Deadline: White House 5/17/26 | MSNBC Breaking News Today May 17, 2026

Añadido: 2026-05-18

[00:00:08]Donald Trump's friends, allies, enablers, and supporters, the ones who helped him push the big lie and attempted to overturn the 2020 election, which Joe Biden won and Donald Trump lost, are set to be the beneficiaries of a taxpayerf funed slush fund. In a story first reported by ABC News and now confirmed by the New York Times, Donald Trump is expected to drop his10 billion dollar lawsuit against the IRS in exchange for the creation of a $ 1.7 billion dollar fund to compensate his allies who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration.

[00:00:44]That's according to sources familiar with the matter. Speaking to ABC News, the commission overseeing the compensation fund would have the total authority to hand out approximately $1.7 billion dollars in taxpayer funds to settle claims brought by anyone who alleges they were harmed by the Biden administration's weaponization of the legal system, including the nearly 1600 individuals charged in connection with the January 6 capital attack, as well as potentially entities associated with Donald Trump himself. This potential deal follows other claims he's made against the federal government, effectively the taxpayers, including the 2022 raid of Mara Lago for allegedly hoarding classified documents, the Russia collusion investigation, and the 2019 leak of his tax returns, which 11 years into his political career, Donald Trump is still yet to release. The settlement terms are expected to prohibit Donald Trump from directly receiving payments related to those three legal claims. However, entities associated with Trump are not explicitly barred from filing additional claims.

[00:01:52]Joining our coverage, former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI and national security and intelligence analyst Michael Fineberg. Tim and John are still here. Um, Michael Fineberg, the the history or the recent history of funds like this are things like the the 911 commission, right, which which gave money to people whose injuries um physical um and mental and legal were from a terrorist attack. Never before has a president self-deeal himself $1.7 billion dollars in taxpayer dollars um to I don't even know how you how you spin it to to to take money from the government that sought to hold them accountable.

[00:02:35]>> Yeah. Well, it's an interesting reversal because as you noted in the past, these sort of funds and these sort of distributions have gone to the victims of crime and now apparently we're going to be giving these sort of funds and these sort of dist distributions to the perpetrators of crime. Um, you know, I'm somewhat old-fashioned.

[00:02:59]I've always thought that if you engage in a coup, attempt to stop the peaceful transition of power in the United States, assault federal officers, and generally vandalize and destroy a federal building, there should be some sort of consequences. I guess where I and the president differ is just that I always thought those consequences should be negative.

[00:03:24]>> What What recourse exists, if anything, in in the system? I mean it it it feels like this is another area um like the pardon power which the New Yorker recently reported. Those are for sale.

[00:03:37]Um like this foreign trip which had this incredible sort of presentation to the Chinese of American oligarchs and people in his own family who were doing business deals. I mean what recourse does the taxpayer have or the voters have?

[00:03:54]>> Um their votes. I'm not trying to sound cynical or to minimize what ordinary citizens can do, but we are bound by the Constitution.

[00:04:06]And what we are realizing now is what the framers warned us about from day one, which is that the Constitution only works if the citizenry and leaders have Republican virtue. And I think we're past that point. Um, we've been past that point for a while, I would argue, but we are certainly at our nater right now. And between the pardon power, between the sort of presidential immunity the Supreme Court created on a whole cloth, as near as I could tell, because there's nothing in the framer's intentions or in the text of the Constitution that would support the sort of immunity they granted for so-called official acts. Um, there's not a lot of recourse. The 14th amendment section 4 does contain a prohibition on dispersing US funds to insurrectionists, but as we saw when the state of Colorado tried to enforce some of the in money he's sought to um grift and pocket have been so massive that you can't get your brain around it. You know, like 1.7 billion with a B. They're like they're like Austin Powers numbers, right? They what what does that mean? But at a time when when the economy is something that causes a vast majority of Americans anxiety and despair, at a time when people are are foregoing health care, when people are choosing between rent and groceries, um $1.7 billion more from the government after all the other things he's taken feels like sort of the other book end to the the first story we talked about that maybe if people were feeling like they were thriving economically, this wouldn't bother them so much. But this is again stealing from the taxpayers to enrich himself and his allies.

