“Trump’s escalating calls for revenge”

That's pure automotive joy.

I'm Peter, the owner of Muscle Car Junior.

It started as a hobby, then I started posting about it.

Before I knew it, I built a business for storing muscle cars on Facebook Marketplace, and

the community of car lovers on Instagram.

Today, new customers send me what's that message is from all over.

Not bad for a hobby.

How Meta helps over 35 million American businesses, like Peter's Grow, at Meta.com-slash-community.

Try angel stop for your touchy, it's made by angels, soft and strong budget friendly.

The choice is simple.

Pick up a pack today, angel stop.

Soft and strong, simple.

Judges around the country work very hard.

To get it right, and if they don't, their opinions are subject to criticism, but personally

directed hostility is dangerous, and it's got to stop.

Hi, everyone.

It's five o'clock here in New York.

I'm Alicia Menendez in for Nicole Wallace, with an unprecedented level of attacks against

judges all across the country.

Donald Trump is choosing to escalate his calls for revenge against those that rule against

him.

Here is what he said last night.

The time has also come for Republicans to pass a tough new crime bill that imposes harsh

penalties for dangerous repeat offenders, cracks down on road judges.

We got road judges that are criminals, they're criminals, what they do to our country,

the decisions that they hand down and hurt our country, and I could tell you something

I've gone through it, and the decisions that these people make.

I got a decision on tariffs that's going to cost our country, not me.

These new demands for a legal crackdown on sitting judges comes against this dangerous

environment they are now working in.

ABC News reporting the quote, there has been an increasing number of threats against federal

judges in recent years, according to data maintained by the US Marshal Service.

There have been 314 investigations involving 202 judges since October at the agency says.

But apparently Trump's revenge campaign comes above the safety of the judges and the rule

of law itself.

It's not the only way the administration is going after the people that hold Trump accountable.

This retribution campaign against one of his perceived political enemies is also plowing

ahead.

My colleague, Ron Hillier reports the quote, after the Department of Justice failed to convict

New York Attorney General, Leticia James on charges of mortgage fraud last year, the Trump

administration's federal housing chief, Bill Pulti, has filed a new criminal referral to

the department.

This time, asking prosecutors to investigate James for insurance fraud, according to criminal

referrals obtained by MSNOW.

He sent the two criminal referrals to two Trump-nominated US attorneys, Jason Redding

Kinyonis of the Southern District of Florida, and Andrew Boutros of the Northern District

of Illinois.

The referrals claim James made misrepresentations in home insurance filings in Florida and

Illinois respectively, but how two properties associated with her would be used.

James's lawyer Abby Lollblast of the attempts to revive the Trump administration's targeting

of the New York AG, telling MSNOW in a statement, quote, frustrated by repeated failures

were judges and grand juries have rejected their attempts to charge Attorney General James.

Trump and his political and ablers keep abusing their power to pursue a vendetta against her.

These desperate tactics will fail just as every previous attempt has failed, and exposes

an administration that has abandoned its responsibility to the American people in favor of petty political

payback.

That is where we start this hour, New York Times Justice Department reporter Glenn Thrushes

here, also with us, US former US Attorney and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Harry Lipman, and former Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Mary McCord.

Okay, Mary, let's take this conversation in two pieces and let's begin with the threat

that Donald Trump is making there this idea of legislation that would criminalize judges

who do their job.

Am I understanding that correctly?

That's what it sounded like, and good luck with that, because not only do I think Congress

wouldn't go for it, but the Supreme Court and all the courts below wouldn't go for something.

I mean, the judiciary is its own equal branch of the US government.

It has the responsibility, right, for saying what the law is.

That is what the Supreme Court decided 100, you know, well more than 100 years ago in

Marbury versus Madison, and judges cannot be criminally penalized for doing their job.

You know, there are other political processes that can be taken with respect to judges,

but again, only for misconduct and ruling against the president is not misconduct.

It is just doing their job.

But perhaps even more importantly than this ridiculous suggestion of criminalizing judges

based on their opinions is what this is doing to inject an atmosphere of, you know,

a threatening atmosphere against judges.

These are the dog whistles that we've seen from Donald Trump's first administration.

We're seeing them even on steroids in his second administration is listen to my words

about, you know, who I am vilifying and expecting that people will take action.

