Thursday, June 26, 2025. It's still the economy, stupid, and MSNBC works hard to shut itself down and go out of business.
Let me start off with something in raised in a few e-mails. I've noted here that there's too much going on to note everything in any
snapshot. Rachel Maddow noted that even doing a daily program on MSNBC
during Chump's first 100 days didn't provide her with enough time to
cover every story -- or even every major story. Lawrence O'Donnell has
noted the same. I write one thing a day here (the daily is a nightly on
Saturday and Sunday). But there are also at least 24 other posts each
day. So there are videos and press releases and other things that go up
and cover other topics.
There's
a topic that I didn't cover in a snapshot and apparently Jen Psaki did
cover it "but I knew you wouldn't post it because of what you said about
Jen." I'm going to assume that refers to Ava and my "Media: If MSNBC could just clone Rachel Maddow . . .."
Jen
is in danger of losing her job. Ava and I don't do pile ons. When
Britney Spears was the source of mockery, we avoided the topic because
we don't do pile ons. Otherwise, we might very well have been like so
many others and having to issue apologies for the way in which we
covered her.
If Jen
wasn't in danger of losing her job, we wouldn't have written what we
did. As she is currently, she's not prime time. They could switch her
to daytime, but she's not primetime. We noted that she's shrinking and not
expanding since taking over for Rachel. That is true. We also noted
that she's being buried under advice from this exec and that exec and
consultants and -- It's too much and it would be too much for anyone.
She needs to make clear that she's heard the advice and she's going to
use what she can and ignore the rest.
Then
she needs to get back in front of the camera and breathe. Don't be
pushed around. Don't give up your space. Look into the camera and own
the moment.
We wrote that
piece because (a) MSNBC is in serious trouble right now -- ways that
people don't even know outside the executive offices -- and (b) Jen is
not delivering the numbers the network was hoping for and there's talk
already of replacing her.
That
piece was our flare for Jen. She has continued to be noted here. In
fact, a video was posted of her show Tuesday night and Wednesday
morning. She needs to center herself and breathe.
That's
the only way she's going to hold this spot. If she can't, she can't.
That's the Jen aspect of what Ava and I wrote. The part about "MSNBC is
in serious trouble right now" is the other reason we wrote. MSNBC has
had one identity crisis after another. Joe Scarborough may be seen as a
'consistent' but don't forget he's repeatedly shape shifted himself
and, years and years go, would joke and laugh with his 'buddy' and
fellow on air Mike Savage.
The
network has been poorly run repeatedly. We didn't really watch MSNBC
until 2024. We might catch Andrea Mitchell during the day while having
lunch. We might catch Chris Hayes at night. Both were dependent upon
our speaking schedule that day. I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell's
program on SIRIUS XM or caught it via Apple Podcast. When a friend at
MSNBC told us how bad things could get, we said we'd take a look at the
network and we did.
Most
people are suited to host programs during daytime or to nighttime. There's really not
overlap. The only one who I know of that could pull off both was Phil
Donahue. He demonstrated he could carry a daytime audience for years.
He also demonstrated, on MSNBC, that he could carry a primetime
audience.
Dick Cavett
should never have been on prime time. He didn't have the personality.
You can argue when the talk show was on PBS, that it didn't matter. But
he didn't stick to PBS. I never liked Johnny Carson but he could
deliver nighttime. It's a different type of program and more 'in your
face.' David Letterman was too large for daytime and bombed when he tried it but when he came back as a nighttime host, he became a legend. Chris Hayes does a nice program. It is not in-your-face.
That's not his style. He should have long ago been switched over to
daytime where likeable matters so much more. Where likeability matters so much, in fact, that when you lose it -- see Ellen DeGeneres -- you lose your program.
All shows need a POV but prime time talk shows especially need it.
Ari, Stephanie, Lawrence and Rachel have that. Joy Reid had it. MSNBC is programming as though FRIENDS and WILL & GRACE will never go
off the air. Instead of making a strong programming bloc that would
lift the ratings for the network, they're spacing out the real hits and
putting Chris and others on in between. Chris is not UNION SQUARE but
some of the programs are truly not Must See TV. Again, there should be
no space between the heavy hitters. There has been no real thought put
into the schedule.