[00:06:05]>> Yeah. I mean the political part of this question is can this break through you know that thick media bubble. I mean it's truly mindbogging. It is hard to find the words for it because it is it's theft um and its bribery and it's grift um but like it's coming from us and like that is the craziest thing about this.

[00:06:24]Hey, look, Nicole. Um, you know, we still have enough kind of vague memories of being in Republican communications shops. Uh, think about all the time that we talk about, you know, waste, fraud, and abuse, protecting taxpayers dollars, how people like work hard to earn their money and how it shouldn't be wasted by the government. like they are taking money from, you know, people that that work hard for a living um and taking their taxpayer dollars and creating a billion dollar slush fund. 1.7 billion, like more money than rich rich people have 1.7 billion. And they're going to hand it out to their friends, criminal friends. They're going to hand it out to people that beat cops at the capital.

[00:07:06]They're hand it out to people that storm the capital. So, Hman, for all the coverage that Trump doesn't like, here's one that I'm sure he'll love.

[00:07:13]Quote, "According to Forbes, Donald Trump is now worth $6.5 billion, according to Forb's latest World's Billionaires list, up from 1.4 billion a year ago. And while he'll like enriching himself to the tune of 5.1 billion dollars in 12 months, he didn't make the money in a successful business venture, he took it." Well, you know, I mean, we'd all like to see our net worth go up uh5 billion, >> 5.1 billion dollars in 12 months. Like he he didn't like invent something.

[00:07:45]>> It's incred Well, of course not.

[00:07:46]Incredible. And it's and you know, we there have been corrupt presidents in America. There's nothing like this. This is on like, you know, orders of magnitude more more corrupt than any other president in the history of the country by far in terms of just dollar value in any adjusted for inflation.

[00:08:01]There's nothing like this before that we've ever seen before. And it's so out of it's so spectacularly egregious that it's almost hard to get your head around it. And we were just talking off camera about this. I think you know people do out this is the thing we're always like what really cuts with the ordinary voter. What can they get their head around? And I think you know the story of a fund to fight lawfare for people who claim that the Biden justif it's not that's not Trump patting his own net worth. I'm not saying >> he doesn't need to. He's got 5.1 billion new dollars, >> right? But but I think the thing is like where who what do people what do voters care about? That's a kind of complicated story. I continue to think that the pardoning of the J6 people, the J6 insurrectionist is the thing that has outraged me more than anything else in Trump 2.0. So I think this makes it doubly disgusting. But for ordinary voters, I think what they process is he's5 billion dollars richer as president. The president in every rest of our lifetime got paid a public salary and basically they were constrained.

[00:09:00]They they would get make money after they went out of office by in various ways. But their attitude in office was I get paid my public salary and I'm essentially not allowed to have side hustles while I'm in office. Republicans and Democrats basically agreed to that.

[00:09:14]There was nothing in the law that said you couldn't have a side hustle, but people didn't do it. Nobody did it. And I think for a lot of normal voters, they look at this and go, "The president's tearing down the East Wing to build a gold ballroom for himself that we're now going to pay for." And he's feathered his nest to the tune of $5 billion somehow through what the cryptog, and you know, we have the whole long list of the various grifty things that he's done to do this. I think that does for an economically stressed, anxious frightened, bewildered country. They look at that and they get that that is corruption.

[00:09:55]>> After the break, Sue Gordon will be here on Donald Trump's epic stumbles on the world stage, former principal deputy director of national intelligence, our good friend Sue Gordon. Thank you for being here.

[00:10:12]>> You're welcome, Nicole. Good to see you.

[00:10:14]Um let's start with the trip. Um what is your assessment of both the substance of the trip and the reaction from the two leaders Trump and she?

[00:10:31]Um, so I guess on the top line, nothing bad happened so far, right? But I think we need to be clear that there were two different games isn't the right word, but it's the one I'll use today. Two different games being played. One was about deliverables, one was about position and strategy, and we were not on the position and strategy side.

[00:11:01]Um, and with China, we've been here before of thinking that we could get them to want to have our values by welcoming them into the free market system. And interestingly enough, President Donald Trump in his first term was one of the people that sounded the strongest alarm on what China was doing.

