Trump's AG pick rescinds controversial "slush fund"

0:00Hello, I'm Ozempic. And I'm other GLP ones, kind of like him. Are you shaking a maraca? No, I'm shaking the pill version of Ozempic, which no one should ever do except in ads like this. A nice disclaimer. Hey, thanks. Ask your doctor about which FDA-approved uses of the Ozempic pen or pill may be right for you. Call 1-833-OZEMPIC or visit Ozempic.com to view the medication guide and learn more about Ozempic semaglutide tablets, 9mg, and Ozempic semaglutide injection, 2mg. There's a pill version of Ozempic! For me, being a part of this place has always been about the people, not about the politics.

0:35From the field to the studio, Jacob is finding the heart of the story. Connect with Jacob Soboroff. Weekends at 10 a.m. Eastern on MS Now.

0:48Welcome to The Beat. I'm Melissa Murray in for Ari Melber. Donald Trump's attorney general nominee, Todd Blanche, has now said he has officially rescinded Trump's controversial slush fund. The move seems designed to placate GOP Senators John Cornyn and Tom Tillis, who said they would not vote to confirm Blanche without written assurances that the fund was dead. Now, with these assurances duly issued, the committee vote to advance Todd Blanche's nomination to the full Senate will happen tomorrow. Now, what exactly were these assurances that got Blanche's nomination back on track? Blanche released a pair of written statements.

1:29The first statement, which was a signed memorandum from Blanche, reassured Republican holdouts Cornyn and Tillis that the$1.8 billion so-called weaponization fund will not go forward. The other statement, which was unsigned and issued by the Justice Department, clarifies the limits of Trump's immunity deal with the IRS. Cornyn and Tillis released a joint statement, saying in part, We are pleased that the Department of Justice has issued a formal order terminating the Anti-Weaponization Fund, addressing concerns that multiple of our Republican colleagues share. But they may have spoken too soon.

2:11The New York Times is now reporting that these statements issued are full of, quote, loopholes. According to the Times, quote, the original terms of the documents creating the fund said it may be modified only with the written agreement of the parties. A reference to Donald Trump, his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., the Trump Organization, and specific government agencies. Mr. Blanche's orders, however, is a government document signed only by him. The apparent deal between Blanche, Cornyn, and Tillis comes just hours after the president doubled down on the fund, telling reporters on Air Force One that he'd be open to bringing it back.

2:57Take a listen. This would be a reimbursement for the pain that they suffer. A lot of people like it. If they don't approve Todd, I'd put it back on the tape. A lot of people like it. A lot of big supporters of Trump like it. And just hours ago, Trump was asked about the deal that Blanche had struck. And he made it clear that he didn't know what exactly Todd Blanche had agreed to. Listen up. Mr. President, did you sign on the one Todd Blanche? I didn't look at it. All I know is that Todd Blanche is great. He's going to do a great job. Everybody knows it. And I understand there's been a sign off, but I don't know what they agreed.

3:41I think Todd Blanchett agreed to reconfirm things that he's already said. And what he said was OK. Well, Blanchett had previously and infamously refused to say that he would put the end of the fund in writing. Take a listen. But we are not moving forward with the fund, period. Not moving forward ever. Correct. Notwithstanding what we do in those litigations and defending our rights and making sure our rights are protected, we're not moving forward with the fund.

4:15Every time he was asked about formally killing the fund, Todd Blanche hedged. And that frustrated Cornyn and Tillis. But now they are prepared to take Todd Blanche at his word and vote to advance his nomination to the full Senate. All of this despite the fact that all along, the Justice Department, before and during Todd Blanche's stint as acting attorney general, has been quietly making payouts to Trump allies. There have been millions of dollars in settlements that were paid to an anti-abortion activist convicted of violating the federal law that protects patient access to clinics, payouts to former Trump administration and campaign officials, as well as payouts to the family of January 6 rioter Ashley Babbitt.