FOX "NEWS" doesn't do that. They know who is
daytime and who is nighttime. And their shows have a POV. That's one
of the reason their ratings are high. Another reason is a FOX "NEWS"
viewer has no life and lives in front of the TV. I can't think of
anything worse than watching one show after another like a zombie in
front of the TV. I miss Rachel on a daily basis but I'm glad because
when she was on daily, it was get the TV on in time for Chris and sail
through to the end of Stephanie's program (Nielsen viewer, so the TV had
to be on to gather the Nielsen data).
MSNBC
has never been run like a real network and heads may roll if they don't
get it together. If Jen can reclaim her voice, she's fine on
primetime. If she can't, they should switch her to daytime because she
has likeability and even buried under 'suggestions,' she remains
likeable.
The VA almost
got mentioned in a snapshot this week regarding work. There are many
things that don't make it into the snapshot when it goes up because
there's just too much stuff that we are trying to squeeze in. We're
starting with the economy so we'll be dropping that topic into this
snapshot.
Donald Chump has
ruined the economy. It is not recovering and it honestly can't recover
at present. He's too erratic, he's too stupid. And his administration
flunkies are too scared to tell him the truth: (in the words of Taylor
Swift) You need to calm down. His erratic behavior and his constant
threats and insults negatively impact the markets. He's a fool.
After
the Trump Administration intensified its push for federal workers to
return to the office, a new study highlights the potential downsides of
this mandate.Conducted by Alessandra Fenizia and Tom Kirchmaier,
researchers from the George Washington University and the London School
of Economics, the study focuses on productivity impacts of
work-from-home (WFH) arrangements for public sector jobs. They found
that working from home boosts productivity by 12% compared to in-office
work.
The prevailing sentiment
is that physical presence ensures better accountability and
productivity. However, the study’s findings suggest that these arguments
might be more rooted in perception than reality.
The
study, which evaluated detailed administrative data from police staff
alternating between home and office settings, indicates that employees
working from home managed more cases per day, without any increase in
errors or loss of quality. These findings held true even when
researchers controlled for variables such as shift length and nature of
tasks, ensuring that the results were not merely artifacts of different
work schedules. Moreover, the productivity boost was amplified when
tasks were assigned by supervisors rather than through automated
systems, suggesting that the structure and management of remote work can
play a critical role in maximizing its benefits.
One
of the primary reasons for increased productivity was a reduction in
workplace distractions. The study found that in the office, employees
were more likely to be interrupted by conversations, coffee breaks, and
other non-work-related interactions. By contrast, the relative isolation
of remote work allowed for sustained focus, contributing to the higher
case numbers logged from home. This challenges a common narrative
promoted by some legislators, who argue that employees who work from
home are more likely to slack off without the direct supervision
afforded by office settings.
Rep. James Comer,
a Kentucky Republican, for example, during the Jan. 15 2025
“Stay-at-Home Federal Workforce” hearing, blamed service backlogs on
officials “coddling federal workers with a perk—telework—that allowed
them to shirk their duties.” Similarly, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a
Republican from Louisiana told reporters on Dec. 5 2024 that only “about
1 %” of federal employees are “actually working in the office,” adding
that workers must “return to their desks and get back to the work they
are supposed to be doing,” a claim that Politifact rated as “Pants on
Fire.” However, Fenizia and Kirchmaier’s data showed no such shirking;
instead, it demonstrated that remote work can enhance efficiency without
sacrificing quality.
No surprise, idiots like Mike Johnson didn't know what they were talking about. By the way, Happy Pride, Mike, happy Pride.
I
have no idea if what I'm about to note is going on anywhere other than the VA
but we were speaking to a number of veterans last week and many work
for the VA.
So Chump and others want to look tough. But they just look inept (yet again).
