Updated
Summary
Special Master Dearie orders Trump lawyers to prove claims that the FBI “planted” evidence at Mar-a-Lago. Meantime, some GOP Senators reject Trump`s claim that a president can declassify documents just by “thinking about it.” The January 6th committee prepares to interview Ginni Thomas. Plus, a shocking fleecing of America.
Transcript
STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC ANCHOR: Trump`s argument, it`s up to you to prove he`s not lying. Plus, the fleecing of America. Billions of tax dollars meant to help poor people and to feed children squandered on luxury cars and real estate, staggering fraud and scandal as THE 11TH HOUR gets underway on this Thursday night.
Good evening. Once again, I`m Stephanie Ruhle. Donald Trump getting hammered again. His latest legal dilemma comes just one day after a resounding defeat in federal appeals court over the classified records that were seized at Mar-a-Lago and after New York`s Attorney General filed a massive lawsuit against him.
Today, Trump`s lawyers heard from Raymond Dearie, he is the special master reviewing classified documents taken from the former guy`s Florida club. Judge Dearie demanded the lawyers offer actual proof for Trump`s repeated claim that the FBI planted evidence during their search. Dearie also wants the legal team to formally state whether they believe the FBI lied about the documents that were seized.
And Dearie goes on to say he might ask for testimony about the search and the documents from quote, witnesses with knowledge of the relevant facts. One more sign that the special master he means business. He is pushing for another judge to help review the thousands of items that were found in Trump`s home.
The former president has claimed he declassified sensitive records that he took from the White House by just thinking about it. Last night, he told Sean Hannity that he is able to do that just by thinking apparently, that was news to some Senate Republicans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): I think there`s a process for declassifying documents. And I think it ought to be adhered to and followed. And I think that should apply to anybody who has access to or deals with classified information.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I believe, as I understand the executive branch requirements, there is a process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: That process is more than just a thought. And today, the New York Times weighed in with their version of our facts sake writing this, the 2009 executive order directs the head of the department or agency that originally deemed information classified to oversee declassification reviews. The executive branch has regulations, laying out the process that should be followed.
While all of this is going on, the January 6 Committee is busy preparing for its upcoming interview with conservative activist Ginni Thomas, who, of course, is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Tonight, the panel`s chairman explained why they are eager to hear from her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): For the committee, we think because she was involved in helping organize and promote January 6, and individuals coming to the Capitol.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Could we possibly expect pieces of her testimony to be referenced or mentioned in next week`s hearing or?
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (R-MD): It`s possible, but we haven`t made any final determinations yet, but I have no doubt that she will be a significant part of the report and I hope that at least some of what we got from her will end up in this hearing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: So sit back, get a drink and let`s get smarter with the help of our leadoff panel. We`ve got a lot to get to. Jeff Mason, White House correspondent for Reuters. Katie Benner, Pulitzer Prize winning Justice Department reporter for the New York Times, and Professor Melissa Murray of NYU Law School. She was a law clerk for Sonia Sotomayor on the federal bench before her nomination to the Supreme Court.
Melissa, we have got to start with this special master. This situation might not be working out the way Trump expected. Is that surprising to you?
MELISSA MURRAY, NYU LAW PROFESSOR: I`m not surprised, Judge Dearie has a very strong reputation in New York. He was on the Eastern District of New York for many years. And he`s known as a straight shooter. I think I said on your show earlier, that I was actually surprised that he was one of the names that was floated by the Trump team for the position as special master. He seemed to kind of play it down the middle kind of person and wasn`t exactly what I was expecting from them.
But I think it`s we can see now, why the Justice Department was quick to take them up on this offer. I mean, he`s really made it clear that they either have to put up or they have to shut up, but they can`t keep making these claims without actually providing evidence to back them up.
RUHLE: Melissa, does it feel like he`s almost doing his own investigation here, beyond just reviewing the documents?
MURRAY: I mean, a document review is in some nature investigatory because you have to actually go through and determine what is or what is not privileged and to sort through it. So there is a investigative function to it.
But it seems like he`s what he`s actually doing is maybe doing some of the work that Judge Cannon might have done in that initial ruling is sort of trying to figure out what needs to go to the Department of Justice and what can be returned or what stays with the president or the former president rather and what keeps go and what gets returned to the government itself.
[23:05:10]
So to that end, it seems like he`s stepping in to fill a void that`s been there for some time.
