Summary
Interview with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). The Justice Department is asking witnesses about Trump`s actions in its January 6 investigation.
Transcript
MEHDE HASAN, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. And thank you. Thanks to you at home for joining us tonight.
We have breaking news tonight involving Democratic Senator Joe Manchin. But is not the type of Joe Manchin news you might be used to. By now, you probably know Joe Manchin of the guy who blocks everything in Congress.
From President Biden`s Build Back Better agenda to efforts to fight climate change, to attempt that filibuster reform, to taxing billionaires, Joe Manchin is made himself the man standing -- the Democratic agenda yelling, stop.
But, tonight, Senate Democrats may have just had a major breakthrough. The top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer released a joint statement with Senator Manchin saying that the West Virginia Democrat will now support, not oppose, but yes, support the Democrats big new budget deal. Despite objecting to it just two weeks ago.
Now, we don`t have all the details yet. But a one page summary says that the deal will make progress in some pretty big areas, including a 15 percent minimum tax on corporations, along with other unnamed provisions to make the ultra wealthy pay their fair share of tax, lowering Affordable Care Act premiums for millions of Americans, allowing Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs, something Democrats have been trying to achieve for over a decade.
Increase clean energy production and, this is a big one, decreasing carbon emissions by 40 percent over the next eight years, which, of course, would be huge. It`s already been called the biggest climate bill in American history.
Tonight, Senator Schumer`s office has released the text of the bill. It clocks in at 725 pages. Now, obviously, this is not a done deal yet. Reactions from other Democratic members of Congress have range from cautious optimism to outright frustration at having apparently being kept out of negotiations over the steal.
In just a moment, I`ll be joined by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, I`ll be asking her what she thinks of this new deal, as well as other developments in today`s news. I should also note that the Senate`s other Democratic obstructionist, Kyrsten Sinema, remember her? Reportedly just learned of this deal this afternoon and has not yet committed to backing the proposal. She could still racket.
And even if it does pass the Senate with Manchin and Sinema`s blessings, it will still need to overcome the objections of some conservatives in the House as well. Joe Manchin support does appear to be a potential big victory for Democrats, especially for Chuck Schumer and for Joe Biden. One that maybe do, in no small part, to smart messaging.
Back in January, inspired by the idea from national security expert, Joe Cirincione, I joked on a little website called twitter.com but Democrats should rename build back better as the anti-inflation act of 2022 and then put it in front of the Manchin to vote down.
And six months later, that is sort of what they just did. Just take a look at that press release again. Here is the headline. Manchin supports Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. That is how Democrats are shifting the narrative on this new slim down version of Biden`s legislative agenda. Because many of the policies that the Dems have been pushing all along, things like reducing drug prices, tax and corporations, investing in new sources of energy, these are all things that will help reduce inflation.
And it comes at a time when the debate about how America should tackle inflation is heating up. Today, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell announced that the Fed will increase interest rates by another three fourths of a percentage point. That may sound like a small change, but with each increase in interest rate, the Federal Reserve increases cost for millions of regular Americans, the cost of mortgages, of car loans, the cost of private student loan payments.
Those higher costs are not some bad side effect of the threats policy goals, rather increasing borrowing costs across the economy is the goal. It is what Jerome Powell wants to happen, because when people have less money, the theory is they spend less money, and when people spend less money, inflation goes down. That is what we are talking about when we say the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates.
And there is a case to be made that is the kind of tough medicine our economy needs right now to keep prices from continuing to soar, which is a real problem that needs to be addressed.
But there are also those who think that we may be on the verge of taking it too far. One of those people is Senator Warren. This week, she published this op-ed in "The Wall Street Journal". Jerome Powell`s Fed pursues a painful and ineffective inflation cure.
The senator writes, quote: When the Fed raise interest rates, increasing the cost of borrowing money, it becomes more expensive for businesses to invest in their operations. As a result, employees will slow hiring, cut hours and fire workers, leaving families with less money. In the bloodless language of economists, that is referred to as dampening demand.
But make no mistake, she continues, if the fed cuts too much or too abruptly, the resulting recession will leave millions of people, disproportionately lower wage workers and workers of color, with smaller paychecks or no paycheck at all.