And they will take action because we've seen it before.

You know, I'm glad the Chief Justice is speaking out, but this isn't just about the judiciary.

People and your opening, you know, has suggested it, people across the country elected officials,

people running for election, election officials, protesters, you know, people exercising constitutional

rights are vilified by the president every day.

And that results in threats to them and their families and real world impacts on them.

Harry, to illustrate this threat environment, I want you to take a listen to what one federal judge

said a few weeks ago about the threats he faced after ruling against the Trump administration

on birthright citizenship.

Some of them are very, very ugly and very threatening.

Death threats?

Oh, yes.

Oh, yes, dozens of them, dozens if not hundreds.

I've been at this for 44 years.

I have never encountered the hostility towards a judiciary that has existed in this country

in the last year.

And I don't think it's because we're making bad decisions.

I think it's because there are people who think that they can make a lot of political hay out

of criticizing federal judiciary.

And then Harry, you have the president of the United States saying that Congress should step in

and legislate this?

Yes.

Yeah, so look, 300 threats, by the way, is a stunning number.

But beyond that, Trump's tirade here is not only, as Mary says, legally bankrupt,

but it's also completely empty and completely dangerous.

It's empty because if you look at it, there's not a single word about the law.

The whole notion is they disagreed with me, therefore they are rogue criminals and hurt the

country. And it's dangerous for the reasons you say.

And we heard the Chief Justice say it, that is in the tonal register of a Chief Justice.

So it's kind of muted.

It is for him like a bullhorn at top volume and then saying it has to stop.

That is from the Chief Justice as strong and strong in a warning as you can give.

And yet probably it falls on deaf ears.

We know it does in the White House and Trump, given that he doubled down just last night.

Well, Glenn, I take both Harry and Mary's point that you shouldn't give too much credence

to stupid, but let's just entertain the hypothetical of a law like this being passed that

criminalizes judges doing their job. What does that then do to the relationship between

the Justice Department and the judiciary?

Well, it's not going to, it's not, you know, it's like three for three.

This is not going to happen.

Look, I love the term that Harry used, tonal register, which is an interesting turn of phrase.

I just, the circumspection that the Chief Justice had in terms of him saying these things

needs to be contrasted with Trump's bombast. And at some point in time, and I'm talking to you,

United States Congress, some of these senators and representatives who very well know

A, that such a law would be on Constitution, never vote on it.

And B, don't appreciate this kind of talk because in so many instances, the federal

judiciary has been ruling in Trump's favor. They don't like this, but you know, Trump is able

to speak as if there is only one branch of government and only one article in the Constitution,

because the legislative branch principally has not pushed back on that. You see a little bit

of this happening. Senator Kennedy is somebody who's spoken out against the Senator Tillis is

another one principally because he's not running for re-election. But until the tonal register,

of Republicans rises to rival what Trump's tonal register is, this is just going to keep happening.

And I want to throw in one other point here about personal safety. This is an administration

that began by removing, as we recall, the security details of Joe Biden's family and of other

officials, including John Bolton, who was getting a lot of threats from potential Iranian sources.

While themselves speaking passionately about the threats that they face, you know, I reported

a couple of weeks ago, Pam Bondi has moved from her apartment onto a military base in the DC area,

a couple of her senior aides have done so as well, joining other senior administration officials

who believe that they are being threatened. So there's very clearly a double standard in the way

that this administration is handling credible threats to officials and judges.

Okay, so we've talked about the president's idea that he's workshopping about the possibility

of going after judges. Let's talk about the way in which he is now going after one of his perceived

political enemies. I wonder, Mary, what you make of the fact that they are taking another run at

his chains? Well, I mean, I don't know how far along it is. We certainly know that this is what

Mr. Pulti wants and he probably does things and we have seen him do things, you know, directly to

try to serve the president. This seems to be just like sort of a repackaged version of Mr. Pulti's

previous accusations that did result, of course, in Trump's hand picked and from US Attorney

Lindsay Halligan somehow getting an indictment, which after it was dismissed, no other prosecutor was

able to replicate twice a grand jury denied inditing to James on bank fraud that seemed to be based

very closely to the same things that Mr. Pulti is suggesting should be the basis for insurance fraud.

fraud. This is a, this is an administration that doesn't want to give up, doesn't want to realize

what they have is just not good enough. And even if it was, even if there was some new information,

the directed retribution, the retaliation, the going after a person and not after a crime and

digging and digging and digging to see if they could find something to possibly make a crime.