RUHLE: That`s not good for Trump. Is it possible for Trump to back out of this, he`s the one that wanted the special master.
MURRAY: I don`t know if you can unring this bell. But I mean, I think if there are bills to be unrung, there have been quite a lot of bells peeling for the Trump team over the last 24 hours. This has really been Donald Trump`s no good, very bad, terrible day all in retrospect. So lots to go here. Lots to see.
RUHLE: Well, the 11th Circuit decision yesterday, it was a huge win for the Justice Department. Katie, so tell us where the case stands now.
KATIE BENNER, THE NEW YORK TIMES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REPORTER: So for the Justice Department, they can now see look at significant documents. They can go forward with the part of their investigation that they think is most important. Keep in mind, the justice department wanted to know, just a couple of things going into this matter before it became a huge court battle.
Did Donald Trump have records that belong to the U.S. government? Were some of those records classified? And then was there any sort of harm done to U.S. national security interests to have that classified information out in the wild?
In addition, they wanted to know whether or not Trump`s legal team was completely forthcoming when asked whether or not the President still had records at Mar-a-Lago. So we know from what`s out there in the public already, the Justice Department has reason to believe that no, Trump`s lawyers were not forthcoming, and that there were presidential records that should have been returned to the government. And there was a ton of classified information.
So in order to determine exactly how damaging all of that is, they need to be able to look at the records that the 11th Circuit just said they could look at, it`s going to help them go further with their investigation and take further investigative steps, including using the documents themselves to ask more questions, potentially, of other witnesses and other people.
RUHLE: Jeff, we heard from just two Republican senators today pretty clearly breaking with Trump on the whole, I can declassify by just thinking about it explanation. But what about the rest of the GOP? It was clear what Trump is saying is absolute nonsense.
JEFF MASON, REUTERS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, what about the rest of the GOP? That`s a question that has been asked for years, really, based on the multiple types of assertions that President Trump has made that have been outlandish. This was just the latest one, and the two that were the clips were played. How do you not distance yourself from that? I think that`s a question that Republican leaders are absolutely confronted with in this particular case.
I also think more broadly, Steph, it`s interesting this discussion about the special master and the athlete (ph) put up or shut up moment. It is — it is a — from a macro level, an example of something that the President – – the former president has been asked to do or forced to do on multiple different occasions. And in this case, he has to do it by the person who his team had supported.
After his allegations that the election was fraudulent, he was asked to prove it. They went to court a zillion times and weren`t able to prove it because it was a false allegation. Right now, there, again, they`re dropping things or he`s dropping comments saying, suggesting that maybe the FBI planted evidence. Well, now he`s being called out on it. And we`ll see if they say anything, but as you said in your intro, so far, nothing.
RUHLE: Melissa, that`s a former federal prosecutor last night on this show, told us that the New York AG`s case against Trump is currently civil, but it should be a criminal case. Do you agree with that?
MURRAY: Well, Attorney General James did note in her complaint that there was evidence that criminal laws had been broken, which begs the question why she didn`t continue with a criminal prosecution. Why this is a civil prosecutor, why this is a civil case. And I think the reason for that is primarily it comes down to the question of the burden of proof in a criminal case, it is much harder for the government, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a quite high standard.
In a civil case, it is a preponderance of evidence — of the evidence. So a much lower standard much easier for the government to prove. Obviously, it doesn`t come with any incarceration or penalties like that. But it does come with significant penalties like the discouragement of the ill-gotten profits, as well as the possibility that the Trump team will be forbidden from doing business in the new in New York State and in from holding offices, like corporate board positions in New York state, so it`s quite sizable, and it seems like it`s an easier way for the government to go if they want to hold the Trump team accountable.
RUHLE: Alvin Bragg of the Manhattan DA seems to now be saying his investigation is ongoing. Can you clear that up? Because the last we checked, it wasn`t and a few people had resigned in the DA`s office when he announced months ago that they weren`t pursuing criminal investigation?
[23:10:07]
MURRAY: Well, there did seem to be some major defections in the Manhattan DA`s office around this, in part because there seemed to be a reluctance to go forward with the prosecution. But we really don`t know what`s been going on in the Manhattan DA`s office, whether or not they`ve actually continued this investigation. And whether they have more information.
We know that these two investigations by the AG and the Manhattan DA were running in parallel, and it`s likely that they were sharing information with each other. Now that the — now the AG`s investigation seems to have borne fruit and has resulted in this lawsuit filed against the Trump Organization, it`s likely that some of the evidence that was supporting that particular complaint might now be used with the Manhattan DA.