[21:05:06]
Is that where we are headed? And if so, what do people like Senator Warren think we should do to stem rising inflation?
Joining us now is Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Senator, thank you for being on the show tonight.
Let me start by asking you --
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Good to see you.
HASAN: Good to see you too. Let me start by asking you what you make of the seemingly major, major deal announced by senator Schumer and Manchin, because, A, did you know about this deal prior to today? And B, is Charlie finally going to get the football?
WARREN: Well, I certainly hope that Charlie is going to get the football. And think about what this is about. It is called the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, as you rightly identified, good naming there. But that is exactly what it does.
So when you take a look at the climate, part for example. The climate part is absolutely about attacking the climate crisis head on. But large parts of it are about how to bring down costs for families all across the country.
How to have -- how to reduce the cost of their utility bills every month. How to make their homes more energy efficient. How to have more access to cheaper, cleaner energy.
So it`s about bringing down costs. And then look at the part on health care. The part about reducing the cost of prescription drugs because the government is going to negotiate putting a cap for Medicare recipients that says, you never have to spend more than $2,000 a year on prescription drugs, and expanding coverage of health care to many people who don`t have it right now.
And then, look at the third part. And that is, how it is paid for. It is paid for by saying two giant corporations that have more than a billion dollars in profits, you are going to have to pay a 15 percent minimum tax on your book profits. Not after you fiddled around with the IRS in all the loopholes that you lobbied in. Your book profits, this is serious.
And in addition to that -- yes. There`s going to be the carried interest loophole, it`s going to be tightened. We are going to save money on the drugs. I just want you to look at the three pieces together. And ultimately that last one on taxes --
HASAN: Can I jump in on the carried interest?
WARREN: Please? Of course, of course.
HASAN: We know that Senator Kyrsten Sinema, your colleague from Arizona, would not last year a big fan of that. In fact explicitly it -- opposed the carried interest rule. She`s not a big fan of lowering prescription drug costs, at least in recent years.
How do we know she`s not going to throw a spanner in the works? What is your message to senator Sinema tonight?
WARREN: Look, I am not doing predictions about any of my colleagues. I am talking about what makes this a bill that helps reduce inflation and on the part about taxes. That if we can get this through, it not only pays for the climate portion, and the health care portion. But it also has hundreds of billions of dollars left over to actually reduce the national debt.
This is a bill that truly is about fighting inflation, bringing down costs for families, and putting the country on a sound or economic footing.
HASAN: So you describe this bill as Manchin is Schumer as anti inflationary. The Fed has been doing its own anti-inflation reactivity this week. You warned that Jerome Powell shouldn`t raise rates again, but he did today. Another historic rise.
How worried are you now at the prospect of an interest rate rise induced recession in the coming weeks or months?
WARREN: I`m very worried. And the reason I`m worried, is that using the one tool that the fed has, which is to raise interest rates, and using it aggressively to pound on this economy, when it doesn`t address many of the costs that families are feeling directly, is not a way to help families out. And will not address some of the biggest drivers of inflation.
In fact, just a few weeks ago, Fed Chair Powell was in the banking committee. We were in a hearing. And I asked him, whether or not, increasing interest rates was going to help with fuel prices. And he said no.
Well, is going to help with food prices?
[21:10:01]
And he said no.
HASAN: Yeah.
WARREN: We have to remember the causes of inflation right now. We`ve got supply chain problems, increasing interest rate isn`t going to help with that. We still have COVID outbreaks all around the world, and that stop supplies. Not going to help on that.
HASAN: Yeah. So what would you do instead, Senator?
WARREN: So, I would do many of things Biden administration is doing right now. And I want to give full credit. They are working to try to get COVID under control all around the world. They are working to untangle the supply chains. They`re attacking these giant corporations, attacking the problem of price gouging with these giant corporations. And they are doing with they can to bring down fuel prices, including releasing oils from the strategic oil reserve.
And that is an approach that says we understand what the problem is and we are going to do the things that will attack that directly. Between that and Congress doing its part if we can go forward on the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, I think this is good for our country. Not just in the short term, but also the long term.