[00:11:28]So anything that we might do that doesn't recognize what their imperatives are that are very different from ours is problematic that he got what sound to be deliverables whether it is Boeing jets or soybeans and they have not yet manifested so who knows about that they aren't even strategically big deals in the grand scheme of where we've been left economically with them and none of them are about the big issues. So, um and and if you listen to it, she she signaled this.

[00:12:17]He was very clear. His warning about the Thusidities trap was, "Hey, big boy, we're an ascending power.

[00:12:28]And history is replete with existing powers that didn't recognize that moment. So he was very clear. He did not she did not back on any of his positions. And his messaging on Taiwan was also very clear. And again, the importance of Taiwan to the United States. Yes, we don't like big powers trampling over smaller powers. Taiwan is one of the world's really strong free and open market societies and to lose that to say that well I don't know you know it's the straight is just not reflective of its strategic importance in a world order that is reforming at the moment. So I I I I don't think it's very hard to understand what happened here. The president went in with some things he needed.

[00:13:31]He came away with rhetoric and a few deals and X didn't change one wit on his strategic position about the things he needed.

[00:13:48]So I I don't I don't think this is mysterious in terms of of how it actually played out.

[00:13:54]>> Sue, in the early months of covering the war in Ukraine, >> a lot of people pointed to, you know, the global implications of the United States of America not um supporting Ukraine and then the blow up in the Oval Office having global implications. And it wasn't clear if Trump didn't believe them or didn't care or saw um sort of Putin's fear of influence and and seemed to think, well, Putin has a right to that. That's in his sphere. I mean, his response to the questions about Chinese spying, which has been a national security, you know, imperative for for American presidents of of both political parties forever. Um to just shrug it off and be like everybody does it. It's reminiscent of his answer when he was running for president to Joe and Mika on Morning Joe when they said, you know, Putin isn't like us. He kills people. And Trump says, oh, we kill people, too. I mean, what is the the the what is the impact around the world?

[00:14:52]What what assessments are being rewritten today with Donald Trump equating our foreign policy sort of worldview and imperatives and how we operate as being exactly the same as China?

[00:15:04]>> Yeah. So, let me start with he's wrong.

[00:15:08]It isn't the same.

[00:15:10]At least still for the next little bit.

[00:15:13]We're a nation of laws. There is a bright line between our government and our private sector.

[00:15:21]>> Are you sure?

[00:15:22]>> That what? Yeah.

[00:15:24]>> Are you sure?

[00:15:25]>> Well, still >> Well, I guess I guess it's a great point. Thanks um for depressing me even further today. Um, no, but I'm I'm just I'm just going to say that that there is a difference.

[00:15:45]Well, they're back. This time about a picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago, and this won't be the end of it. But nothing has changed with me. I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So, let's go.

[00:16:05]>> It was almost exactly one year ago, the former director of the FBI, Jim Comey, was on this program at this table talking about that picture of seashells that he came across, came across on a walk on the beach. They spell out 8647.

[00:16:21]and he's continuing to stand by what he told us then, that at the time he didn't know there was any violent interpretation behind that commonly used restaurant term 86 and that he did not at any point intend for his post to be perceived that way and certainly not for it to be viewed as a call for the assassination of number 47. But he deleted the post when he heard that those sorts of things were being alleged and including by Donald Trump and members of his cabinet.

[00:16:50]Fast forward to right now with Donald Trump's Department of Justice eager to deliver on Trump's wish to prosecute his critics. Jim Comey is facing his second indictment from the Trump Justice Department in the last year. This latest one over that picture we just had up on charges that he was quote knowingly and willfully making a threat to take the life of and to inflict bodily harm on the president. and second that he knowingly and willfully transmitted in interstate commerce a threat to kill the president. The federal judge has set a date for his trial of July 15th. The case is so weak and far-fetched that as we've reported on this program, even some of Donald Trump's staunchest legal allies have decrieded it as an unconstitution a Todd Blanch is flailing. The term, as we shall see, is ambiguous and most commonly understood to be nonviolent.

[00:17:47]Countless others continue to go uncharged for the same conduct. This allout effort to target Trump's former FBI director is causing massive turmoil in places we can always see inside the Department of Justice. On that, the Washington Post writes this quote. More than a half dozen prosecutors have been demoted or pushed out of the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia due to fallout from the Justice Department's push to prosecute former FBI Director Jim Comey, leaving a key prosecutorial office understaffed and weakened.