I mean, that just shows the vindictive nature of this and even if there is any success in getting

a grand jury to actually return any indictment, you know, yet for another try, I think we will

expect to see motions to dismiss based on vindictive and selective prosecution.

Let's talk, Harry, about where they are choosing to do this in Florida and Illinois. One of the

referrals was sent to Jason Redding, Ken Jonas, the US Attorney in the Southern District of Florida.

As you know, he has already shown his willingness to target Trump's perceived enemies,

leading that grand conspiracy investigation that's a peanut combi earlier this month.

In this specific way, they do know what they are doing and who is most likely to be sympathetic

to carrying their water. They know who is most likely to be sympathetic there. Alicia, but that

means bringing charges that they know have no purchase. So as Mary said, not only was the first

one dismissed, but two other efforts. I've never seen that happen before, but you would think

three strikes and you're out. But the bedrock rule is, do you have a case? And this isn't simply

similar to the mortgage fraud allegations that they couldn't make happen in the Eastern

the identical facts just with putting scratching out mortgage and putting insurance.

Nor have they changed the theory in the different times, which of course you would do when a

grand jury rejects it. So the fundamental corruption here is trying to bring cases. And as you say,

Ken Jonas in particular, he's Mr. Grand Conspiracy, a term by the way that doesn't exist in general

law. They're just making it up. But to try to just have another forum to do what they couldn't do

three times before with no effort to, in any way, augment the case. It's not there and that

itself is a grave miscarriage of justice, trying to make a case that they know doesn't hunt.

Grand Conspiracy may not exist, Harry Limon, in federal law, but it certainly exists in the

drags of the internet Glenn Thrush, which is where that all came from. I mean, listen, in the case

of AG James, we all know this is about the process and the pain that comes with the process and the

time that comes with the process and the money that comes with the process. And while everything

else may not be real and may not be true, that remains real. That remains true. That is the

effect and reality of his retribution campaign. Your sense, Glenn, based on your reporting on where

we are in the escalation ladder when it comes to this DOJ being willing to target those who the

president identifies as his political enemies. We're in a really weird liminal period here because

it seemed like things were gaining some traction, middle ladder part of last year, but the wheels

are coming off the bus a little bit. This is a Justice Department that is really weighed down by

this Jeffrey Epstein files fiasco. And a lot of the energy that we're going into these selective

prosecutions that Trump was ordering up like Ubers last year, they've fizzled out and they're having

a lot of trouble finding assistant US attorneys to even bring any of these cases. So while this is

still an enormously alarming set of circumstances, I think it is important to understand the degree of

just fundamental dysfunction in the in the department right now. You have some of the senior leadership

with the department from Pam Bondy on down. Janine Piro in DC, you have Harmi Dillon, head of the Civil

Rights Division, doing direct to camera pleas for law school graduates to come work for them. We've

reported about the labor shortage in the US attorney's office, not surprisingly good lawyers and

even young lawyers don't want to come work for the Justice Department. That has become a profound

problem. So I think while we're seeing a lot of these fireworks, and again, I've said this from

the beginning, it's difficult to discern the fireworks from the artillery. And for period of time,

particularly late last year and in the summer, it seemed like it was artillery. It's seeming at the

moment like it's fireworks. Can Jonas essentially was placed in that position with the assistance of

Mike Davis, who's this right wing provocateur who's in Trump's, Trump's year. And one last thing at

one point I want to make is we got a housing crisis in this country. I covered housing for 20 years,

low income housing in New York and other places. What is Bill Pultie doing about the housing crisis?

The J is supposed to be doing that. Why is he spending his time on the Justice Department's front

lawn? When one of the big issues in the midterm elections is affordability,

particularly at time when interest rates are rising over the last couple of weeks.

And young families can't afford even cheap parental housing.

I know you mean it as a rhetorical question, but it is the problem with this administration top to

bottom, which is an actual lack of attention to the very things that they ran on a disinterest in

this question of affordability and an absolute obsession marry with going after their enemy.