HASAN: By the, way I think you should stick to calling Inflation Reduction Act, and not call it by its initial, which would be the IRA.
Just changing tack for a second --
WARREN: Sure.
HASAN: -- you are one of the first senators to call for Donald Trump to be impeached back in 2019. James Carville once said you should`ve been picked as Joe Biden`s attorney general. If you were AG, would you have gone off after Donald Trump with more urgency than Merrick Garland has? And what do you make of "The Washington Post" reporting this week that the DOJ looking into Trump`s action is part of their criminal probe is part of their criminal probe in the 2020 election? To be clear, there`s no evidence of investigation of Trump himself yet.
WARREN: I think it`s very important that the Department of Justice have the space to conduct the investigations and go where those investigations lead them. And then when they see the evidence in front of them, that they make the prosecution that they believe they have the evidence for.
I believe that that is what Merrick Garland will do. And I want to make sure he`s got the space to do it.
HASAN: And just on the midterms, and the elections coming, up what is your position on this ongoing debate within your party over whether the DCCC, the Democratic Governors Association, they`re paying for ads to elevate election deniers and far right MAGA types and GOP primaries, whether it`s governor races in Maryland, Pennsylvania, or congressional races in Michigan. Is that a mistake in your view? Is that dangerous?
WARREN: Yeah, I think it is enormously dangerous. I think the best way we can spend our money and our time volunteering and our energy is to support really good Democratic candidates.
Which reminds me, we got news today about the Democratic primary in Wisconsin. I`ve been a longtime supporter of Mandela Barnes, and the person who is number two in that race. I want to give him real credit. Mr. Lasry said he didn`t see a path for winning, so instead of saying in this last two weeks and spending a lot of money on his own campaign that he is going to join hands with Mandela Barnes and help pushing forward. Because he recognizes that Mandela has the best possible chance to beat one of the worst senators, Ron Johnson.
So anybody out here who is thinking about how can they help, this is a good moment to send Mandela Barnes a little money. Mandela Barnes needs to help.
And that is what we should be doing. If you really care about these midterm races, let`s support the strongest progressive Democrats out there. Mandela is one of them.
HASAN: We are almost 100 days away from those midterms. Once those midterms are done, we`ll start talking about 2024.
You ran against Joe Biden in 2020 and lost in the primaries. There`s a lot of talk about whether he should run again in 2024. A new CNN poll, Senator, shows a whopping 75 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters once a candidate other than Joe Biden.
Do you agree with them? Should Biden run again in 2024? Will you be running again in 2024?
WARREN: Yes. Joe Biden should be running, he is running. I will be running for Senate in 2024.
But I want to say, this I will give you this -- we`ve got to stop the catnip about 2024. We are 100 days out from the midterm. And what happens in 2022, two more Democratic senators and we can get rid of the filibuster. And we can actually protect voting rights. We can make Roe versus Wade the law of the land. We can do even more on the climate crisis. We can action the gun safety --
[21:15:09]
HASAN: I agree with those issues.
(CROSSTALK)
WARREN: But the way we do --
HASAN: Hold on, when you see polls that show Democrats might hold on to the Senate House. The same polls show bad numbers for Joe Biden. You can`t ignore that disconnect, can you?
WARREN: What we have to do right now is fight the fight that is in front of us. And the fight that is in front of us is the 2022 fight. If we hold on to the House and we expand our lead in the Senate by two, we can get rid of the filibuster. We can do enormous good for the American people and that puts us in a position in 2024 where we have more opportunities to win.
If we start getting tangled up on 2024, and fail to pay attention to business in 2022, that is not only going to hurt us in 2022, it is going to buy this on the rear end in 2024.
HASAN: Thank you very much. That`s a good way to end the conversation. We`re out of time, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Thank you so much for your time. Always appreciate the conversation.
As Donald Trump`s actions become a focus of the Justice Department criminal investigation into January the 6th, there is one group of people close to Trump who appear to be particularly interest.
Wait until you see who they are, that`s next. Don`t go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:21:09]
HASAN: It`s been nearly a week since the January 6 investigation aired some rather humiliating footage of Republican Senator Josh Hawley during the attack on the Capitol. And today, we finally got the response from the Missouri senator.