5:03To be very clear, these payouts occurred outside of the$1.8 billion fund that Todd Blanch has now agreed to end. All of this suggests that his DOJ may be prepared to continue using taxpayer money to compensate the president's allies, even without the formal framework of the Anti-Weaponization Fund. Joining me now to break it all down is Maya Wiley, former SDNY civil prosecutor and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Also with us is David Litt, former Obama speechwriter, author of The Word Salad Substack, and a best-selling author. So, Maya, I'll start with you. What is your reaction to the senators who were so upset about the fund now being okay with these assurances that the fund is dead, dead, dead?

5:57Well, I will say I am sadly unsurprised because having sat in a hearing room for some of Todd Blanche's nomination hearing, it was very clear they were looking, particularly Senator Tillis, was looking for the way out. Because remember, these are senators that at one time had said, in writing means legislation from Congress so that the executive branch just can't reignite a weaponization fund, not to mention whatever's happening with Trump and his family having immunity forever and ever and ever. So I say this because what should be shocking to all of us is that what is in writing is nothing short of Todd Blanche's commitment on an implementing document, not on something that says the parties to the settlement have now relinquished whatever their rights might be to claim breach of contract.

6:48I only say that we don't know what will happen, but Donald Trump hasn't signed a thing. Congress hasn't signed a thing. And to your point, the settlements can roll on. All right. So let's leave aside the question of whether or not these are legally binding documents. David, what do you make of the fact that Tillis and Cornyn, both of whom have nothing to lose, they are not coming back to the Senate. They have, again, nothing to do with this president going forward. Why won't they stand firm on this and truly end the fund in real terms? Well, let me start by saying I feel like I'm here with two very accomplished lawyers.

7:22I am not a lawyer. So, you know, I have thoughts about like analogies and prepositions and stuff. But I will also say I do have familiarity as a human being who has done embarrassing things from time to time. And Tom Tillis and John Cornyn should be deeply embarrassed about this. I mean, Trump saw through these two people. I mean, he saw through a lot of people in the Republican Party. But I think one of the things that he understood well before other Republican senators or congressmembers understood it was the combination that these senators, they're extreme, but they're also weak. They were supposed to, as you said, have nothing to lose.

7:57Trump ended their political careers. This was their chance to get some revenge, to put one over on him. And the best they could do is a basically meaningless stuff. These are not Virgos. I do. I'm a Virgo. So I don't know what that means. So is it good to be a Virgo or bad? We are a very vengeful people. Agreed. Yes, absolutely. Well, I'm a Capricorn. I don't know where that fits in here. But I will say this. It's worse than that because it wasn't just about vengeance. They actually believed what they were saying when they said it was bad. when they said we should not have it, when Congress should act and prevent any sitting president from doing what Senator Tillis himself this weekend called the payout pot for punks.

8:38That wasn't soft talk. That was what he meant. What he what he caved on and what Cornyn caved on were their actual principles. That's worse. So under prior questioning by Senator John Cornyn, Todd Klan actually admitted that Trump could try and enforce the terms of this settlement. So let's take a listen to that. You said that the weaponization fund is a moot issue. Is that your position? Yes, it is a moot issue. I suppose if President Trump's counsel sought to enforce it, they potentially could. Including the weaponization fund? Well, they could try to enforce the contract. Maya, you're a lawyer.

9:24Does this document that Todd Blanche issued change anything about the possibility of the president resurrecting this fund in some way? Are these legally binding promises or are there loopholes here that will allow this to come back well after Todd Blanche has gotten what he wanted? Well, as I said, it's an implementing order. What that means is he's like, I'm not going to do this. So what does that have to do with a settlement that he entered into and with the parties themselves, including Donald Trump, not having said, we agree? And plus, he's the president of the United States. What we've already seen in the settlements themselves become a back door to making sure they can pay people.