So I just want to throw into the dysfunction that I think blended a very good job of articulating

over at DOJ, the fact that somewhere in that dysfunction, they have found time, this is according

to the New York Times, they're agreeing to pay Michael T. Flynn, President Trump's former national

security adviser, $1.25 million to settle claims that he was wrongfully prosecuted for making false

statements to federal agents investigating ties between Russia and Mr. Trump's 2016 presidential

campaign. So just an absolute obsession with punishing enemies and what would seem like a

rewarding of allies. It certainly does seem like a rewarding of allies. And remember,

Michael Flynn had pleaded guilty to this offense. And the judge who was hearing his case, his

then civil case after Donald Trump then are actually after William Barr, then the Attorney General

came and directed the Department of Justice to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn after

he had pleaded guilty. That case was dismissed. Donald Trump pardoned him. He filed a civil case

seeking damages. That case was dismissed. The government was winning against Michael Flynn's efforts

to get money for a righteous case that he had pleaded guilty to. And now in the midst of having

had the case dismissed, Michael Flynn refiling an amended complaint, we have this settlement and

this payoff. And remember, this is when we've had payoffs to Ashley Babitz family after she was

killed very unfortunately during January 6th riot where she was trying to go through a window to

get to where the senators and representatives were. We have Donald Trump himself with civil

litigation against the Department for over $200 million. We have members of the oath keepers and

crowdboys who are talking about and some have filed a civil litigation seeking massive amounts

of compensation. Is this the beginning of sort of paying off those who are friendly to this

president because you know the message is clear here, right? If you cross him, you will be

pounded and prosecuted even for things that don't make a standard of prosecution. And if you

subjugate yourself, you will be rewarded. It is impossible not to see that.

Mary McCord, Glenn Thrush, Harry Lippman, thank you all so much for getting us started.

When we return a mysterious flurry of activity in stock trades and prediction markets,

sometimes just minutes before Donald Trump makes surprise policy announcements. That's potentially

making a very select group of insiders a whole lot of money. What Democrats on Capitol Hill are

doing to try to put a stop to it, that's next. Also ahead, Donald Trump's absurd excuse for why he

cast a mail in valid in that state legislature race in Florida. You know, the one that saw a Democrat

win right in Trump's backyard, even as he rails against mail and voting for everyone else.

Deadline White House continues after quick break. Stay with us.

In 2024, a truck crashed into Cannot Animal Rescue, where I work. 146 of our dogs needed homes

fast. We asked for help on Facebook. Our story spread through WhatsApp messages and Instagram

reposts. Immediately, people stepped up. And just six hours later, every dog was fostered.

I'll never forget how our community showed up for us.

Learn how over 3.5 billion people connect to what matters with meta at meta.com slash community.

Here's a shift worth noting. Better health care is care that meets patients where they are.

United Health Group is bringing it directly to living rooms. This is a win for patients managing

chronic conditions. And here's the interesting thing. By closing those care gaps, administering

in-home exams and identifying risks earlier, more diseases can be prevented and patient outcomes

can improve. In 2025 alone, United Health Group patients received over 19 million home visits.

Learn more at unitedhealthgroup.com slash commitment.

If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success,

then IXL is a right for your family. As an effective and affordable online learning program,

IXL 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 IXL membership when they

sign up today at IXL.com slash 20. Visit IXL.com slash 20 to get the most effective learning program out

there at the best price. There's now an alarming pattern of well-time trades and bets made just

moments, sometimes minutes before major policy announcements from Donald Trump. It's prompting

speculation about possibly insiders being tipped off on everything from tariffs to war and getting

enormous payouts in the process. A few examples, as the Wall Street Journal explains,

before Trump ordered the US military to proceed with its operation to capture a Venezuelan leader

Nicolas Maduro in late December and early January, a mystery trader placed about $34,000 on

Venezuela-related bets, mainly on contracts that would pay off if Maduro lost power by the end

of January. The final wager was placed less than an hour before Trump's order. And last month,

after US and Israeli forces began to strike Iran, an analytics firm said a group of, quote,

suspected insiders made $1.2 million. Most of the accounts had bet on a strike by February 28th,

which turned out to be the exact date of the operation. And most recently, on Monday,

a mysterious flurry of trading activity in oil and S&P 500 futures, about 15 minutes before Trump

de-escalated tensions with Iran with a Monday morning post on Truth Social. And while there's no

evidence that this means insiders are being tipped off, the Wall Street Journal says,

quote, still, some market veterans believe news is trickling out from Trump's orbit ahead of

these official announcements. Senator Chris Murphy responded to one report about a massive $1.5

billion oil stock trade just five minutes before Trump's post this week. Quote, who was it?