You're
Blake. You work for the VA. The ability to work from home is why you
applied and you work for the VA in Atlanta. Or that's where you've
'worked' while working from home. They're insisting that the employees
aren't working from home anymore. What they're not making clear is that
a number of them are also not working at the VA they work for. Blake
working for the Atlanta VA? Blake took that position because he could
work from home. But he actually lives in Kentucky.
Guess
what? He's not moving to Atlanta. He's not going into the Atlanta VA
he works for. He's finding a VA facility in Kentucky that has an empty
desk and he's working for the Atlanta VA out of a desk in Kentucky.
Per the findings in the TIME article, that's not helping increase work.
You've
really just ticked off your work force and you've done so at a time
when you don't need to be doing that since the incoming and soon to be
incoming workers are not that motivated to work a job that insults them
and some don't want to be in the workforce and you're facing an
increasingly less educated work force (the whole trend stories about
young male loneliness). And let's also bring in what Paul Krugman pointed out earlier this month:
Young workers always have higher unemployment than workers as a
group. College graduates always have lower-than-average unemployment.
But normally education trumps age: Even recent college graduates have
relatively low unemployment.
But not now. As I suggested, the
current unemployment rate for young college graduates isn’t the highest
we’ve ever seen. But previous peaks have come at times of general
economic distress, like the aftermath of the global financial crisis.
Now we have low overall unemployment, only slightly above historic lows,
but unemployment among college graduates between 22 and 27 at
recession-like levels.
Chump has no clue and what it really underscores to me is Chump's lack of vision.
Yes,
he's got Project 2025 and other hate merchants telling him what to do.
Even there, he can't stick to the playbook. He has no long term vision
and never has. And you can see the impacts that's having on the
economy and the markets and the country. Gabriela León (EXPLICAME) reports on Chump's labor 'plans:'
The
mass layoff plan promoted by the Trump Administration, known as a
“reduction in force,” has returned to the Supreme Court for a final
decision. If approved, it would affect 22 government departments,
resulting in the termination of thousands of federal employees. However,
the consequences could extend far beyond the public sector, according
with GoBankingRates.
Although
the layoffs focus on federal workers, their ripple effects could reach
the broader U.S. labor market. According to employment experts, a
significant contraction in the federal workforce could affect job
stability, local economic systems, and public confidence.
“Substantial
cuts in the federal workforce can generate impacts on job stability,
consumer spending, and a widespread sense of insecurity in the job
market”, warned Eric Kingsley, partner at Kingsley Szamet Employment
Lawyers.
One direct
consequence would be increased competition for private sector jobs,
especially among skilled federal workers seeking new opportunities. This
influx could push down entry-level wages, forcing experienced
professionals to accept lower pay.
He's
not preparing for that. He has no idea what's going on. This is,
please remember, the administration that actually loathes education.
That's why they put Linda McMahon in charge of it, a certified idiot who
found JOKES FOR THE JOHN too difficult to comprehend. Linda McMahon,
the CGI version of Mammy Yokum.
Business
leaders' confidence in the U.S. economy has halved since the beginning
of the year, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co., as companies grapple
with the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs and broader
geopolitical uncertainties.
The financial
services firm's latest Business Leaders Outlook Survey, released
Wednesday, found that optimism for the economy fell to 32 percent in
June from 65 percent in January. Additionally, 25 percent of respondents
said they expect a recession to occur at some point this year, up from
only 8 percent in January.
Concerns over the
trajectory of the U.S. economy have been fueled largely by Trump's trade
agenda, which has led to significant stock market volatility and
heightened fears of rising costs for both businesses and consumers.
However, these anxieties have been somewhat tempered by the current
pause on reciprocal tariffs, as well as the temporary easing of trading
tensions between the United States and China.
While
the survey was largely conducted prior to the start of the recent
conflict between Israel and Iran and was completed before America's
targeted strikes over the weekend, this could contribute to these
existing economic anxieties.
One expert told Newsweek that a re-escalation would represent "another adverse supply shock to the economy."
