we're all going to be honest here. In your reporting, when you are talking to Republicans on Capitol Hill, what is their general sense? Like, I get that the president is on truth, social, saying, my folks are mad that not more has been done. My base wants to see more action. Where are Republicans on the Hill on this question of the president brazenly going after his political opponents? Look, I think it's divided, and I think it's important to remember that Donald Trump very clearly said he was going to do this. He ran for president again saying, I am your retribution, and he tied his own personal fate when he was facing multiple criminal trials as a candidate for president with that of his supporters. So this is not necessarily a surprise. He promised to do this very thing when he was running for president. Now, I think, you know, just like the Republican Party. there is divides on Capitol Hill about this. There are some Republicans who are fully supportive of the president. They say that the Biden Justice Department weaponized the government against Trump by investigating him for January 6th in the classified documents. And so this is...

just Trump doing what Biden did. Obviously, these are very different cases and scenarios. It was Merrick Garland and the Justice Department that was pursuing these cases. And Joe Biden was very studiously trying to keep an arm's reach from that. But I think there's also Republicans who are deeply concerned about the politicization of the Justice Department and the way in which Donald Trump is overtly telling the Attorney General what she should do. And when he's not getting the results that he wants, he's replacing those. So, you know, I think it's important to remember that this is not new from Donald Trump, but I think the way in which it's playing out is in some ways much more public and brazen than some people might have expected. Ken, the Eastern District of Virginia is also handling the investigation into New York, AG, Letitia James. And I wonder, one, sort of the status of that case, but also... the interplay between these two, right? If they take James Comey to a grand jury and they are just laughed out of there and they do not secure an indictment, does that change their thinking moving forward on something like the James investigation? One would think so. I mean, if this grand jury no bills on the James Comey case, that would be a stunning rebuke to the Justice Department and to Donald Trump and to the White House. And it should teach them the lesson whether it will is another question because the James case also has problems. And again, you know, it's a situation where they would have to prove criminal intent that she made, that she intentionally lied on these mortgage forms, not just made a mistake or not just misinterpreted. or was given bad advice by a mortgage broker. And that is a high hurdle. And these regular Americans who sit on these grand juries, they know that. They've all filled out mortgage documents, many of them. And so, yeah, I think it would be, it might give them pause. But then again, look, there's a long list of Donald Trump's political enemies that are under investigation by the Justice Department or other Trump administration enemies right now. And we're talking about John Bolton, John Brennan, the former CIA director, potentially President Obama. and then lesser known names like Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor. So this is a pattern and practice of the Trump administration. They are going after Donald Trump's political enemies using the tools of government. And it's not clear that any one setback is going to stop them from doing that. And I just want to make one more point to emphasize what Tyler said. The idea that there's any equivalence between what's happening with this Justice Department and the politicization and the interplay with the White House and what happened in the Biden administration is the big lie. Because I covered all those Donald Trump, special counsel investigations, and they were conducted by career prosecutors and career FBI agents who had no contact whatsoever with anybody on the political side. And the Republicans who have made charge after charge that it was weaponized, they have produced not a scintilla of evidence to back that up. No email, no meeting, no message between somebody in the Biden White House and anybody involved in those investigations that showed political influence over them. It just doesn't exist. Millions of people believe it, and right-wing media has been hammering it forever. It's just not factual. Kendallanian, who has had back-to-back scoops this week, thank you for bringing us your reporting. If there is anything more to know in the next two hours, please come on back. Tyler and Liz, you are sticking with me when we come back. James Comey, of course, may not be the president's only target. Another escalation of his all-out weaponization of the Department of Justice. News breaking today. The prosecutors are being pushed to investigate a group tied to Democratic donor, George Soros.