[00:18:19]Other prosecutors have voluntarily decamped or scrambled to find new jobs, fearful they could be asked to work on cases that violate their principles.

[00:18:27]That's according to 10 current and former prosecutors familiar with the office in the case.

[00:18:33]Major cases, including one involving a terrorist attack in Afghanistan, have been hobbled by the turmoil. Washington Post adds this, quote, "As the Justice Department gears up for the second prosecution of Comey, the cost to the department of the president's crusade are mounting. The shock waves rippling through the Justice Department underline the high price of the president's single-minded pursuit of his adversaries to its personnel, resources, and mission. Joining us for his first interview since he was indicted by the Trump Justice Department for a second time, former director of the FBI, Jim Comey, his new book, Red Verdict. Um, you dedicate it though to the men and women I just reported on that the Washington Post reports on. the men and women um who've either been purged from or have left the Department of Justice.

[00:19:20]>> Yeah, there's a lot of pain in the department right now. Good people sacrificing their careers to do the right thing. I'm inspired by that, but I feel awful that they have to do it. And there are so many other good ones hanging on, trying not to have to leave the department. It's a time of pain and loss for a lot of good people. That's why I talked about them in my dedication and the acknowledgements.

[00:19:42]>> What is your family's pain like right now?

[00:19:46]Look, it's bad to be indicted. It's bad when someone you love is indicted. But they've kind of gotten used to the fact that because I've been a critic of Donald Trump, I'm a target. I'm sure John Brennan's family feels that way.

[00:19:58]Jim Clapper's family and lots of others.

[00:20:00]There's a cost to speaking up in this strange era, awful era we're in now. I think they're they accept that. I think they're proud that I act the way I do.

[00:20:09]I'm not going to be quiet. I'm going to continue to speak about what I believe.

[00:20:13]But of course, it's a burden for a family. That that to me is a part that I regret, but they're strong people.

[00:20:19]>> You had other family members though serving in the department. Your daughter and your son-in-law, >> right? My daughter was a superstar prosecutor in the Southern District of New York and was fired only because she has my last name. That's stupid. That's immoral. That's illegal in my view and painful. She'll be okay. I mean, she got a job at a law firm and someday I hope she'll go back to the Department of Justice. my son-in-law who was the deputy chief of national security at that Virginia US attorney's office quit the day they first indicted me. Also just a tragedy to have that apolitical talent leave the department. God willing, he'll be back someday. But it it both tells you the quality of the people that this organization typically has and the cost with Donald Trump at the top.

[00:21:00]>> Do you know Todd Blanch? Did you ever run in the same circles?

[00:21:04]>> I don't. I think he might have been a parallegal when I was the US attorney there, but I don't I don't know him. Not saying that to be facitious. You started out as a parillegal, which is an important role, but you don't have much to do with US attorney.

[00:21:16]>> Um, I ask because I I went back and looked and Donald Trump first used Twitter to call for your prosecution in 2017 or 18 and some combination of Don Mcan, then the White House council, Jeff Sessions, then the US attorney, Bill Bar who came next. There was one guy in between and then Pam Bondi I I guess who allowed um this to go forward but only at great cost to that office which was essentially hauled out. The variable isn't Donald Trump's desire to see you prosecuted. It's Todd Blanch. And so I wonder if you think there's anything personal there.

[00:21:49]>> I don't think so. I think it's just Donald Trump continuing to move through people until he finds those who will literally do whatever he says. Maybe he's found that with Mr. Blanch. Maybe not. Maybe his standards will be too high as apparently Pam Bondies were which is a bit of a shock.

[00:22:03]>> Just saying something.

[00:22:04]>> Yeah. And so she's apparently headed for some important private sector job we haven't heard about yet. That may be Mr. Blanch's future. Or maybe not. I don't know. But Donald Trump has a bottomless desire to gain revenge against those who've criticized him. And I'm not going to stop criticizing him because I think that's a that's required if you care about America. And so it will just keep going. If he gets rid of Blanch, he'll try to find someone else. Look at the bottom of every barrel. There are still apples and so he will find someone to do what he wants to do.