So, we just really don`t know what`s been going on behind the scenes. But yes, so a few months ago, it seemed like this was DOA, but now it seems to have been resuscitated.
RUHLE: Katie, the January 6 Committee is planning to talk to Ginni Thomas, how big a deal, is it? Yes, they`re going to talk to her, but we have no idea what she`s going to say.
BENNER: So pulling back, it`s a big deal, because they`re questioning the wife of the Supreme Court justice. And it`s the kind of thing that people just didn`t think was going to happen, particularly with Liz Cheney, in such a position of power. She was reluctant to do so. And here she is doing it.
But I mean, in terms of whether or not this is going to be a big deal for the investigation and for the public. That`s to be seen. It depends on what questions are asked, and what Ginni Thomas said. So I don`t think that we can say this is some sort of knockout punch for the committee because we just don`t know what kind of information will yield.
RUHLE: There`s another story that we`re following tonight conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. He is also under scrutiny from the January 6 Committee. He testified today in the defamation Connecticut trial over his Sandy Hook hoax lies. And Rehema Ellis has more on this story.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
ALEX JONES, CONSPIRACY THEORIST: I`ve already apologized to the parents. I don`t apologize to you. I don`t apologize to you.
REHEMA ELLIS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): Alex Jones in a heated exchange with the attorney for the family suing him in a defamation trial. After he challenged Jones to admit the pain he caused.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have families in his courtroom here that lost children, sisters, wives.
JONES: I legitimately thought it might have been staged. And I stand by that I don`t apologize for it.
ELLIS: Earlier in the day, Jones was challenged during direct examination about whether he was using the trial as a marketing tool.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ever since this trial started. And you`ve been — you`ve been calling it a kangaroo court yourself. Right?
JONES: Yes. Right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you`ve called this judge a tyrant, correct?
JONES: Yes.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
RUHLE: So he`s done apologizing. He`s almost using his time to create an infomercial. Melissa, how is this even a defense in that courtroom are parents of children that were murdered in Connecticut?
MURRAY: I think one thing to recognize here, Stephanie, is in contrast to the judgment that against Alex Jones in Texas, the any judgment that would be leveled here in Connecticut would not be kept on the punitive damages wouldn`t be kept.
So this has the potential to absolutely bankrupt Alex Jones and his organization. I think one of the things we`re seeing here with this grandstanding, perhaps could be a mechanism of garnering public support from his many followers to fund his defense at this point, because there`s really I think, if the jury returns and this verdict is allowed to stand, and there`s going to be sizable damages levied, he has the potential to be completely financially bankrupted by this. And so perhaps this is part of a scheme to deal with that going forward.
RUHLE: OK, scheme being the underlying word here, Jeff, he`s almost putting on a show they`re. Given that, are these cases against him as vile as they are going to do anything to stop him? He was putting on a show.
MASON: Clearly, and that`s — that seems to be his MO. It was on his shows, and it was in the courtroom, it was theater for him. And I suspect that`s the type of reaction that his supporters or his listeners and viewers are eager to see. And that`s what he was presenting.
But taking another sort of macro level view or stand back view at this, it`s just — it`s kind of incredible to even be reporting on something like this after Sandy Hook. I remember traveling with then-President Obama to the funeral service or not the funeral service, but a memorial service for the people, the children, people who were killed in that horrible, horrible shooting. This is not a debate about gun control, upon which the two political sides in this country have a big debate.
This is a debate about something isn`t that I hesitate to even use that word. This is a man who lied and brought pain on the families who lost their children and is now facing consequences for it. And so is it theater? Is it political theater? Will it change anything? I don`t know the answer to that but he`s facing consequences and they might be very, very expensive ones.
[23:15:07]
RUHLE: He pushes lies and conspiracy theories and only makes him more brazen, because he doesn`t face consequences for it. And that takes us back to Donald Trump and actually a moment in a debate when he was facing off against Hillary Clinton. And I want to share that moment, watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Maybe he doesn`t want the American people all of you watching tonight, to know that he`s paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody`s ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license. And they showed he didn`t pay any federal income tax. So if he`s paid —
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: That makes me smart.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: So Katie, obviously different from Alex Jones, but similar and that just gets up there as brazen as brazen can be and people allow it. Can we ever expect accountability for — from someone who`s openly talking about skirting the law and doing it with pride?