system, which is very dangerous and very scary. Tyler, pick up where Liz left off. Why this hyper-focus on Soros? Yes, Soros has long been a target of Donald Trump in the broader Republican Party because he is one of the biggest Democratic donors. He gives lots of money to Democratic candidates, Democratic groups, and Donald Trump himself has long portrayed him as this sort of boogeyman-like figure. And in the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination and other sorts of political violence as... Donald Trump has blamed the, quote, radical left, he's tied in George Soros into that. He's not presented any evidence of that, but he has long focused on George Soros as a political opponent. And as we have been talking about, is seeking to use the Justice Department to go after them. So, Liz, I think one of the things that is interesting about this story in particular is the range of options that the reporting has us understand. The Justice Department is considering that they could go after these groups by revoking their tax exempt status, their 501 status. There's been some reporting and talk of RICO charges. That is a pretty wide range of ways in which they could penalize these groups. And my interpretation is that... how they, if they choose to do it is one question, but how they choose to pursue this will tell us the abandon and the recklessness and the aggression with which they are willing to pursue the president's agenda, the how in this case, as important as whether or not they choose to pursue it. Yeah, it seems like they're considering all options trying to find something that sticks, and we'll see how aggressive they get with this. This is incredibly unusual because the mission of finding charges to stick against a specific person, it's just not the way the justice system works. We do see mandates from attorneys general saying that certain prosecutorial priorities will be the focus of the department under their leadership. It might be narcotics enforcement. It might be immigration enforcement. It might be fraud and public corruption. The idea that all U.S. attorneys in six districts are being asked to look into charges against a specific person is just very unusual. It's really chilling, frankly, and it's putting the career staff of the department who are going to have to work on those investigations in very difficult, untenable situations. We could potentially see a lot of attrition from the department if lawyers are forced to make choices about whether they can conduct themselves in good faith and consistent with their professional. obligations while carrying out these sorts of directives from the leadership of the department.

And Tyler, it gives us a window into the ecosystem in which this is all happening. You have a lawyer working with Todd Blanche citing report from a right-wing watchdog group as the basis for this. I mean, I think we've talked a lot about Project 2025 in the way that is now informing policy and regulatory activity in this administration. The fact that a right-wing watchdog group is somehow activating legal action on the part of DOJ. tells you something about who this White House is listening to. Yeah, absolutely. And we've seen that just escalate over the course of this administration in Donald Trump's political career. I mean, it's reminiscent of the way in which Donald Trump has reimagined the White House press pool to ensure that there are more friendly voices, friendly people inside the Oval Office asking him questions and fewer of, you know. mainstream journalism outlets being able to ask questions on behalf of the American people. He is reimagining the universe of people that he's hearing from and that have an opportunity to ask him questions and elevating them as reliable sources of information. And so we're seeing that pathway lead to this exact thing where they are, you know, the Justice Department is jumping on to that to try to use it in sort of criminal investigations. Tyler Pager. Potential criminal investigations. Yeah, potential doing a lot of work there. Tyler Pager, Liz Oyer, thank you both so much for joining us today. Up next, the leading Democrat on the committee overseeing the FCC, sending a warning to the station owners still refusing to air Jimmy Kimmel. That story, he would come back.

If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then I-Excel is right for your family. As an effective and affordable online learning program, I-Excel covers math, language arts, science, and social studies using interactive practice problems for kids from pre-K to 12th grade. Listeners can get an exclusive 20% off Iexel membership when they sign up today at Iexel.com slash 20. Visit Iexel.com slash 20 to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price. Summer means firing up the grill, getting together with friends, and making the most of the weekends. Total wine and more is my first stop, whether it's seltzers and ready to serve cocktails with a cooler or a good bottle of bourbon. Everything I need is at Total Wine. With the lowest prices, it's easy to stock up for whatever the weekend brings, and I can get everything I need in one stop. Shop total wine and more, and get ready for your next summer party. Spears are not sold in Virginia or North Carolina. Drink responsibly must be 21. You know that thing where you get an amazing pair of shoes at a really great price and want to tell everyone about it? Yeah, so do we. Here at Designer Shoe Warehouse, we'll give you something to brag about. Like the latest styles from brands you love, or the trends everyone's obsessing over. Or shoes that make you feel like, well, you. So go ahead, show off a little. Buying shoes that get you have prices that get your budget. Head to your DSW store or DSW.com today. DSW. Let us surprise you. Jimmy Kimmel is back in most of the country. And if you're watching from one of the TV markets that his show is not airing in, take a listen to what you may have missed. We are back to work doing our show.