Again,
he's too erratic for the markets. He's doing real damage. Fed Chair
Jerome Powell sugar-coated it to an extend on Tuesday when appearing
before the House Financial Services Committee but he hadn't even been
speaking for a full minute before he noted "elevated uncertainty" and,
less than a minute later, he was again using the term "Surveys of
households and businesses, however, report a decline in sentiment over recent months and elevated uncertainty about the economic outlook, largely reflecting trade policy concerns."
Again,
he sugar coated it but the message was not good if you paid attention.
He observed, "Policy changes continue to evolve, and their effects on
the economy remain uncertain." Erratic. "Inflation remains elevated,"
that's not good news. Especially since candidate Chump promised to
bring prices down but instead, once sworn into office, drove them up and
they remain elevated and are impacting consumer confidence. Chump does
not know what he is doing and that's how I translate this statement
Powell made to the Committee:
The
effects on inflation could be short lived -- reflecting a one-time
shift in the price level. It is also possible that the inflationary
effects could instead be more persistent. Avoiding that outcome will
depend on the size of the tariff effects, on how long it takes for them
to pass through fully into prices, and, ultimately, on keeping
longer-term inflation expectations well anchored.
Yesterday, Howard Lutnick, erratic and shrill Commerce Secretary, was yet again whining that Powell had to cut interest rates.
Did Lutnick catch any of Powell's testimony on Tuesday? "For the time
being, we are well positioned to wait to learn more about the likely
course of the economy before considering any adjustments to our policy
stance." Did he catch that? Chump's too erratic and that's why there
is so much uncertainty. It's not for nothing that Wall Street came up
with TACO ("Trump Always Chickens Out").
'Trump Always Chickens Out' is the phrase bestowed upon him by whom? Wall Street. I've noted hear all along when many outlets were too scared to hold Chump accountable that business doesn't play. Jeff Bezos? He'll whore his ass until it just gapes non-stop with no closure in sight. But the business sector -- especially the business press -- does not fluff and flatter leaders who damage the economy. That's all they care about. And that's why Chump hasn't gotten the same free ride from the business press that other outlets have given him.
Our economy was in pretty good shape. Joe Biden steered us in the right direction and we were recovering economically from the pandemic. All Chump has done since he got in office is weaken our economy. And it's not any better this month than it was last month. There are so many problems facing our teetering economy Jennifer Sor (BUSINESS INSIDER) notes:
The US has flirted with the dreaded S-word for much of this year, and it's not out of the woods yet.
That's according to Torsten Sløk, the chief economist at Apollo Global Management, who thinks the US is at a critical inflection point for stagflation, a dire scenario in which economic growth slows while inflation remains high.
That problem is often regarded as even harder for policymakers to solve than a typical recession, as higher inflation can prevent the Federal Reserve from cutting interest rates to boost the economy.
The scenario has largely been triggered by President Donald Trump's tariffs, Sløk wrote in a white paper published on Monday.
"Tariff hikes are typically stagflationary shocks — they simultaneously increase the probability of an economic slowdown while putting upward pressure on prices," Sløk wrote, adding that consensus forecasts on Wall Street for economic growth had drifted lower this year, while inflation forecasts have edged higher.
The Centre for Economic Policy Research, a network of many of Europe’s best economists, has worked up quite a trade in producing “rapid response” economic insights into current affairs. It shone, for example, at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic when unprecedented lockdowns required an entirely new perspective on economic policy. The group’s “rapid response” programme has now produced a 40-chapter ebook, comprising almost 500 pages of analysis, on the economic fallout from the second Trump administration.
Among other things, the analyses put numbers on views we have also developed here at Free Lunch. For example, even if you think it’s a good thing to expand manufacturing as a share of the economy, Michael Strain’s chapter shows that Trump’s radical trade policy is unlikely to boost US manufacturing output or jobs by much (a possibility I discussed here and here). The ebook also features a very important chapter by John Coates, which goes through the economic costs of undermining the rule of law (it was evident the Trump administration was doing so within days of taking office). Anna Maria Mayda and Giovanni Peri show how the crackdown on immigrants will shrink the US economy, a theme also addressed by my Free Lunch co-conspirator Tej last Sunday.