BENNER: Will people allow it certainly his supporters allow it and it`s really difficult for the court of public opinion, to hold people accountable for saying things that are not true on the internet and in public.
Now, keep in mind, though, that the President`s statements are starting to put, for example, tremendous amounts of pressure on his current legal team, as he goes out and publicly says things like he could have declassified documents, but nobody`s really sure. Somebody will have to be accountable to that statement. And we`re already seeing the courts ask whether or not it can be proven to be true.
You know, the President is making statements about the Justice Department, about prosecutors, and we will see again, whether or not those statements come back to haunt him.
But I think the bigger question is, what does accountability mean, for Donald Trump or for anyone and Alex Jones too, you know, there`s one school of thought says that accountability for somebody like Donald Trump is really only if he goes to prison. You know, despite all the things that we know about prosecutions, what are the statutes? What is the evidence? Could it hold up in a court of law, but there are some people who believe that`s the only version of accountability they`ll accept.
But what is accountability? What about the enormous financial pressure that he faces because of his behavior, because of the statements he may or may not have made that are false, in public over in, you know, in previous years, is that accountability? Is accountability the inability for him to win in the primary because people are tired of him?
You know, so I think that we have to start considering what it looks like and what the public believes accountability looks like for Donald Trump based on the statements he`s made now and in the past and the behavior that he`s exhibited, now and in the past and what we think will be fair, and just.
RUHLE: And tonight secret word is accountability by Katie Benner. Jeff Mason, Katie Benner, Melissa Murray, thank you all so much for starting us off this evening.
When we come back could Trump`s argument that maybe the banks, maybe they should have known better did that hold up? It is the soundbite from Trump`s oddball interview that should be getting a lot more attention. What did he actually admit? That`s next.
And Lindsey Graham still pushing a nationwide abortion ban even after fellow Republicans started groaning about his plan. And later, fraud, massive fraud on two fronts. Dozens are accused of stealing COVID money meant for children and a guilty plea in a scandal linked to footballs. Brett Favre. THE 11TH HOUR just getting underway on a Thursday night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:23:05]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have a disclaimer right on the front. And it basically says you know get your own people, the you`re at your own risk. This was done by management. It wasn`t done by — it was done by management. So don`t rely on the statement that you`re getting. And it`s and by the way, it goes on for like a page and a half. It`s a very big disclaimer. It`s a very powerful disclaimer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Don`t rely on the statement that I signed off on that is from. That is the same Fox News interview where the former guy talked about mentally declassifying documents, but maybe this right there is what we really should be talking about more. Instead of denying allegations in the Leticia James lawsuit, Trump`s just blaming the banks for not catching him in his big fat lies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: By the way that got paid back. So you know, I never got a default note. I paid them back because we have a lot of cash. I paid them back. I paid many of them off. I have very little debt unbelievably little bit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: We didn`t know what little means. But we do know when he left office, he owed hundreds of millions of dollars. Joining me is David Enrich, Business Investigations Editor for The New York Times. He wrote the new book “Servants of the Damned: Giant Law Firms, Donald Trump and the Corruption of Justice.”
David, that`s not the only book you wrote. You wrote one specifically on Deutsche Bank, Donald Trump`s biggest lender. What do you think about this argument that he`s saying they should have known better? He shouldn`t have lied, but they should have known better? It`s why the majority of banks wouldn`t do business with him because they knew he was lying about his assets. And Deutsche Bank also knew it.
DAVID ENRICH, THE NEW YORK TIMES BUSINESS INVESTIGATIONS EDITOR: Yes, I mean, frankly, there`s some truth to that argument. Right. And Deutsche Bank should have known better. Trump prior to Deutsche Bank making hundreds of millions of dollars of loans to Trump in starting around 2011-2012, Trump had repeatedly defaulted on previous loans to Deutsche Bank.
[23:25:03]
So the notion that Deutsche Bank was going into this blind, and was not skeptical at all about Trump`s finances is just not true. And I think that, frankly, is one of the weaknesses probably in the Attorney General`s suit against Trump. I mean, Deutsche Bank executives I`ve spoken to said that they recognize that Trump was inflating the values of his assets, and they wrote it down, deliberately tried to be more conservative.