Trump, family member, White House staffer, quote, this is corruption, mind-blowing corruption.

Let's bring in Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat from Oregon. He is introducing new legislation today

that would ban prediction market bets on elections and government action. Senator, thank you for

being here. Do you agree with your colleague that this is corruption? Oh, absolutely. This is not

just where there's smoke, there's fire. Like, the fire is so obvious that people are getting

information right before critical decisions or actions are taken. Talk to me about the legislation

that you're introducing today. Yes, this legislation says, in part, you shouldn't be voting or it

shouldn't be betting on elections because that's very corrupt because people can place huge amounts

through the dark money on campaigns to change the outcome of elections at the last minutes. So that's

that's an unacceptable marketplace that that diminishes the integrity of our elections. It says

that you can't place a bet on either military or government decisions because there are inherently

there's so many people involved in those decisions. Those places where you are playing a

placing a wager and there is a ratio on how much you'll receive based on how other people are

betting. The insiders are going to win every single time. So it's a it's a it's a corrupt setting

and it's a place where where people in government or their friends or their family are going to

place these bets because they have that information. They can't resist temptation. They can place

those bets with crypto and which makes it hugely anonymous. So so they feel the odds of ever getting

caught are very low. The legislation that you're introducing today, you had introduced legislation

earlier in the in the month that would specifically ban elected officials from using these prediction

markets. I mean theoretically that should be a layup when you talk with your I know when you

talk with your Republican colleagues about that. Do you do you sense hesitation resistance?

Yes I sure do detect reservations or hesitation. You know over a decade ago I started

campaigning to end stock trading by members because it's inherently corrupt. We know

in information the public doesn't have but you can't prove insider trading so people are making

trades all the time or it's also influencing that they're stock holdings or influencing what

they're going to do. It's the same thing with prediction mark. I mean think of prediction markets

is a massive casino where you can bet on anything. Well that's a problem and certain areas

should be off limits and that's what this bill does but my earlier bill was focused directly on

members of Congress not being able to place these bets. I think folks understand the corruption

and folks who are able to to benefit financially from placing these bets with insider information

but speak to me about what you see as the consequence of just anyone being able to bet on

something as sensitive as as military strikes or Congress passing a bill. I mean what is the

sociological effect of such an action? Well let's step back and think about the arena where this

is happening. It's a commodity futures trading commission. That was all about being able to

essentially arrange beforehand to sell or buy commodities at price. Think of park bellies.

Think of wheat. Think of aluminum. Think of oil. Those are commodities. These are not commodities.

So this is an enormous loophole that creates gambling on everything and with huge amounts of

potential insider information flowing in ways that can never be detected. But it also can corrupt

the process because say there are huge bets placed. Well let's say on whether or not the US

will restore oil to Cuba and somebody says hey now that I've got millions of dollars hanging

on this I'm going to use my influence to try to make sure the government acts to fulfill my side

of that bet. So that's another form of corruption where pressure can be brought to bear on officials

and then you have the other side where people are using insider information. So both directions

no integrity shouldn't happen. We should put those off limits. In the case of both pieces of

legislation, the legislation that is aimed at members of Congress, the legislation that is more

broad on this question of just fundamentally what folks should be able to place wagers on,

they're they're perspective. It's about what could happen in the future. I think there's still

the alarming reality here that it would seem there is insider information regardless of who that

insider information went to. Do you think it makes sense for Congress to use their oversight power

to really get to the bottom of how this information is being shared with whom it's being shared

and how it is then making its way to these markets? Oh absolutely that's a key function of Congress

is oversight of the executive and it's a key function that's been absolutely missing. We have a

rubber stamp Congress and they're both the House and the Senate. They have no interest in investigating

these types of corrupt actions because anything associated with Trump, they are just saying we will

let Trump be as corrupt as he wants, no oversight. And so that's that's where we stand. Congress

is filling that mission. Senator Jeff Merkley sir thank you so much for spending some time with

us today. Thank you. When we return how gullible does Donald Trump think we really are,

his excuse for why he voted by mail after years of railing against it, it defies all logic,

we're going to have that after short break.