[00:22:31]>> Do you think that's where we are with Todd Lanch at the bottom of the barrel?

[00:22:35]>> Uh only only time will tell. I mean Pam Bondi I thought was not a good fit for the role and her standards were apparently too high. So we'll see.

[00:22:44]>> What is it that you are accused of doing >> in the current indictment? Communicating making and communicating a threat to assassinate the president of the United States.

[00:22:53]>> And what did you actually do? What is your defense? I'm not going to talk about that because I, as I've said many times, I believe in the independent federal judiciary and the court rules require that if you're participating in a criminal case, you don't talk about it outside of court. And so we'll have a lot to say in the courtroom, but I want to respect the rules and the court.

[00:23:12]>> Then then I've seen any specifics. I mean, he has said to my colleague Kristen Welker that they're not investigating anyone else who posted this message 8647, just you. Were you aware that you were under investigation or are you aware of what the other evidence is they have other than that message which is on Amazon right now for sale?

[00:23:33]>> Yeah, I hate to stiff arm you but I'm going to do the same thing. I it's very important that we respect and obey the rules of the federal court in North Carolina and everywhere even if others don't. And so I'm not going to talk about that >> except to say as I said earlier I am not only not guilty I am innocent and we will pursue this fully. the first time you were indicted, you released a video like that and you um and I think you said it last time on the show, you talked about your faith in the independent judiciary. Do you think that is the only leg standing?

[00:24:08]>> Yes, there are good people holding the line in the intelligence community, in the law enforcement community, and among federal prosecutors at great risk to themselves, but because of the risk to themselves, it's not a reliable leg.

[00:24:21]Federal judges are a reliable leg. No matter who appointed them, they believe in something. And it's very different from the way that Donald Trump approaches justice.

[00:24:30]>> Someone made the point um when you said that the first time that a a stool can't stand on one leg. I mean, how long can we balance on one leg as a country?

[00:24:41]>> We're going to have to balance for another two years. And I think we can do it after 250 years of doing that. The genius of the founders design is that federal judiciary really does stand apart. I've dealt with federal judges my whole career. There's a powerful culture that goes to bedrock there. They care about their reputation and reality to be people of integrity and people who wear a blindfold in deciding cases. And so it's tough act to balance on one leg, but I believe the federal judges can.

[00:25:10]And we'll get another leg. I believe in November. There'll be two legs on the stool after the coming wave, which I I'm no expert, but I think that's coming.

[00:25:17]The American people feel this and have had enough of this.

[00:25:22]>> Is it What is it like to see people who are your detractors, people like Jonathan Turley, defend you and basically um denigrate the case that's been brought against you.

[00:25:33]>> Makes you a little nervous.

[00:25:36]>> Like I was sort of like how bad is it that Jonathan Turley is now a Comey defender? But it's interesting. Yeah, I don't know. And I I'm not sure what he means by crawling inside one of my shells or whatever, but I I think that it's it's important that people speak in an honest, open way about these things.

[00:25:52]Again, I don't want to talk about my case. They're chasing John Brennan just because he has spoken out and spoken the truth. I don't care where you are in the political spectrum. That should offend you and you ought to stand your butt up and speak about it.

[00:26:04]>> Why do you think people like Lisa Monaco and Merrick Garland stay quiet?

[00:26:08]>> I don't know. I mean, I I can't look inside someone else's life. I've not walked in their shoes at all, I think.

[00:26:14]>> But you you or Chris Ray, I mean, you we've walked exactly in his shoes. Why wouldn't it be helpful if he was out there as Chris Christiey's former attorney, as a Republican president's handpicked replacement for you, defending the men and women of the bureau?

[00:26:28]>> Look, I would like to see it, but I don't know how he thinks about it. What I hope has not happened is that Donald Trump's aiming at people like me and Brandon and Clapper and others has chilled those people, made them afraid to speak. I hope we're not there because they strike me as people of character.

[00:26:44]But I can't judge them individually.

[00:26:46]>> Well, without judging them, would it be helpful to our democracy if people who have h held these jobs before were telling the American people how far from normal we are?

[00:26:56]>> Yes. I think everybody ought to speak.