But what are the fascinating things to me, and I`ve spent years studying Deutsche Bank. And one of the fascinating things is reading kind of the details that are in this 200 plus page lawsuit that was filed yesterday is that there is a whole lot of granular detail that shows exactly what Trump was doing and Trump`s and Trump family members were doing as they tried to kind of turn one arm of Deutsche Bank against another trying to turn one bank against another. And they were really using the representations that were in their financial statements to try to argue not only for more money, but also for lower interest rates.
And it appears from what I`m seeing in these lawsuits, that they were very effective and that so even though Trump can argue that the banks should have known better, which is fair enough. What he can`t argue is that the banks didn`t pay attention to the financial information that he was putting forward because there`s clear records that they did.
RUHLE: You just said Trump and Trump family members. OK, that means Don, Jr, Eric, Ivanka, who were officers in this company. So when Bill Barr goes on to why are they going after the kids. These aren`t kids. They themselves were personally involved in a number of these transactions.
ENRICH: Yes, I mean, the first other grownups, right. And so if kids makes it sounds like the — project of DC she was the one who was having from what these documents in the lawsuit make it sound like was the one handling the lion`s share of the communication between the Trump Organization on the one hand and Rosemary Vrablic, who was the private banker at Deutsche Bank that was kind of the account manager.
She was directly involved. Her husband, Jared Kushner was the one who made the introduction from — of Rosemary Vrablic to the Trump family. And Don, Jr. and Eric were also involved. So this is — this was a family enterprise. There`s no question that the family was fully aware of what the patriarch was doing with kind of hyping and exaggerating his asset values in order to get more money for lower interest rates.
And I think the question, I don`t know where legally that puts either Trump or his adult children. But there`s no doubt that they were all participating in this and doing everything they could to get as much money as possible, as cheaply as possible from Deutsche Bank.
RUHLE: So no credible banks might want to lend to this guy going forward. But Trump is able to continue to fundraise. He was fundraising yesterday, off the suit from Tish James, despite the fact that there is another ongoing investigation into how he`s spending the money he`s raised from his pack.
Who are these donors? And at some point, are the donors like the banks like Dude, if you`re going to give this guy money, fire, beware, like he`s going to spend it wherever the heck he wants. You don`t care?
ENRICH: Yes, I mean, I think that`s a really good question. I don`t know the answer to that. And we`re seeing this play out in a bunch of different forums. Right. We learned that Trump has managed to repay most of what he owes Deutsche Bank by getting some other kinds of third tier lenders to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars to lend to him.
We see what he`s doing with the fundraising appeals off of this lawsuit for his PACs that are already under investigation. We`re seeing this also with the social media company that he`s tried to get off the ground where the fundraising behind that is also under investigation by government agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission.
So basically, everywhere Trump is trying to raise money, there — and this is a pattern that goes back decades. There has been kind of a trail of accusations and investigations and some pieces of wrongdoing left in his wake. And I think that spread continuing now.
RUHLE: But at the same time, people keep writing him checks, like the Saudis. All of these golf tournaments at Trump clubs in the last year has given him a ton of money. So right now, behind the scenes, given the financial pressure he`s under, do you think we`re likely to see a fire sale of his assets? I mean, he still owns a lot.
ENRICH: Yes. I don`t, I mean, I don`t know. I think that he does own a lot. And I don`t think it would have to be a fire sale. I mean, he I think he surprised me by how much he got for the luxury hotel that he developed in Washington, DC. I think a lot of his properties while maybe his brand value has been diminished by how polarizing he is. I think that underlying assets probably have a lot of value.
And look, I mean, people have underestimated Trump and myself included in the financial space over and over and over again, and I`m going to try and be cautious not to do that again. And he certainly if he needed to drum up a bunch of cash to pay lawyers or to, you know, pay back loans, I think he`ll probably be able to do so at least for now.
[23:30:02]
But you know if all these legal crises that he`s facing really come to fruition and, you know, it`s possible he could be in much more severe financial straits,
RUHLE: But as of now he is not in financial straits, nor is his daughter and son in law reminder. Jared Kushner now running billions of dollars for MBS. David Enrich, thank you so much. I appreciate you joining us.
When we come back, drama surrounding the former guy is drowning out other important political news just six weeks before voters speak out. Lindsey Graham will not stop talking about his big plan to ban abortion nationwide. When THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:15]
RUHLE: Recent polling shows that the former guy`s favorability rating remains remarkably steady. The people will like them still like him. But that is still much smaller than the number of people who do not like him. 44 percent have a favorable view with 53 percent unfavorable, and that was before Letitia James announced her lawsuit. Trump`s base may still like the guy, but he has done nothing to gain support among independents. And the Republican message on abortion is not going to help them.