Instagram Tina counts automatic protections for teens. Instagram Tina counts have built in

content settings now inspired by 13 plus movie ratings and limits for who can contact teens.

Plus teens under 16 can't change these default safety settings without parental approval.

So parents can help teens connect safely. Instagram Tina counts automatic protections for who can

contact teens and the content they can see. Learn more at Instagram.com and slash Tina counts.

Now finding a doctor is a little less challenging. United Health Group is investing in tools that

make it easier for patients to navigate health care and pay less. These transparency tools help

patients find providers and this is the big thing. Compare costs up front. The big picture,

more transparent pricing benefits everyone. These tools from United Health Group can help patients

save hundreds of dollars annually. Learn more at unitedhealthgroup.com slash commitment.

Donald Trump is struggling to defend his hypocrisy after casting a vote by mail in a Florida

election earlier this week. Even as he rails against mail and voting and demands the government

stay partially shut down over it. This was Trump's response when asked about his decision to vote by

mail in that Palm Beach special election on Tuesday, which you know, a Democrat won. Take a look.

Tell me about mail in balance going. You may not use the mail in balance. You probably said,

yeah, I did. You know what? Because I'm president of the United States and because of the fact that I'm

president of the United States, I did a mail in ballot for elections that took place in Florida

because I felt I should be here instead of being in the beautiful sunshine taking.

You were on Palm Beach sir the last few weekends. That's right. And yeah. And I decided that I was

going to vote by mail in ballot because I couldn't be there because I had a lot of different things.

But you know, we have exceptions for mail in balance. You do know that, right? So if you're away,

you have an exception. If you're in the military, we have an exception. If you're in a business trip,

we have an exception. If you're disabled, we have an exception. And if you're ill, if you're not

feeling good. So I was away mostly in Washington DC, so I used a mail in bail.

We thought this story was so outrageous. We needed to bring back voting rights attorney and

founder of Democracy Dock and Mark Elias. Also with us, New York Times reporter Nick Karsante,

he covers voting and elections. All right. Mark, I know we just talked about the GOP efforts

to undermine election integrity, but this was just too outrageous to not bring back to you.

One, talk to me about the rationale being I'm the president of the United States. And two,

his lack of understanding about how these exceptions would work under his own legislation.

I mean, it's just a stone-cold liar. I mean, it's time we stop acting like what he's saying is

making any sense. He starts by your right just saying, I'm president of the United States,

and therefore I get to do what I want, which by the way echoes in a lot of other settings where he

has said when you are someone like him, you get to do whatever you want. So that's part one of his

answer. Kudos to him at least for being honest there and making sense. But then when he's

confronted by the reporter who says, but you were in, you've been in Florida, he just starts

spewing a bunch of nonsense. I mean, the fact is he was not ill. He was not disabled. He was not

in the military and he was not unavailable. He was apparently in Florida, so he could have voted

by mail. And as far as those exceptions, you know, he keeps mouthing these words. But, you know,

what we know is that there's no meat on the bones because Republicans in the Senate think that what

he's proposing is political toxicity and death. And so they're not even putting forward, you know,

this for a vote. We're stuck now in the second week of, you know, temper tantrum by the Republicans,

led by Mike Lee. And in the meantime, you know, the airports remain un-staffed. And the

Senate remains in session not doing the business of the American people.

Nick talked to me about, I mean, the hypocrisy to the point that Marx made more, I think we're

all accustomed to it. But the timing of this, right, as he's trying to strong arm the GOP into

agreeing to keep the government partially shut down over the Save Act is part of why this is in

such sharp focus. Yeah, and I think it's important to remember we've actually been here before.

If you go back to the 2020 election, you know, Trump was rallying against mail voting then. He

was saying it was corrupt. This was when it was really becoming the providence of Democrats, you

know, voting by mail had long been something that Republicans relied on. It was a very efficient way

to get older or rural voters out to the polls. People who had to drive a half hour no longer had to.

So, you know, Republicans were able to take control of Florida in large part due to vote by mail.