Just to refresh your memory, here`s what we saw the last January 6 ix hearing, and a clip of the reaction to the footage inside the hearing room.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA): Senator Josh Hawley also had to flee. Earlier that afternoon, before the joint session started, he walked across the east front of the Capitol. As you see in this photo, he raised his fist in solidarity with the protesters, already amassing at the security gates.
We spoke with a Capitol police officer who is out there at the time. He told us that Senator Hawley`s gesture, riled up the clock crowd, and it bothered her greatly, because he was doing it in a safe space, protected by the officers and the barriers.
Later that day, Senator Hawley fled after those protesters he helped to rile up stormed the capitol. See for yourself.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: Ouch, it didn`t even see like the committee was kind of played for laughs, it was just and instantly funny, -- particularly one who has a book coming out all about manliness. Since last year, he`s been absolutely pilloried by his home states to major newspapers. But he himself has not actually responded, until today when reporters caught up to him in a Capitol hallway.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: The January 6 committee said that they talk to a Capitol police officer that when you made that fist pump, you riled up the crowd. Do you regret that fist bump because of that?
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): No, I don`t, I don`t regret anything I did on that day. And, it`s a privilege to be attacked by the January 6th committee. I want to say thank you for all the help with my fundraising.
REPORTER: Those were your supporters. They were supporting the same position they did. Why were you running from them when they showed the video?
HAWLEY: Listen, don`t take any of that seriously, all that was 100 percent trolling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: Oh come, now come now, we aren`t pretending all this is serious, are we? If we were to take it seriously, I might actually have to answer if we were to take it seriously, I might actually have to answer your question.
I mean, the scorn dripping off of Senator Hawley is really something to behold. Something like 150 police officers were injured in the Capitol attack. Several died in the days and weeks after, and when he`s asked about a Capitol police officer alleging that his fist pump may have rolled out that crowd, he brags about how great it all is for his fundraising because, to this day he sells merchandise with that image of him outside the capitol, which by the way he continues to do despite a cease and desist letter from politico.com, which owns a copyright on that photo.
And while he claims to not be taking the January 6 investigation seriously, it increasingly looks like the Justice Department is taking a very seriously. Last night, we brought you the late breaking news from "The Washington Post", now confirmed by NBC News, that the Justice Department is investigating Donald Trump`s actions as part of his January 6th criminal probe.
Today, ABC News and CNN, are both reporting that the former top aide to Trump`s chief of staff, who gave blockbuster public testimony to the January 6 committee, Cassidy Hutchinson, is cooperating with federal prosecutors. That`s on top of a federal grand jury testimony. We`ve just learned about it by two top aides to Mike Pence.
And we also learned today the Justice Department has obtained a new search warrant for the phone of John Eastman, a key figure in the plot to overturn the election.
[21:25:09]
Federal agencies the phone last month, and they started to go through its contents, which is just a latest indication that Eastman, and Trump`s other outside lawyers, who crafted the various schemes to overturn the election, are central to the justice department`s investigation.
According to the reporting about the DOJ`s interests in Trump`s actions, a lot of what prosecutors are asking about are Trump`s interactions with, and instructions to those lawyers. That includes John Eastman, who according to testimony to the January 6 committee admitted that is legal theories aimed at keeping Trump in power would be rejected 19-0 but even Trump`s Supreme Court.
And Jeffrey Clark who tried to implement his own mini coup at the Justice Department, and Diet Dr. Pepper connoisseur Sidney Powell, who claim the election was stolen by China, or maybe by the deceased dictator Venezuela, and at one point tried to get Trump`s Defense Department permission to seize computer service in Germany.
And, of course, Rudy Giuliani, who`s election related antics have gotten his law license taken away in New York and D.C., and his electronics have already been seized in a separate investigation.
Today, our friend Joyce Vance, former U.S. attorney, writes that among all the strands the Justice Department is investigating around January 6th. Quote, there is one thing they should prioritize, bad lawyers these announced an unscrupulous advisors, might help lead investigators to those culpable for the big lie, and January 6th insurrection.