10:12So there are a lot of interesting things here. So one, these are settlements between the various agencies and these different principles, the Trump and the Trump, Donald Trump himself, the Trump sons, and then the Trump organization. And none of these people have had anything to say about this, quote unquote, implementing document. Going back to the whole question of this being a settlement, this was actually coming from a lawsuit. Is there any legal recourse here that the court could take or that any of the people involved here in the legal challenge could bring? Well, look, we already have a very angry judge.

10:44Yes. In this case, because the judge already said, I think this is sanctionable. We had 38 former judges say this smells and there should be disciplinary action potentially taken here. This is one of the reasons why some of us have also argued that Todd Blanche is unfit to actually serve as the nation's top lawyer. But I say that because, yes, I mean, we could see a continuation of a judge saying, first of all, this was this was something that did not fall within the realm of something the court would have approved in terms of jettisoning the cases in the first place. But look, this is all unknown territory because none of this is normal.

11:23And I think the most important thing to say, this is so abnormal that every American should be deeply concerned and upset that this is supposed to be the department of the people and it's now just the department of just Trump. So, David, to that point, is there any evidence that this is registering with ordinary Americans, that this is a fund that could be resurrected at any time? It's really at the pleasure of the president, at the pleasure of the attorney general, who seems to be the president's personal lawyer in much of this. Do people care that their tax dollars are being used in this way?

11:56I think people care at a moment when it seems like every day there are 20 Watergate level scandals and even J.D. Vance is out there saying, oh, Watergate would be fine now. Sometimes things do break through. And this broke through when it first was announced. And it's one of the reasons. I mean, it's nice to think that, you know, everybody stuck to their guns and was deeply principled to say we don't want this. I think the reason or a big reason they didn't want it was that they got caught and that they realized that particularly at a moment, by the way, when Americans are struggling to buy groceries, Americans are wondering what's going to happen to their energy bills.

12:30You know, every time we do something new and stupid in Iran, fuel costs go up, gas goes up. And so what is the president focused on? He's focused on spending$1.8 billion of your tax money, money you earned, to a bunch of insurrectionists because they supported him. That is not very hard to message. And I think to your point, I don't remember every word in the alliteration filled quote from Tom Tillis. But you could tell that when he was saying that he felt really good, he was like, oh, this is what it feels like to be making a point that people agree with. And now he's kind of shrinking away from that.

13:03Are more people in Congress going to take up this banner line? Again, this is a winning message if you can make the case to the American people. Are the Democrats going to follow this up? Is this going to be a talking point in the midterms? or is this over the heads of most voters? I think it's broader than that. It depends, right? If they do decide to try to do some backdoor way of reinstituting this specific fund, then it's an issue. But more than that, it's this question of who is Donald Trump waking up every day and thinking about? Is he thinking about you and your costs in your life? Or is he thinking about himself and his friends and his cronies?

13:35And this is just another clear answer to that question. All right, Maya and David, stay with me. The DOJ is also targeting another journalist. We will be back with that story in just 90 seconds.

14:11We now pivot to another attack on the free press by the Trump administration. We are just learning about another DOJ subpoena, this time issued to a New York Times freelance journalist in an effort to force him to reveal his sources for an article about a failed top-secret mission in North Korea. The Times details that FBI agents showed up at the reporter's home in February to deliver this subpoena. The subpoena, which until this week had been undisclosed, sought testimony regarding information about the journalist's contacts and his conversations with his sources over a two-year period. The Times also notes that this subpoena reflects the administration's, quote, intensifying campaign to investigate leaks of government secrets by pressuring reporters to divulge their sources.

15:06Now, while the U.S. government has previously subpoenaed news organizations, as The Time observes here, quote, until Trump began his second term, federal subpoenas to reporters were exceedingly rare. The DOJ has declined to comment on this specific investigation. A spokesperson for The Times called the subpoena, quote, Another brazen and illegal attack from the administration designed to deny the public information of vital importance. All of this comes shortly after Trump's DOJ was forced to admit legal errors and to withdraw subpoenas that it had previously issued to three New York Times reporters.