With us for more, Juanita Tolliver, a veteran political strategist for progressive candidates and causes. And Susan Del Percio, MSNBC political analyst and veteran political strategist.
Susan, you have worked with Republicans for years. The latest polling was before Tish James`s lawsuits. Independents at this point are getting sicker and sicker of Donald Trump`s name in the headlines, because none of it is good news.
SUSAN DEL PERCIO, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: None of it`s good news. And that`s actually hurting other Republicans running in 2022. Donald Trump may be worried about 2024. But right now you have the Senate and the House up in just under 50 days.
And that you touched on such an important point, Stephanie, it`s those independents. It`s the independents that left Donald Trump in 2020 went to Joe Biden. And, you know, we saw the Democrats take the sweep. Right now with the issues that independents care about align with Republicans, however, all of this news with Donald Trump and all of the talk about 2020 and I think we`re going to see it heat up again with the January 6 hearings next week. That is really turning off a lot of independents to Republicans.
RUHLE: Juanita, I want to share Lindsey Graham on his proposed 15-week national abortion ban, he said this today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): What I`m trying to say is if you`re pro-life, you need to be pro-life even in an election year. Some of my colleagues who are great pro-life leaders need to speak up. John Thune came home for my bill today. We`re with the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Lindsey Graham has divided his party yet again, and he is not backing down on this. What in the world is going on? This is an issue that I`ve never even heard him care about before.
JUANITA TOLLIVER, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Right, right, I am. And when he says he has Americans on his side, I need to remind the Senator that 66 percent of Americans want wide access to abortion. So he`s wrong there. And I feel like the only bet that he`s trying to make here is about the fact that he`s trying to play to his base. He`s trying to play to male Republican voters. He`s trying to play to anti-abortion voters who in his mind could potentially be mobilized or excited at or in equal levels as pro-choice advocates, pro-choice voters.
But the reality is, the data doesn`t back this up, Stephanie. Newly registered voters are heavily trending towards Democrats, I think at above 60 percent. You also have what we saw in Kansas was amazing historic turnout. You also have the fact that independents are also swaying towards Democrats on this issue by double digits.
And so he`s seems to be ignoring the reality of that all to be making this base play that`s not going to pan out. And of course, his senate colleagues and other Republicans are looking at him like a thorn in their side because abortion is the last thing any of them wants to talk about. They know it`s a losing issue, but he won`t let it go.
RUHLE: It makes absolutely no sense to me, Susan, they got roe overturned, they got what they wanted. The need to double down on it is lost on me why evangelicals don`t have the right to vote twice. So what do Republican women think about this abortion ban?
DEL PERCIO: Republican women believe that even those who are pro-life and there are pro-life Republican women out there, they do not believe in extremism. They do not believe that it should be legal in every case, including rape and incest. They find that disturbing.
There`s also the issue of not just women who are pro-life, but there are people who say, I want the ability to make my own decision, and every woman should have their own choice to be made. And the fact that Republicans are trying to take away the rights of half the women and half the people in this country is really dividing the party into two separate fractions. And the one that really makes change is the one that showed up in Kansas just a couple of months ago and voted against that extreme measure on the ballot.
So, I think this is going to be devastating for the Republicans.
[23:40:02]
It`s probably their worst issue going into the fall. So between Donald Trump and Lindsey Graham, they`re both responsible for leading the Republicans into some really troubling times.
RUHLE: Juanita, let`s talk Democrats. Put the Inflation Reduction Act aside, because as strong as it is, it`s not making an impact today, and it never promised it would. And inflation is running hot. People are having to pay more for all sorts of things in their life. And now with interest rates going up their credit card bills are likely to get higher as long — as well as a mortgage.
Should Democrats tried to turn away and focus on social issues like abortion with six weeks to go before the election. They can`t win on inflation.
TOLLIVER: I think abortion is absolutely front and center. We know progressive groups are leading a coordinated multimillion dollar campaign and key states to make sure that message is loud and clear. And Democrats are have been critical and clearly painting a picture and a contrast of what they can expect with Republicans not only on abortion, but also on the active threat to that we`re facing with democracy. That`s something that the poll you mentioned earlier, Stephanie, did show as a bright spot because even though Trump`s favorability has not gone down, like one would expect with crime after crime being revealed. The reality is that 54 percent of those same respondents said that he actively presented a threat to democracy, and that was an issue for them.