Joining us now is Joyce Vance, former U.S. attorney, and co-host of the sisters in law podcasts. Joyce, thanks for being here tonight.
Let`s start with what you are writing, about an MSNBC.com, why these bad lawyers as you call them? So key to the January 6th investigation?
JOYCE VANCE, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, when DOJ commences an investigation, it`s looking at conduct, it doesn`t target people. The problem with this investigation, I think this is a gross understatement, but this is such a complicated investigation. DOJ has already charged hundreds of people and that`s before they even got into the meat of January 6th.
So if you`re thinking about conduct, one of the common threads that runs through all these potential conspiracies, whether it`s the fake electors, the pressure campaign on Mike Pence, or the day of insurrection itself, there are bad lawyers present in every stage, and focusing on that part of the conduct, prosecuting them, potentially turning them into cooperators, could provide a series of witnesses who had direct contact with those most culpable, those of the White House, even the former president himself and could be a direct line in for Merrick Garland because where you wanted to hear if you`re is you don`t want to start at the mid level of responsibility, you ultimately want to ahold those who are most accountable for what the country has been put through you want to hold those accountable.
HASAN: So, Joyce, other unique challenges posed by the fact that those are lawyers. Can I make a particularly hard for the Justice Department to investigate, them because they can claim some kind of attorney-client privilege?
VANCE: There are hopes that have to jump through. For instance, you talked about recently, permission to go into John Eastman`s phone and take a look at what is inside of that. That means DOJ will have to use what`s called a clean team or a tag team, a group that may not be involved in prosecuting any substantive cases but who will look at that information, who will work with either special master or a judge to make sure the folks are using that evidence in the case, don`t properly see anything cloaked in privilege.
HASAN: Joyce, help us understand this latest reporting investigating Donald Trump`s actions, that`s not the same thing as criminally investigating Donald Trump himself. Explain the distinction, please.
VANCE: This is a very fine line, that I think even as prosecutors we sometimes are not as precise when we explain this, as we should be. DOJ looks to conduct, it investigates potential crimes. Something that you never do as a prosecutor`s say, for, instance let`s go get Donald Trump, right? We`re not a country that believes in the locking up approach to criminal prosecutions. We`re focused on crimes.
And as DOJ investigates crimes, the people that you might want to talk to during an investigation, tend to fall into three groups. There are witnesses, people who have information to you and that is helpful to you, and uncovering the truth. There are subjects those are people whose conduct falls loose loosely within the parameters of the crime investigating, they may actually be criminally responsible for that.
[21:30:04]
You don`t know for certain, that`s why you`re investigating, and then there are targets. Those are people who you have evidence against, and who you intend as prosecutor to bring charges against. So you`re looking at all of that as a prosecutor, investigating conduct to determine who`s responsible, and who should be charged.
HASAN: We`ll have to leave it there. Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, thank you as always for your time, thank you for explaining all that for us.
VANCE: Good to see you.
HASAN: New developments tonight in the case of WNBA star Brittney Griner, who`s facing ten years in a Russian prison, the deal may be the key to bringing them home, that`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:35:26]
HASAN: WNBA star and American citizen Brittney Griner testified from occasion a Russian courtroom today, as her trial for drug charges continues. Her defense asked if she could be left out of the prisoner cage for a testimony as the six foot nine Griner is too tall to deliver a testimony standing up without bending her neck and slightly hunting over, as you see here.
The judge refused as she spoke while seated behind the bars of the cage on display in what`s several experts have called a show trial for the predetermine outcome. The Olympic gold medalist who pleaded guilty earlier this month faces up to ten years in prison. She`s been detained in Russia for more than five months now, following her arrest in a Moscow airport just a week before Russia began its invasion of Ukraine. Some believe Griner is being used as a political pawn by Vladimir Putin.
Griner testified today that she had no intention of breaking Russian law by bringing a small amount of cannabis into the country. And after recovering from COVID in traveling on a 13 hour flight from Arizona to Russia, the airport workers went through her stuff and took her passport. She was asked to sign a few documents, an interpreter was present, but did not explain to Griner what she was signing. So Griner use Google translate on her phone in an attempt to understand what the documents said.