Other chapters explore the prospects for groups that Trump’s policies are supposed to help, in particular the middle class and those in rural areas. The answer is: not well. Richard Baldwin highlights how many more middle-class Americans are working in services, not in manufacturing, and therefore stand to lose out in purchasing power when tariffs make manufactured goods more expensive and do nothing for service sectors. Mary Hendrickson and David Peters examine the fallout for rural areas from tariff retaliation against US agricultural exports (as well as immigration crackdowns and healthcare subsidy cuts). As they remind us, US farmers only got through the US-China trade war of the first Trump administration thanks to financial support from the federal government.
Another issue negatively impacting the economy is Chump's immigration actions.
And we're back to MSNBC.
And . . . It's MORNING JOE. I don't like Joe personally. I was planning on ignoring the show -- and had since and his wife groveled in front of Chump.
But that segment? Better than anything MSNBC offered yesterday -- excepting Lawrence and Stephanie.
What we got instead was Abortion Barbie.
Remember that? Remember her?
If not, it's not your fault. But I'll help you out with nobody's first name: Wendy.
In 2014, MSNBC hosts actually called her "Abortion Barbie." She was going to shake up Texas and be the way forward and let's grab the smear that Republicans are using against her and reclaim it and . . .
Davis needs to lower the stardom and demonstrate how she can be a work horse.
She needs to lose the ridiculous hair, she's not Donald Trump's ex-wife,
and either pull it into a ponytail (which Texas women relate to) or get
it cut.
She needs to tone down the make up as well.
She's a little too 'starish' currently for Texas.
And Greg Abbott?
Greg Abbott is in a wheel chair. He has been since 1984. From that
wheel chair, he's been on the state supreme court and successfully and
repeatedly run for attorney general. That's the kind of can-do spirit
that Texans admire.
Cecile Richards is deeply stupid.
Making Wendy Davis a media star only made her a vapid blond with big hair.
If Cecile knew a damn thing about Texas politics, she would have already
realized that Greg Abbott's not going to be beaten by a glossy 8 x 10
photograph.
And yet there was MSNBC yesterday. Jen and Chris the worst of the offenders but pretty much everyone but Lawrence and Stephanie (I didn't catch Ari's show so I don't know what he did) lying and lying and fluffing and fluffing.
Zohran Mamdani 'won' the NYC Democratic Party's mayoral primary. (Predicted to win, results aren't in and it could actually be weeks.)
He did not become Mayor of NYC on Tuesday though you have to forgive aged idiots like Bernie Sanders -- our old racist, Bernie, 'endearing' himself yet again to Black voters yesterday with his rude and dishonest remarks -- for thinking Zohran is the mayor.
MSNBC on airs like Chris and Jen lying about what a huge victory this was and blah blah blah and come from behind and --
Stop lying. Do you think your viewers don't remember you bringing him on your MSNBC programs over and over? There were at least nine serious candidates in that primary. But if you watched MSNBC, you only heard, day after day, from and of Zohran.
Oh, you did hear about Cuomo, they were eager to attack Cuomo daily.
Near the end, the week before, Brad Lander made it into MSNBC's news cycle for one day because of an action he took to defend immigrants that made national news. Otherwise, they would have continued to ignore him as they did throughout the campaign.
What hurts your ratings, MSNBC?
Looking like cheap little whores and, Chris and Jen, that's what you looked like as you went on and on thinking the viewers at home hadn't watched your shows for the last month and seen all the whoring.
There were the whores back again.
Doing to Zohran yesterday what they did to Wendy Davis.
Zohran did not have the popular backing he needed -- in the first round, he got 43 percent to Cumo's 36 percent. He could have.
If he'd been stronger on immigration, he could have.
What's especially sad there is that when he was running for office in 2020, he was much stronger and much clearer on the issue of immigration.
With Brad -- a Socialist just like Zohran -- making so many stronger moves and remarks demonstrating his support for immigrants, his large number of supporters are watching to see what they think of Zohran. In the first round, Brad got 11 percent of the vote. The bulk of that support was because Brad ran on an issue (a fact that eludes old man Bernie -- and please read Elaine's "We do not need an 87 y.o. president -- pack it in" from last night and grasp that Bernie is not needed anymore, we do not need that tired old man running for president again -- that is as insane as Bernie himself is).