the country. During our show for most of the country, we are still not on the air on a number of ABC affiliates, including Seattle, Portland, Washington, D.C., Nashville, New Orleans, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, about 30 more. And if you are watching from one of those cities, please know that the person you are looking at right now is not me. Okay? Right, Jimmy, that's right. I'm going to tell you something. Thank God they're not preempting the new season of the Golden Bachelor because of this year. The FCC might not like jokes about the president, but they are still very okay with Pop Pop getting a squeezer into jacuzzi. I think we can all be very grateful for that. As Kimmel mentioned, Seattle is one of the largest markets impacted. Sinclair operates the ABC affiliate, Como, which serves the area. Protesters gathered outside the studios of Como with signs, one saying, gimme my Jimmy. Senator Maria Cantwell, who represents Washington and is also the ranking member of the committee that oversees the FCC, wrote a letter to the head of Sinclair. Calling for the broadcast company to reinstate Kimmel to the over two dozen affiliates where it is currently preempted. Joining us now, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, Senator, it is good to see you. Have you heard anything from the leaders of Sinclair or Next Star? Well, Alicia, thanks for having me on. No, not yet. But this is an important issue. First of all, we don't like the fact that Brendan Carr did threaten these individuals, not a role that the FCC chairman is supposed to play. And Seattle represents a very big market, millions of people and had more than a higher than average of all the stations in America review for the Kimmel Show. So we know there's lots of people here, and we know that lots of people liked the show. So what is the issue? Is it that they have continued to be threatened by what the chairman said? Or are they looking at this market and understanding that the local community really does appreciate this show? I wonder what you make of the fact that Brendan Carr tried to walk back his, you can't even call it a thinly veiled threat. He tried to walk back what he said. What do you think was motivating him? Oh, I didn't like it at all because, first of all, we have this consolidation of media that's happening. We want to see many voices in media. We want to have competition so that you actually get true information. So if there is misinformation in the marketplace, it's corrected. So we love all these local stations. But obviously, those local stations have to tie in to syndicated content. And we don't want somebody using the FCC as a bully pulpit just because they don't like what the president.

is mad about. So this has to be a better system than this. We certainly want to pass new laws like the Cantwell Blackburn Bill that is called the Copied Act, which makes sure that that advertisers compensate local journalists for the content they are creating. But we don't need an FCC that is going to do the bidding of the president and push content off the air just because he's mad about it. I think there are many aspects of this story that are very interesting and very novel. I think one is the fact that this seems to have broken through to a subset of the American electorate who may not be following every move and machination of this administration, but is really... really annoyed that they cannot watch Jimmy Kimmel and are trying to understand why that is. I think another interesting component of it is that you finally saw a handful of Republicans of your colleagues actually stand up and say, this is not right. And I have concerns. We have wondered where the line might be. And the FCC seems to have triggered it. Senator Ted Cruz is the Republican chair on your committee. He was outspoken about the Kimmel suspension. I think to the surprise of some. I wonder if you have had any private conversations with him about this specific issue. Well, we've certainly asked that Brendan Carby brought before the Commerce Committee. We think that this is an important issue. We don't want to see all this content only behind a paywall. We like the fact that there's still broadcast television that has the choice to put on content that, yes, you have to watch a lot of advertising, but you get to see this without having to be behind a paid situation. But you're right. You know, listen, I fight the terror fight, and while I've had Republicans help me fight against tariffs, no, this issue is broken through. It's broken through because now a lot of Americans are just saying, what the heck is happening? How come I can't watch Kimmel? And it's gotten so much national attention. People who may not be following the day-to-day of politics want to know what the heck got this guy thrown off the air. And is this going to happen to everybody that people don't like his free speech? So that's the, I do think you're picking up on something that it is resonating with more people than any other issue has resonated because it's just a clear thing that they don't, that they, it doesn't compute with them. One of the wild things, many wild things about the timeline that you and I are living in, Senator, is that all of the stories we are covering, right? Senate committee investigations into the FCC, the discharge petition that we could see on the Epstein files being voted on in the House as early as October. It is all happening in the shadow of a looming government shutdown. Do you think we see the government shutdown in the next five days? Well, I'm doing everything I can to make sure that we address a really important shutdown issue, and that is that cheap health insurance is going to disappear in the next 60 days. That is, it's not going to happen in December 31st. There are states that have put out notices. In fact, I'm issuing a report today.