Amid Griner`s testimony today, CNN was first to report on a potential prisoner exchange between -- reportedly offering convicted Russian`s arm dealer Viktor Bout who is currently serving a 25-year sentence in the U.S., in exchange for Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan, another American in Russian detention. NBC News has since confirmed the reporting. Secretary of State Blinken in a press briefing would not comment on the details. Only telling reporters quote, we have a substantial proposal on the table weeks ago to facilitate their release.
When pushed by reporters to further address that substantial proposal, this is what Blinken said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE: We`re very focused on getting Brittney and Paul home. This is something we are working every single day. And most of the time were working it quietly and behind the scenes for obvious reasons. And I would say, just because you don`t see us doing something, or you don`t hear us talking about it, does it mean it`s not happening, on the contrary.
This is something that, bringing people home, bring Brittney home, bringing Paul home, this is something that we are focused on 24/7 seven days a week.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: So, can we expect Russia to allow Griner and Whelan to return home is part of some sort of deal?
Joining us now is Kimberly St. Julian-Varnon, historian at the University of Pennsylvania. Her work is focused around race and the Black experience in Russia and the Soviet Union. She is consulted with the WNBA`s players union about Griner`s detainment.
Thank you so much for being here.
Brittney Griner testified today that the document she signed upon her arrest were written Russia, no one explained to her. What do you make of all of that? Why didn`t Russian law enforcement provide her with a translator? Was it all deliberate?
KIMBERLY ST. JULIAN-VARNON, HISTORIAN: Unfortunately, this is exactly what I thought happened as soon as I saw the footage of her being detained in the airport. Signing document, I wonder if they were in English, I thought they were in Russian and they were.
In Russian law, she should have had access to a translator. But in Russian law, the criminal code doesn`t say you have access to a translator at the point in which you`re being detained. But you should have access to a translator.
But Google translate, as a trained Russian, Google translators not a good tool for translating everything, particularly sensitive documents like legal documents. So I don`t know if this is just the case of Russia being petty. We don`t necessarily know if they were trained English picking translator on hand in Moscow, at the airport, so you kind of had that either or situation but Russia definitely took advantage of the situation that Griner (INAUDIBLE) was asked to sign the documents.
HASAN: So, with the U.S. now offering a notorious arms dealer in order to bring Griner in wheeler back to the U.S., is this case playing out as you expect it? What kind of dangerous precedent could cut a potential prisoner swap should Russia attempted other prisoner swap in the future?
ST. JULIAN-VARNON: This is playing out pretty much how I thought it would, because Brittney Griner such a huge celebrity, she had so much pull, it makes them -- it makes sense Russia would try to get the biggest way they can and that`s going to be Viktor Bout.
[21:40:01]
They`ve been telegraphing for months that they wanted him exchange for an American. This is all the case when Paul Whelan was arrested four years ago, and Trevor Reed. This was long-standing.
On the other hand, the Biden administration needs to think about is the precedent. This has been for a decade a fear of American policymakers, particularly in foreign policy and international relation is engaging in hostage diplomacy. We don`t want our foreign and means to think that grabbing innocent American is the best way to get what you want from the United States. It`s a very fine line that the United States has.
HASAN: Quick last question before you run out of time. Putting prisoners in cages appears to be standard practice in Russia. Can you explain the possible impact or goal of essentially putting a Black American woman on display behind bars in this way in a place like Russia?
ST. JULIAN-VARNON: I think the key image of Brittney Griner behind bars is that no one, including any famous Americans above the law in Russia. I think the key is that Russia demands its law be respected. And they`re using Britain as an example that no one is above Russian law, not own -- not even a famous American.
HASAN: Kimberly St. Julian-Varnon, PhD student in History in University of Pennsylvania, thank you so much for your analysis, I appreciate it.
ST. JULIAN-VARNON: Thank you.
HASAN: So, as if the Trump brand wasn`t controversial enough, it`s wreaking in what critics say is blood money. That story straight ahead. Don`t go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:46:08]
HASAN: When it comes to America`s relationship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, there are depressingly just two basic approaches from the people in power. One is been friendly with Saudi Arabia to further our own national interest, even when it creates pretty awful optics. Take for example, President Biden`s visit to Saudi Arabia couple of weeks ago, during his Middle East trip. Biden was criticized widely for fist bumping the Saudi crown prince, the man who essentially runs the government that Biden promised to make a pariah, the man who according to U.S. intel ordered the killing of U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi.