[00:26:57]Bill Barr ought to be on your show talking about the dangers he sees and that he thought that person should never be near the Oval Office again and look what happened when we put him back.

[00:27:07]Everybody who has a voice ought to be speaking up, but again, I can't balance what they see risked by speaking up. I don't know what their family circumstances are or those sorts of things. I am going to continue to speak up because I have grandchildren and someday they will be old enough to understand this time and I want them to know what POP did during this period of time. I hope everybody feels that way.

[00:27:26]You said this won't be the last. Do you think they're going to indict you again?

[00:27:30]>> Oh, I don't. Maybe. Yeah. I mean, I I think it Donald Trump wakes up at 3 in the morning thinking about me. I do not.

[00:27:36]The vice reverse does not happen. But I'm sure that if this case falls apart, they'll come with something else. I'm going to have to deal with this. As I've told my family, they're going to have to deal with this. As long as Donald Trump is in the White House thinking about me in the middle of the night.

[00:27:50]>> Have you heard of other jurisdictions looking at trying to bring cases against you?

[00:27:54]I've read stuff in the media about it. I don't know whether it's accurate or not.

[00:27:58]>> Do you think that the case that fell apart in the Eastern District of Virginia is something that they're going to try to that was about what that was about testimony to Congress? Yes.

[00:28:09]>> Do you think they're still pouring over your I mean, you testified before Congress dozens and dozens of times. Is that something that you think they're they're still scrubbing and trying to find something?

[00:28:18]>> I guess maybe. the if there's a blessing, it's that the statute of limitations for alleged false statements is five years. So they they had to hurry on the last one. They were running out of time. I haven't testified in front of Congress since the fall of 2020. So I they're probably pouring over things, but there's not first of all, there are no false statements and I I don't think that's going to be productive, but they'll continue working on it because that's what the boss wants.

[00:28:44]I remember when you were on book tour, I think that might have been the first time I interviewed you, but your first interview I think was with George Stephanopoulos and you talked about the first time you were around Trump's first team, which I think has turned over entirely with the exception of Jared Kushner. It reminded you of Kosanostra of a mob family. Um, that was such a better group of people for lack of any other word. But I mean that first term included people like Jim Mattis and people like Jeff Sessions and people like um John Kelly. I mean what do you how would what word would you use to describe this group?

[00:29:20]>> There doesn't appear to be anybody left who is willing to stand for institutional imperatives, norms, things like the rule of law in the face of a desire by the president. There were those people in the first term. Trump spotted it and wanted to make sure it didn't happen again. Apparently, it happened a little bit at least with Pam Bondi. So, she's gone. What it tells me is that he has found the crew that he was looking for.

[00:29:45]>> What does that mean for the country?

[00:29:47]>> It's bad. You never want time to fly, but it means it's going to be a very difficult two years and whatever it is, two and a half years. Thank goodness for the elections this fall. Thank goodness for the judiciary, but we're in for a rough ride, which really shouldn't shock anyone who knew what Donald Trump was, who knew about January 6th, about the 2020 election lies. All of this was in some ways predictable, and now we're going to have to live with it. I'm going to have to live with it.

[00:30:13]>> I mean, he calls you a dirty cop. Uh, what is he talking about? And how does that make you feel? I don't honestly it's crazy that I'm in a place where I'm 65 years old and I actually find it a little bit humorous to have this obsession by this 80year-old man with me. I don't know. And I I am an honest person. I am a person who was raised to stand up and speak out. I can't do any other.

[00:30:40]>> He is based on media reports investigating a grand conspiracy. his press secretary, Caroline Levit, went to the podium of the White House briefing room uh I think in the summer and described it as this like Carrie Mat like if Carrie Mat wasn't smart scheme to cook the intelligence and I don't know if it has Trump winning and then under I don't know but it involves you. I mean do you think you will be investigated as part of their grand conspiracy investigation out of Florida? It's hard to say that is really red string on the basement crazy wall stuff and so it's hard to assess from a distance. I gather they found an 81-year-old guy Joe De Geneva to come back to government for the first time since Duran Duran was on the charts and and lead an investigation. Again, they're trying to find people who will do that which principled people will not do. And so it's anything's possible with this crowd.