29 states have proposed health insurance rates of more than a 20% increase. That means a family of four making $80,000 is going to pay $3,000 more each year for health insurance. And so these notices are going out now. The enrollment period starts as early as October 15th and many states in November. So our Republican colleagues say, well, we don't want to deal with that. But this is the crisis of Trumpflation. the high rise of cost, and now we're going to see a high rise in insurance costs because they don't want to talk about it. They don't want to talk to us about a solution. So we're going to do everything we can to say this issue, you need to at least give us a meeting and talk about what it is is the plan. But you can't raise these rates for 2026 in the next three weeks and think Americans are going to be happy about it. They're not going to be happy. They don't want to talk about this issue, and they certainly do not want to see that discharge petition to see the light of day. Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, thank you so much for joining us today. When we come back, millions and millions of people tuned in to tell Donald Trump, he does not have the power to come after free speech, not in this country. We're going to talk about the cultural backlash against him, and if it's here to stay. Stay with us.

It has been extraordinary to watch just these past few days, the ways in which disparate corners of the entertainment industry, powerhouses of art and culture have acted in unison and condemnation of the Trump administration's apparent crackdown on free speech. At the center of it all, Jimmy Kimmel himself took time last night to refute Trump's latest remarks. Moments after we taped our show last night, the Mad Red Hatter wrote, I can't believe ABC fake news gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back. You can't believe they gave me my job back. I can't believe we gave you your job back. This was his big closer. Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad ratings. And he does no bad ratings. He has some of the worst ratings. On behalf of all of us, welcome to the crappy ratings club, Mr. President. I do want to salute the producer who chose to maintain those erratic capitalizations that Trump does. That biting sort of response, it is not unique to Kimmel. South Park, in addition to poking fun at Trump last night, also targeted Brendan Carr in slapstick manner. I'm going to let you watch that one for yourselves, preferably when there are no kids in the room. But in the meantime, just recognize the cultural pushback when you see it. Joining me now, former Democratic Senator and MSNBC political analyst Claire McCaskill. And with me, at the table, Oliver Darcy, he is the author of the newsletter status, which covers all things media. You know, I think when Kimmel came back, Oliver, and he came right out the gate and acknowledged the elephant in the room and did not mince words, there was a part of me that wondered, like, was it check and done? Do you cross it off the list? So the fact that he is continually coming back for more is an indicator to me that he both has the appetite for it and that he believes his audience does as well. And that he believes that Disney has his back as well. Disney obviously pulled him off the air, then put him back on the air on Tuesday. And he, you know, I think there was questions, like he said, was he going to be delivering a more sanitized monologue and more sanitized Trump-free show? No, he's not. And I think the fact that he is going there. signals that Disney has decided that, look, we can either kneel down, which is probably not going to work, or we can stand up and fight. And they've let Jimmy Kimmel loose on Donald Trump. And he is not, you know, he is not sparing him at all. We're going to come back to the question of Disney. But first, Claire, I want you to take a listen to a little bit more of Jimmy Kimu's monologue from last night. What I'm going to show you a real unedited text messages, some of my coworkers got while we're off the air. This was to, Rachel was one of our segment coordinators from our aunt. She got the news that we were off the air. She said, hey, sweetie, is it Kimmel or Fallon that you currently work for? Sadly, it was me. This was the Catherine, associate producer here on a text with her mom and sister. CNN says you're canceled indefinitely. Who knows? Absolutely disgusting. So her mom sends her a link to job openings in New York.

And then says, what does this mean for you? No clue. Are you at work? What are people saying? It said starting with tonight's show. Yes. They just said our show for tonight and tomorrow is canceled. Just now or long term? No clue. No one knows. Wild. I'm sure you do know. So do you still go into work? No, we don't know. It's so comforting, Claire, to know that everyone is texting with her mom exactly as I am and they want insider information. My salute to all the MSNBC moms out there. What is ironic, Claire, is that it seems that the president has actually opened the door for Jimmy Kimmel to be even more political and even more critical than he was prior to being suspended. Yeah, I don't think this turned out the way that Brendan Carr envisioned or the way Donald Trump envisioned. The bottom line is the majority of this country, including Republicans, want us to have free speech, including political humor. And if you've watched political humor, I mean, they go after both sides. I mean, these guys did some brutal humor around Joe Biden when he was president. This is something that's very American. And it's something we cherish. And when they did this. It set off a firestorm in this country. As you mentioned earlier, it's not like shutting down the government or, you know, doing away with climate change stuff. All that stuff's really, really important. But this is something that really touched people in a way. Especially people who don't do politics, who don't pay attention to the news every day like we do. So I don't think this worked out. And by the way, I'm not sure it's working out for the companies that are still keeping Kimmel off the air. They are in major cities. And in these major cities, their advertisers are losing eyeballs on their local news. every night because of what they're doing. Let's come back to Disney for that reason. I mean, do you think they were doing just the morally correct thing because they woke up one day and realized it? Is it about the pressure from their audience? What is their next move with Next Star and Sinclair? I think, I mean, they obviously want Next to Ann Sinclair to air the programming. The question is, how do they get to that spot? And I think right now they're just waiting for the kids to come back to the table thinking that maybe Next Star and Sinclair are basically behaving like, you know, children throwing a tantrum, they've gone off, and you just sit at the table, and they'll come back and they want to eat, right? And so I think that's the move that Disney's, you know, seeing what happens right now? Whether the kids come back to the table is the question, and if they don't, then what does Disney do? Next on St. Clair cannot forever preempt Jimmy Kimmel's show. They have a contract with Disney. They need to air their programming. They have a certain amount of episodes likely that they can choose to skip, but this can't go on forever. The question is,