But in the end, maybe Biden thought the bad PR was worth it, if Americans get lower prices at the pump, thanks to him getting along with the Saudis.
Then there is approach number two, which is also about being friendly with the Saudis, but in a brazen,, moral self interested way. That`s former President Donald Trump`s way, and his approach number to the prompts an ad like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My two brothers were murdered on 9/11.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I loathe every single day without my brother.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: FBI files show that the Saudi government was involved.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This golf tournament is taking place 50 miles from ground zero.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s disgusting.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Worse than a slap in the face.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are taking money from an evil regime.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: These are 3,000 Americans that were killed, on American soil.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How much money to turn your back on your own country?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: $200 million, sure.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ll forget about their atrocities.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`ll never forget, I`ll never forgive the golfers for taking this blood money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: That was an ad by a 9/11 advocacy group, taken issue with the fact of this weekend, President Trump`s -- former President Trump`s Bedminster golf course in New Jersey, we`ll host the latest event in the LIV golf series this Saturday. LIV Golf is a golf tour financed by Saudi Arabia. It`s called LIV, because LIV is roman numeral for 54, which is the number of holes play at each event.
Trump told "The Wall Street Journal" this week, quote, I think LIV has been a great thing for Saudi Arabia, for the image of Saudi Arabia. I think will be an incredible investment from that standpoint, that`s more valuable than a lot of things, because you can`t buy that even with billion of dollars.
As for any human rights concern about Saudi Arabia that might dampen this weekend`s festivities, like the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. I typically tone-deaf Trump said that that`s not a concern, quote: I can say that from the standpoint of Khashoggi, that has died down so much. It really seems to have totally died down. Nobody has asked me that question in months.
Besides the murder of a journalist working for an American newspaper, there`s the additional concern about Saudi Arabia`s connection to the 9/11 attack on the United States, 15 of the 19 hijackers responsible for the terror that they were Saudi citizens. Addressing those specifics concerns, Trump said, quote: I don`t know much about the 9/11 families, I don`t know the relationship to this, and a very strong feelings, I understand our feelings, I can`t really comment on that, because I don`t know exactly what they`re saying. And what they`re saying, who did what.
Forgive me, it`s always difficult to read a Trump quote on screen.
As I said, for Donald Trump, human rights taking back seat to making money, him making money. His quote, incredible investment.
On Friday, families of 9/11 victims hand planned to hold a rally at the Bedminster golf course just ahead of the tournament. They want to draw attention to the kingdom`s connection to 9/11, and called the former president, and all the golfers participating in the tournament for taking what they call blood money.
Joining us now is Brett Eagleson, founder of 9/11 Justice. His father Bruce died in the south tower on September 11th.
Brett, thank you for being. Here we`re so sorry for your loss on that tragic day.
You told "Politico", Brett, that is representative for Trump personally called you a few days ago in response to a letter that 9/11 sent to him relaying the groups, quote, deep pain and anger over Trump`s decision to host these LIV events at his golf course.
[21:50:05]
The representative said, quote, 9/11 is dear to him. It`s so important to him, he`s going to remember everyone who signed the letter, and he personally told this individual to reach out.
What was your reaction to that?
BRETT EAGLESON, 9/11 JUSTICE FOUNDER: Well, first of, all I got that Trump call on a Saturday. On Monday, he told the Wall Street Journal, and I`m just going to go back to what you just said a few minutes ago, during the, setup he told "The Wall Street Journal" he had no idea what the 9/11 families talking about. He understands, us but it doesn`t understand us. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn`t.
I`m baffled by his explanation. Because on Saturday, the aide told me the former president specifically told him to call us because he had received a letter. And within our letter, we laid out all of our points. We laid out the facts that we now have declassified FBI documents, thanks to the Biden presidential executive order, these documents which show far more than 15 to 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens. I want to be able to get past that point.