And Democrats have been on hitting that nail on the head repeatedly under the leadership of President Biden who continues to lay out and make the case of the fact that our democracy is on the ballot in November. And that`s something Democrats absolutely needs to continue to do.
And one more thing, I can`t put the Inflation Reduction Act aside because it`s yet another example of Democrats fighting for people and eventually getting them what they need to help them. So that is another argument that Democrats have going into the midterms.
RUHLE: All right then, Juanita Tolliver, Susan Del Percio, great, great, great to see you both.
Coming up, the Fleecing of America. The stunning scale of pandemic unemployment fraud is starting to come into focus. And it`s disgusting. How crooks stole billions of dollars meant to help those in need in the early days of the pandemic. They may be going to hell, but in the meantime, they`re driving sport scars.
The NBC News investigation is next when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:46:55]
RUHLE: We are learning more tonight about the shocking amount of alleged pandemic unemployment fraud according to a federal watchdog. More than 45 billion, billion with a B dollars from unemployment insurance meant to help people during the pandemic may have been stolen. That is way higher than the 16 billion in potential fraud that was identified last year.
NBC`s Ken Dilanian has been following all of this and joins us now. First, we need to give special thanks to Ken. I know you have been on TV since 7:00 am. I begged you to come on tonight because this is so important. I fear I`m going to be shouting during this segment because it`s just so upsetting. Walk us through this huge scale about unemployment fraud. Who are these people selling the money how they do it?
KEN DILANIAN, NBC NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: So the worst news about this Stephanie is that this $46 billion estimate that came out today from the Labor Department IG is probably a vast undercount. When we looked at this about a year ago, and we were talking to private companies like IDEMIA and LexisNexis, that have contracts with the states, which really actually run the unemployment programs, the highest estimate we heard was $400 billion.
Now that — now some people criticize that is too high, but maybe say let`s say it`s 200 billion. It`s an enormous sum of money for just as for comparison, so people understand. The annual budget of the Department of Education of the United States government is $68 billion.
So this is just an incredible sum of money. And what we found was that about half of the unemployment fraud was carried out by foreign criminal groups. They just preyed on this program because they realized that nobody was checking. All you needed was a fake identity of an American, a social security number or driver`s license, which is easily obtainable on the dark web, and Nigerian criminal gangs, Chinese hackers, Russian fraudsters, they just started bombarding these antiquated state computer systems with applications.
RUHLE: OK, so hold on. So, they`ve identified that they did this, are they all going to get away with it? We`re not going to get any of this money back. Nobody`s going to pay the price.
DILANIAN: You know, the sad fact is we`re most of the money is gone. The Secret Service, the FBI, the Department of Justice are doing what they can to clawback what they can. And they`ve recovered a few billion dollars, and they`re prosecuting as many people as they can.
But the math just doesn`t add up. I mean, there aren`t enough FBI agents and prosecutors in the country, even if they dropped everything they were doing and just worked on COVID fraud to catch even a 10th of the people that did this. I mean, they`re really — they`re sort of having a triage and only going after the most obvious cases. We just covered one in Minneapolis where 47 people were charged in the biggest COVID fraud scheme that they`ve charged so far. $250 million stolen in this one city in Minneapolis with money that was supposed to go to hungry children, and people were just realizing that no one was checking again. So all they had to do was say they were providing these meals fill out the applications and the money went pouring in from the Agriculture Department.
[23:50:04]
The fundamental issue here, Stephanie, is that, you know, for some good reasons and I think some bad reasons, the government loosened the rules on all this COVID aid because they wanted to get the money out the door. And then they had very little oversight because people weren`t working, then people weren`t coming to the office inspectors weren`t going to visit the sites.
RUHLE: You and I reported on this real time. We talked about it all the time. We said, Where`s the oversight? When the CARES Act passed we said, Who`s going to run oversight? Who`s going to be on this committee? Right? So how is the government defending the fact that oh, we had to loosen the rules to get the money out. But you didn`t need to leave the barn door open and say, you know, it`s here for the taken?
DILANIAN: Oh, well, I`m with you. This is an epic scandal. Because we know that private companies like Amazon and Walmart, they figured out how to identify their customer and do large volumes of transactions while policing fraud.