And MSNBC, the network that made Zohran their personal choice, could have helped him yesterday in the general election by addressing actual issues.
But the idiots of MSNBC saw fit to try to do another star creation. It failed Wendy Davis and left Texas under the control of Greg Abbot (still under that control, by the way). But they just know what works, right?
Yesterday was not the time for star making and star making isn't really needed in a politician to begin with.
What was needed was discussing real issues. Not generic statements. Not trash about how this primary proves something!!!!!
What it appears to have proven is that rank choice voting -- something I've supported for decades and what we use each year when polling our community for their top ten on books of the year -- is not going to work.
I'm not saying that because of who appears to have won.
I'm saying that because it's Thursday morning and it may be weeks before we actually have a winner.
That's not really a selling point for rank-choice voting. NYC is a city. I favor rank-choice voting and favor it nationwide. But I'm going to be rethinking that now because I'm not in the mood to wait weeks after a presidential election to find out who won.
And are we we aware that the figures I used on percentage -- the same ones the media's using -- aren't accurate because they don't include ballots still enroute in the snail mail?
That got ignored -- the nonsense of waiting weeks for the actual results -- but it also ignores that NYCers aren't voting on prom king. They're voting for issues. They will be doing that in the general election. And your fluffing a thirty-something isn't helping him.
Brad, in the first round, was a serious challenge to Zohran and Andrew. And that was because of his positions, statements and actions on the immigration issue.
Trying to make Zohran twinkle won't produce winning results in the general election. But MSNBC wants to be a star maker so they did nonsense and fluff when they could have been devoted to actual issues and expanding support for Zohran that way.
It's moments like these that make me think maybe MSNBC does need to go off the air. That's what the worry is right now. Not low ratings. The suits are worried that MSNBC will actually go under.
We got Jen talking campaigning with Zohran -- gushing. The primary is over and no one needs the bragging or the spit shining. It's not going to help Zohran. You had him right in front of you, Jen, and you could have made a real difference by drilling down on policy. Instead, you came off like a fan girl airhead.
If that's what MSNBC has to offer, go ahead and shut it down.
But the same time they offered that garbage, they also had Lawrence and Stephanie offering these two segments.
That's real. THE MORNING JOE segment we highlighted earlier is real. Not a MORNING JOE fan but we'll highlight them as opposed to the crap fluff that too many MSNBC programs keep churning out and doing so at their own risk.
Let's wind down with this from Senator Adam Schiff's office.
Washington, D.C. – Today, during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s judicial nomination hearing, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) pressed
Emil Bove, President Donald Trump’s nominee for a seat on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on whether he suggested that DOJ
attorneys should ignore court orders.
Key Excerpts:
On Bove suggesting he would ignore court orders to advance President Trump’s immigration agenda:
Schiff: […] In the complaint, it says
Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts “fuck
you” and ignoring any such court order. Did you say anything of that
kind in the meeting?
Bove: Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind, to the extent I usually —
Schiff: Wouldn’t you recall, Mr. Bove,
if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department
lawyers that maybe they should consider telling the court “fuck you”? It
seems to me that would be something you’d remember, unless that’s the
kind of thing you say frequently.
Bove: Well, I’ve certainly said things
encouraging litigators at the department to fight hard for valid
positions that we have to take in defense of our clients.
Schiff: And have you frequently
suggested that they say “fuck you” and ignore court orders? Is that also
something you frequently do such you might not remember doing it in
this occasion?
Bove: No. And as I explained, I have never directed —
Schiff: So, did you or did you not make those comments during that meeting?
Bove: Which comments, Senator?
Schiff: You really need me to repeat
it? Did you suggest, as Mr. Reuveni wrote, that DOJ would need to
consider telling the courts “fuck you” and ignore any such court order?
Bove: I did not suggest that there
would be any need to consider ignoring court orders. At the point of
that meeting, there were no court orders to discuss.
Schiff: Well, did you suggest telling the courts “fuck you” in any manner?