Georgia, when Republicans took power in 2005, one of the first things they did was pass a no

excuse voting by mail law. So, this was once Republicans. Now, the 2020 election in the pandemic,

when Democrats embraced voting by mail, really flipped it on its head. And that's when President

Trump really got loud criticizing it. Now, in that 2020 election, he cast a vote by mail. And

not only did he cast a vote by mail, he used a process that he's been calling illegal for a while,

you know, having a third party return it. That was at least according to the to the Palm Beach

election officials back then. So, we've been here before. And it's not necessarily surprising that

this is something that the president himself has used in the past and sometimes prefers to,

given its convenience, it's just the laws and the rhetoric that come out of him are certainly

different. Mark, you reported that a Trump ally, save act advocate, Congressman Chip Roy,

was caught on tape admitting that one of the criticisms of the save act actually happened

to one of his staffers. Take a look.

When Chief of Staff had to go get a new ID in Virginia, Virginia has adopted the real ID system.

So, she had to go through a bunch of hoops. She's going to have to go back to DMV twice

because they want the paperwork for it. That's just part of the issue with how we try to set up

the ability to identify people. But there's no barriers at all to married women being able to vote.

It's not internally consistent, but just give me a second because two months later Roy said this,

perhaps the most absurd narrative peddled from the left, including twice-failed presidential

candidate Hillary Clinton, is that the save act will somehow disenfranchise married women or

anyone else who has changed his or her name for voting in federal elections. Nothing could be

further from the truth. Sir, you just said the truth yourself. I mean, they know how bad this is,

Mark, they just don't care.

I think you put your finger on it right there. They don't care. From their standpoint,

if some women don't get to vote, no problem. They're not overly concerned about the disenfranchisement

of married women or, for that matter, women in general because they figure, you know what,

more women vote Democratic than vote Republican. And therefore, if that has to be the way it is,

then that's the way it is. As he said, his chief of staff had to go back. I think he said a

couple of times, a couple of times, not once, but a couple of times in order to just sort out

the differences that women who changed their last name as a result of marriage have to do.

And, and sure, it's not a big deal to him. And it doesn't affect people. It affects women.

And so that's why he's so quick to dismiss it and just say, you know, let's not talk about it too much.

I want to zone in, Nick, on some of the reporting that you've been doing about states working to

counter attacks on mail-in voting, including the potential Supreme Court ruling that would limit

how late ballots can be received. You right? 18 top election officials in states and territories

across the country are bracing for the possibility that the Supreme Court will require major changes

to election law just months before the midterm election in November. Part of the urgency,

getting the message out to voters that late arriving ballots may no longer be counted.

Such a decision could affect hundreds of thousands of voters. Voters are human.

And we know that one top, one message doesn't get through, said Kathy Bookvar,

the former top election official in Pennsylvania. And it might take seven or ten,

or 15 times with a voter hearing something to fully understand the changes.

You know, in the early part of my career, I did a lot of voter engagement rock the vote,

Democratic USA. This is hard work. It requires going door-to-door. It means a lot of

peer-to-peer contact. How much harder do these state election officials believe it could be

as soon as this midterm election? Well, there's so much going on right now, right? There's a war

in Iraq. There is economic distress. There's inflation. There's gas prices soaring.

There's so much that's affecting their day-to-day lives. There are minute to minute concerns

that one of the last things that's going to be on their mind now in March is voting and

changes to voting rules. So even if it's on the front pages of New York Times, it's leading

on MSNOW. It's not something that's registering with voters yet. We're still so far away.

So when this decision comes by the Supreme Court or whenever laws are passed in Congress that

could change voting rules in the middle of an election, it's almost guaranteed that some voters

are going to be left in the large. No matter how hard these election officials try to message

to them. There's just more things going on. And as former Secretary Bookvar told me,

voters are used to what they did last. If you give them the box, they're going to fill it out

the same way they did. So if laws are changed, there's always going to be mistakes. We can just

look at a recent election. In Texas, just a few weeks ago, there was a primary election. And in Dallas,

there was a change in the way that precincts were assigned due to the county Republican party not

wanting to have joint primaries. Now, there was about a six-week runway. Both parties, election

officials were trying to get the word out. They were putting it on social media, really doing

their best to educate voters. Still, on election day, there were hundreds of voters who were confused,

who missed their opportunity to cast a ballot, all due to recent law changes. So what's going to

be really hard for election officials is if some of these major changes, especially the potential

Supreme Court decision to not allow lateriving ballots, where to arrive, to have voters understand

that is just such a tall task. Thank you so much for that example, because it is a great reminder

that none of this is theoretical. And it's not something that is going to just happen in the future.