In the media, all we hear is 15 -- we now have evidence from our own FBI that there were at least a dozen Saudi officials here in the United States supporting the hijackers. It is the FBI`s own words, a sworn affidavit from FBI members, Stephen -- not from the Saudi support network, in the United States, before 9/11. 9/11 would`ve had as their percent chance of success.
It is so much more than 15 -- and the other thing I want to say is that, but 9/11 commission ended in 2004. We talk about documents from 2014, `15, `16, `17. As far as I`m concerned, we were ruling 9/11 commission null and void.
HASAN: Brett, what`s so ironic as I remember Donald Trump during the 2016 -- saying he wanted to open up the documents, you`ll hear about the Saudis. He also said Saudis by apartments in my buildings I like them.
If Donald Trump called you up tonight after the show and said the Saudis are my friends, this spending money, why should my host them? What would you say to him?
EAGLESON: Well, something tells me he`s not watching a show tonight. But I wish she was. And I wish he could hear me because his aides certainly wasn`t hearing me.
The crazy thing is, as crazy as it is, we`re talking about a former president of the United States, one of the most powerful men in the world. In 2016, he accurately said, you know what, the Saudis did to 9/11. And open up the documents. We will show you the Saudis did 9/11.
In 2019, I met with President Trump. I met with him with my mother and 11 other family members. He looked us in the eye and he said he was going to help us. He was going to declassify the documents. We were pleading with him on 9/11. He shook our hands and said, don`t worry, help is coming, we`re going to declassify the document.
Less than 24 hours later, he invoked state secrets on us. He brought a nuclear weapon to a fistfight between us and the DOJ. We now know that he did that to protect the Saudis. The president can`t have it both ways. He can`t have it both ways. Because he knew exactly what the Saudis did.
HASAN: Sadly, Brett, you know the first person he looked in the eyes and lie to. We will have to leave it there. Brett Eagleson, founder of 9/11 Justice, I should point out, Brett`s father Bruce was a hero 9/11, who stayed back in the South Tower to help others evacuate. Thank you so much for your time. Sorry for your loss.
EAGLESON: Okay, thank you.
HASAN: Thank you, Brett.
Far-right leader Viktor Orban is drawing condemnation from even his staunchest supporters after seeing Europeans should not become peoples of mixed race. But he`s still being welcomed by Republicans at a major event in this country, in Texas. That`s next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:58:22]
HASAN: If you know one thing about Hungary`s far-right leader, Prime Minister Viktor Orban and when you stands for it`s probably the idea of white replacement, white European Christian are endangered replaced in their own countries by migrants from non-white, non-Christian countries. It`s the kind of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic that Orban has been demagoguing about for years.
But this past weekend, something about how he talked about it seemed to cross into line for some. In a speech to the Hungarian expats in Romania, Orban said that was okay for Europeans to mix with each other, it`s not okay for them to mix with non Europeans. According to a translation of his speech, Hungarians are willing to mix with one of the other, but we do not want to become people of mixed race.
After he said, one of the members of his inner circle, someone who supporter him for 20 years had enough. Her longtime adviser published her resignation in a Hungarian news outlet yesterday.
This is part of it, translated into English, quote, I don`t know how you didn`t notice that you are presenting a pure Nazi text worthy of Goebbels.
So, Viktor Orban has gone too far for one of his top advisors, you know who doesn`t think he`s gone too far? The conservative base of the Republican Party, because Orban is still scheduled to speak next week at CPAC in Dallas, Texas. And you can imagine that hosting a speaker who is publicly against mixed race societies, might be kind of problematic for CPAC, but you be wrong.
Here`s how Matt Schlapp, who chairs CPAC, responded this week, according to Bloomberg. Quote: Let`s listen to the man speak, we`ll see what he, says and if people have a disagreement with something he says, they should raise it.
Sorry, when you invite a fascist who says racist things to your conference, maybe you should do more than just raise it with him, maybe you should oppose it, and oppose him. Maybe that`s just me. Maybe the modern American conservative movement is just okay with fascism and racism.
That does it for us tonight. We`ll see you again tomorrow.
Now it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL".
Good evening, Lawrence.