15:49In June, the administration also withdrew similar subpoenas that it had issued to Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporters. Even with many of these subpoenas dropped, these unorthodox moves by the Trump DOJ may actually have a chilling effect on the free press. Maya Wiley and David Litt are back with me. Maya, what is your reaction to this latest subpoena? That the subpoena is the point. The intimidation is the point. Yeah. I mean, look, do I know all the facts underneath whatever this investigation is? No. What little I have read suggests that it's a news story from 2019, something that has to do from not only a current national security issue, but also from an administration that has gone after journalists and news outlets repeatedly.

16:40And the fact that they were beaten back in that last round, which we discussed at the time, what we're also seeing constantly, whether it's law firms, whether it's higher education, whether it's civil rights organizations, is they just keep coming back because the threat is the point. The costs are the point. The intimidation is the point. And that is very dangerous for all of us. So, David, to that point, this obviously has some kind of chilling effect. And it may actually chill dissent, chill investigation, chill the press as an accountability institution. And in fact, the Society of Professional Journalists put out a statement that calls on Congress to, quote, strengthen protection for journalists against compelled disclosure of confidential sources and to reaffirm that protecting confidential sources is essential to a free press.

17:33Will congressional legislation be the most effective path forward to ensuring freedom of the press? It's a pretty sad state of affairs that we've reached that point where we have to say things like, can we have laws to clarify what everybody thought that we already knew? Thought we had a constitution. Yeah. And can we just can we can we get that in writing as we've talked about again? But ideally, like, could Congress say that? But what's interesting is this has not historically been a partisan issue. Whistleblowers reveal embarrassing stuff often about the executive branch when Republicans are in charge, but also when Democrats are in charge.

18:03And so historically, there has been I mean, one of the most famous cases involving the government subpoenaing a reporter was a Fox News reporter. Right. So this is not something that should or in the past has been partisan. And maybe, you know, I don't think now, but maybe in some hypothetical, slightly better timeline that we may end up living in someday, we could see legislators of both parties come together and try to reaffirm some of this. Well, it's the overall strategy here, David, not simply to chill dissent and to hobble the press as a means of accountability for this administration. Is it also perhaps an opportunity to discredit the press in the eyes of the public?

18:42I think it's possible, but I also think it's possible we're giving the Trump administration too much credit. They are doing a lot, but it's not clear that there's an enormously well thought out strategy. I mean, I think, strangely, the thing that we're seeing this most clearly in is Iran, because it's just now become both a quagmire and a metaphor for so many other things. And, you know, I don't know if you all saw this, but there was like an email that went around where somebody in the military was like, hey, anyone got some good ideas for Iran? And I think that's kind of the approach. Crowdsourcing.

19:13Yeah. And I'm, you know, I love sending out a good email for lots of people and getting some thoughts. But that does seem to be the approach they're taking with lots of perceived enemies. So, Maya, the Times is providing legal defense for this freelance journalist, and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, whose reporters were also subpoenaed, obviously have the resources to mount considerable defenses on behalf of their employees. What does this mean, though, for smaller outfits, the local press, independent journalists? Are they going to be able to weather these kinds of blows? And is that the point?

19:46Like, these are opening salvos, but it's really meant to chill the little guy. Well, this is really what we should be concerned about, because I agree with David. We don't really know how thought out it is. But we do know it is a play from a playbook for people in power in other countries who also have shown a path to how you hold on to power undemocratically. I mean, so this is something where if you go and we've seen this pattern, we saw this pattern with law firms. We saw this patterns with universities where the administration starts with the big dogs, starts with the big one. Paul Weiss is a law firm that it began with or Harvard as a university.