It is something that is happening right now. All right, no one's going anywhere. I got to sneak

in a quick break. We're going to be right back. We are back with Mark Elias and Nick Korsanti.

I am curious about the fact that the president of the United States shows not to attend CPAC

Mark Elias, but I am also even more curious about the fact that a DOJ official Todd Blanche

did choose to attend, and that in his remarks at CPAC, he seemed to endorse the president's idea

of having ICE agents show up at polling places. What does that tell you about how far they are

going to normalize this idea? So they've normalized it. I mean, at least from their standpoint,

they have. We've seen the same progression here that we see on a whole host of issues with Donald

Trump. First, he tells a bit of a lie, and it's kind of easy to dismiss because it doesn't seem

more than important. Then people around him deny, deny, deny, and then eventually they're like,

oh, yes, well, of course, that's the truth. And you're kind of left being like, wait a second,

how did we get here? And so originally, there's no reason why we would send ICE to the polls,

we have no plans to send ICE to the polls. And now it's like, well, what's wrong with sending ICE

to the polls? And you're right. It's coming not from someone who is a political operative in the

White House. It's not coming from someone like Steve Bannon, who, by the way, predicted this,

like he actually said this on his podcast weeks ago. But it's coming from one of the top DOJ

officials. I mean, talk about normalizing. I mean, we used to say that no one at the Department of

Justice could attend a reception if it had a partisan veneer to it. When Bill Clinton ran

across Loretta Lynch on the tarmac when he was no longer the president and exchanged pleasantries,

that was treated as a potential scandal. And now we have the White House dictating who gets

currently prosecuted. We have the people at the senior members of the Department of Justice

giving political, you know, going to CPAC, you know, political events to give speeches about

deploying federal agents at the polling places. And, you know, to the last story you covered about,

about, you know, the mail in ballots. I mean, I'm not giving up hope that we're going to win this

case in the US Supreme Court. But let's not forget, you know, it's not all up to the voters.

It's not all up to the election officials. I mean, does anyone think Donald Trump's not going

to slow down the mail? I mean, you could tell voters, you know, your ballot has to be in by election

day. But that's not up to the voter. I mean, the voter still just puts it in the mailbox.

I mean, Lord Knowser Republicans have been banning ballot drop boxes that would do away with the

problem. What's the stop Donald Trump from just saying, you know what, the mail, no more first class

mail treatment for ballots, no more free postage for ballots, no more election mail at all going

through the mail. And so, so, you know, I hope this Supreme Court is listening to this and

recognizes that that what's at stake here is not, you know, whether it's one date or another

date and and some voter education. This is a different kettle of fish. This is a weaponization

of government against voting from top to bottom. And nothing is off the table when it comes to Donald

Trump. Merkel, I thank you so much for coming back, Nick Corsoniti. I've been saying your last name

wrong my entire life. Thank you so much for being with us. I appreciate your time. I'm going to take

another quick break. We'll be right back.

Reminder this week's guests on the best people podcasts is none other than the journalists who

has been at the forefront of covering the Epstein story for years. Miami Herald investigative reporter

Julie Kay Brown. Listen to what she told Nicole about why the release of the Epstein files is

such a game changer. Sometimes people have this distrust of journalists and or anybody even on

these public platforms. You can actually go in and you can look at these files and that is huge

because the public can see with their own eyes and they're looking at these files and they are

saying, oh my god, they're seeing this stuff themselves. So I think that that is huge because it's

no longer being filtered that anybody can go in there really. And you know, it is a lot of work

to sort through them like looking for a needle in haystacks sometimes. But you could put Trump's name

in there and you can just look and see what comes up and you can get lost in them. But I do think

that it is a good thing. Listen to Nicole's entire conversation with Julie Kay Brown. Just scan

the QR code on your screen or download the best people wherever you get your podcasts.

You're going to take another break. We'll be right back.

Thank you for spending part of this Thursday with us. I'm going to be back in one hour alongside

Michael Steele and Simone Sanders Townsend for the weeknight.