And so the government could have done it, too. They didn`t do it. Some bureaucrats and some people this happened in the Trump administration made some terrible, terrible decisions, and we`re all paying for it now. And it is a bit frustrating, because even now, when you talk to people in the Justice Department, they will say, well, they just needed to get the money out. You know, there were there wasn`t much we could do we expected fraud. I think that`s a cop out.
RUHLE: It sure is.
DILANIAN: They need to be this way, Stephanie. And nobody`s you know, as far as I know, nobody`s lost their job over a badly designed COVID Relief Program. There haven`t been that many congressional hearings. You know, because both parties are complicit. Neither party is really seized on it and push this as the scandal that it is. So I`m glad you`re covering it. Because, you know, the American public should know how bad it is.
RUHLE: It`s absolute garbage. It`s why people don`t trust government full stop. You`re also reporting on the Mississippi welfare scandal. We`ve been covering it here a lot. Today, a former prosecutor of Mississippi`s welfare agency, right. The person who oversaw the welfare agency pleaded guilty to fraud charges. Walk us through this. What does it mean for the investigation because this is the one Brett Favre is involved in?
DILANIAN: That`s right. So this is a big development. This is because this this man is John Davis, he was the administrator of the welfare agency that handed out all this money to places it shouldn`t have gone. And he was — he pleaded guilty today and agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors. This is really the first federal action after years of the FBI looking into this, but not really doing much. Now they`ve got this guilty plea from this key figure.
And you know, it looks like they flipped him. And when you flip somebody in the investigation, you ask yourself, well, well, who`s next? Who`s the big fish they`re trying to get? Well, it`s — the only person who outranks John Davis is the former governor of Mississippi, the Republican governor, so who he has claimed that he didn`t know that this money was welfare, but he was deeply involved in in helping Brett Favre obtain, for example, $5 million to build a volleyball facility that his daughter benefited from.
This was federal welfare money that was supposed to go to poor women and children. Instead, it built a volleyball facility. So, this is an outrageous scandal and you haven`t heard the last of it here, Steph.
RUHLE: In one of the poorest states in the entire country. Brett Favre, you know what else we haven`t heard from the NFL or Sirius, where he has a radio show. Ken Dilanian, thank you so much for staying up this late. And more importantly, thank you for this reporting is really important and people deserve to hear about it.
Coming up, most of Puerto Rico still without power. They are in the dark and pleading with their American compatriots for help after Hurricane Fiona when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:57:37]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: To people of Puerto Rico who are still hurting from Hurricane Maria five years later, I know that we`re — they should know that we are with you. We`re not going to walk away. We mean it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: The last thing before we go tonight disaster in Puerto Rico. Hurricane Fiona is the strongest storm on the planet right now. The category for Monster is making its way north to Bermuda and potentially on its way to make landfall in Canada. Fiona has already left a trail of destruction across the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico most people are still without power tonight, and parts of the island had been completely devastated. Our own Gabe Gutierrez has more.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
GABE GUTIERREZ, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): This what`s Fiona`s theory in Turks and Caicos while Bermuda braces for a close call. In the Dominican Republic, there are still hundreds of thousands of people without water or power.
Here in Puerto Rico, new landslides overnight.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So we`re still pretty much in this emergency response phase.
GUTIERREZ: Satellite images show washed out bridges and flooded fields across Puerto Rico before and after the storm. These Satellite images show how much of the island is in the dark each night. This is before Fiona and this is after. 38 percent of customers now have power up from 27 percent yesterday.
President Biden has signed a major disaster declaration and at a FEMA briefing today he spoke with Puerto Rico`s Governor.
BIDEN: We will do everything, everything we can to meet the urgent needs you have.
GUTIERREZ: With the heat index hovering around 100 degrees. This is Jose Alvarez`s sweltering existence. When he tells us he wrote out the hurricane in remote Western Puerto Rico the river rushing under his home. Today for the first time local authorities brought him the bottled water he so desperately needed.
Now neighbors yell across the river to notify each other at the first glimpse of any supplies. During Hurricane Maria five years ago this mountainside got seven inches of rain. Finoa got 24. You feel forgotten this woman says. Tonight they have at least some water here but no power and ongoing disaster that is all too familiar.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
RUHLE: Our thoughts are with the people of Puerto Rico and everyone affected by this devastating storm tonight.
[00:00:03]
And on that note, I wish you all a good and safe night from all of our colleagues across the networks of NBC News. Thanks for staying up late. I will see you at the end of tomorrow.