20:26And it does tell all the others, if you don't have the resources and if you're unprepared for the attack and can't and don't have the deep pockets, maybe you have to start self-censoring. So, David, is there anything that the Democrats can do, the Democrats in Congress? Is there oversight potentially here if they win control of the House? Can they bring the DOJ in and figure out what's going on? Because this is unorthodox. They never used to subpoena reporters directly. They'd subpoena the news organization, but not the reporters. Is this different? So I do think that if Democrats win back Congress, they're going to have a lot to do oversight of.

21:00There's going to be any number of questions they can ask. But this kind of thing, and in particular to say, is the Department of Justice following its own rules and guidelines? And again, I am now way out over my skis. I'm not an expert in how the Department of Justice operates. But the Department of Justice still has some rules, even though it seems like it doesn't. And figuring out what were those conversations, who overruled whom, those are the kinds of things that, number one, can uncover really important truths that have legal implications. But also they can they have their own effect on people of saying we don't want to be embarrassed.

21:31We don't want people to know what we're up to. Right. Also purging, purging the Department of Justice from the true civil servants. All right. Maya Wiley and David Litt, thanks for getting us started tonight. Coming up, amid the Iran war, the conservative Wall Street Journal rips into Trump's, quote, signals of weakness. Also, why experts are comparing Trump's plummeting political fortunes to Richard Nixon's in the midst of Watergate. And Democratic Senator Angela Alsobrooks will be here to talk about the midterms. All of that plus a major bank cites money laundering concerns in a lawsuit with the Trump Organization.

22:15That's after the break.

22:21Can I just quickly say hello to you? For me, being a part of this place has always been about the people, not about the politics. Why are you holding this sign? You ever been to a protest before? Be safe. People that we cover who allow us to enter their lives. How's everybody doing? Everybody doing okay? How long has it been in line? I love human beings. To spend time connecting with them is the biggest blessing that I could ask for. From the field to the studio, Jacob is finding the heart of the story. Connect with Jacob Soboroff, weekends at 10 a.m. Eastern on MSNOW.

22:56Tonight, we have new, stunning details that reveal that a major U.S. bank believed that the Trump Organization was potentially linked to money laundering. Capital One stated in a court filing that it shut down hundreds of bank accounts that were associated with the Trump Organization in 2021. all over concerns that the accounts were perhaps being used to launder money. The bank says that the decision followed, quote, months of analysis and a careful review by its financial crimes team, and it noted that the members of that team had, quote, decades of law enforcement experience. The Trump Organization argues that its accounts were shut down in retaliation for the January 6th Capitol riot.

23:46All of this comes as Trump continues to find new ways to profit from the presidency. Trump's social media site, Truth Social, is now officially selling early access to the president's posts, a move that critics say could allow subscribers opportunities to profit from the president's U.S. policy announcements. And then, of course, there is the ring. You can see it there on your screen. It's a gold ring with over 300 diamonds that a Belgian diamond trade group gifted to the president just weeks after diamonds were exempted from the Trump tariffs. The ring was unveiled at a big celebration in Brussels, and Donald Trump even sent a video message conveying his thanks.

24:37Take a listen. A very special thank you to my friends from Antwerp for the magnificent Freedom 250 Ring. The ring has two diamond-encrusted T's and the numbers 45 and 47, obviously references to the president's two terms in office. The White House insists that there are no conflicts between Trump's businesses and his current presidential administration. Joining me now to discuss all of this is Ambassador Norm Eisen, former ethics counsel in the Obama White House and now executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund. Norm, let's start with Capital One. What is your reaction to this major bank shutting down the government organization bank accounts over fears of money laundering?

25:28Well, it's little surprise, given what we've seen during the Trump administration, that reputable banking organizations would think twice about doing business with the president and his family. This is an individual who was convicted of 34 felonies for hush money payments in the campaign context and relating to activity in 2016. And the wholesale merchandising of the presidency reeks of corruption. it's a systemic risk. And so I'm not surprised that financial institutions hesitate or think there are badges of possible money laundering. Well, speaking of the wholesale merchandising of the presidency, let's talk about the Belgian diamond ring.