If they keep doing it, what happens? Does Disney notify them that they're in breach of contract? Does Disney pull some other levers? Like, you know, they do give them Good Morning America, World News Tonight, Who Wants to be a Millionaire? There's a lot of programming that Disney can start to pull, or at least threaten to pull, if these stations don't fall into line. But that would trigger something fairly unprecedented, a total war between Nextstar, Sinclair, and Disney. And I'm not sure any... any party wants that. So hopefully there's a resolution that's reached. To just go back to the example you're using of children who have left the table having a tantrum and coming back, I wonder where the ideological drive and the agenda of Sinclair and Next Star play into that calculation, right? Are they really that concerned with the programming they're receiving, or are they more concerned with the advancement of their agenda? My guess is that they are concerned about their billion-dollar deal that they have to get done. So as we, I think everyone knows by now, next door is trying to buy Tegna, another local station's owner. It's a $6.2 billion deal, and Brendan Carr at the FCC, needs to approve it. And kind of waiting in the wings is the right-wing Sinclair. And so they're jockeying for that Tegna group as well. I think the issue is if Nextar puts Jimmy Kimmel back on the air, that's not going to curry favor with Brendan Carr, given that he's made his position known quite clearly. And so the fear, I think, would be that, well, let's say Next Star says we're going to start airing Jimmy Kimmel in our networks. Maybe Sinclair says, look, Brendan Carr, they're not so good. We might be a better suitor for Tegna. And I think that's the concern. So who blinks first remains to be seen? I suspect it'll be next door, but there is a lot of financial pressure on these companies not to put Jimmy Kimmel back on the air. I have less than a minute left, Claire, but I do want to ask you where you think Ted Cruz and the Republicans who have found their spine on this play in. Yeah, I think Ted Cruz made a smart political play. I think he read the room, and I think he would like to someday run for president and say, I stood up for the First Amendment when other people in my party were afraid to. How much do you care about your freedom of speech? I'm your guy. And I will say, as to Nexstar and Sinclair, they are going to lose local advertising dollars in major cities that they have stations. And they need those local advertising dollars if they continue down this road to say nothing about the contractual obligation they have with ABC. I get the, they want Brendan Carr to love them so they can gobble up more stations. But in the meantime, they're losing a lot of viewers and those local advertising dollars of the evening news. are going elsewhere. Oliver Darcy, thank you so much for being at the table. Claire McCaskill, you are going nowhere. You are staying with me in the next hour after the break, an urgent plea to the Supreme Court from the country's top economic leaders of the past several decades. We're going to tell you about that next.

Some breaking news from Fed Governor Lisa Cook. She filed just this last hour with the Supreme Court, urging them to reject President Donald Trump from trying to fire her. In relation to the allegations from Trump about mortgage fraud, Cook's lawyers write that she committed neither fraud nor gross negligence. She also received a remarkable show of support earlier today. Every single living former Fed chair filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court alongside some of the country's other top economic leaders. urging them to not allow Donald Trump to fire her. The bipartisan group highlighted the notorious case of Richard Nixon putting political pressure on the Fed and the real economic fallout that came with that, an inflationary boom and deep recession that took years to bring back under control. We're going to keep you updated on that case. Just ahead for us, though, the White House continuing to try and quash the Jeffrey Epstein story. The latest reporting on that right after this quick break. 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.