Bove: I don’t recall.
Schiff: You just don’t remember that.
Well, let me ask you this. It also says in the complaint, “Bove
indicated and stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to
take off no matter what.” These are the planes that a judge was ordering
not be used to render people to a maximum-security prison outside the
country. Did you say during that meeting, did you stress to all in
attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what?
Bove: Senator, your characterization is not accurate.
Schiff: It’s not my characterization.
It’s the characterization of a decorated prosecutor who was in that
meeting. Are you saying that he’s lying?
Bove: As I said at the beginning of the hearing —
Schiff: No, no, I’m not interested in
what you said the beginning of the hearing. I’m interested in whether
you stressed to people in attendance that the planes needed to take off
no matter what. Did you say that?
Bove: I certainly conveyed the importance of the upcoming operation.
Schiff: Well, don’t paraphrase here. Did you tell people in attendance the planes needed to take off no matter what?
Bove: I don’t recall the specific words that I used.
Schiff: Wouldn’t you recall saying that
if you had instructed that the planes needed to take off no matter
what, including whether the court ordered otherwise? You wouldn’t
remember that?
Bove: This is a mischaracterization, Senator, there were no court orders at this point.
Schiff: Well, there was a court order. Wasn’t there?
Bove: No, that’s —
Schiff: Wasn’t there a court order by
Judge Boasberg. If not in this specific case, then in related cases that
that people not be sent out of the country until the court could rule?
Wasn’t there a court order?
Bove: Not at the time of that meeting, Senator.
On calling for the meeting notes referenced in the whistleblower’s report on Bove:
Schiff: […] Let me ask you this, Mr. Bove, if there are notes of that meeting, will you provide them to this committee?
Bove: I defer to the committee and to the executive branch on the procedure.
Schiff: And if the committee requests them, will you provide those notes to the committee?
Bove: I defer to the executive branch on the handling of that request.
Schiff: And let me ask you about notes
from another meeting, which are contesting here, and that is the meeting
over the decision to dismiss the case in New York, the corruption case
against the mayor of New York. According to Ms. Sassoon, the U.S.
Attorney at the time, during the meeting with Adams’ attorneys, where
she described Adams’ attorneys repeatedly urging what amounted to a quid
pro quo, that you admonished one of the lawyers in the room to stop
taking notes. Is that true?
Bove: I don’t believe I instructed that
attorney to stop taking notes. I did remark on the fact that he was
taking extensive notes, yes.
Schiff: And why did it concern you that he was taking notes of that meeting?
Bove: Because at that point in the
meeting, we were discussing who was responsible for media leaks, and I
was making the point that only the prosecutors had created an extensive
record that could support detailed leaks.
Schiff: And you were concerned, were you, that information about this potential quid pro quo might become public? Was that the concern?
Bove: I’ve explained that there was no quid pro quo.
Schiff: Will you provide the notes of
that meeting, which you, according to the U.S. Attorney, instructed be
collected at the end of the meeting?
Bove: I think a member of my staff may
have given that instruction outside my presence, and I defer to the
committee and the executive branch on records requests and how there
should be handled.
[…]
Schiff: […] I’ve requested the notes
from two pivotal meetings that go to the heart of the nominee’s
credibility. The meeting over the decision to drop charges against the
mayor of New York, and the meeting in which the whistleblower alleges
that the nominee suggested ignoring court orders and telling the courts,
essentially, “fuck you.” The witness has said that the decision whether
to turn off those notes will determine or depend, I guess, on whether
there’s an assertion of privilege of some kind. And we have the great,
good fortune at this moment to have the Attorney General and the Deputy
Attorney General here with us today. We can resolve this right now. I
would ask through the chair whether the Attorney General and the Deputy
Attorney General will approve the provision of these notes to the
committee. They could be provided to the chair and the Ranking Member in
camera, if necessary, so that the question that Senator Kennedy asked
about whether there was some illicit bargain, and that my colleagues
have asked, can be resolved. If there are detailed notes of these
meetings, it will give us an answer to who’s telling the truth here.
