Maddow: Trump busted by his own distinct signature, sinks to new depths of historic disgrace

Saturday, October 11th from New York City, it's MSNBC Live 25.

Join your favorite MSNBC hosts, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Nicole Wallace, Ari Melber, Alicia Menendez, Simone Sanders Townsend, Michael Steele, Chris Hayes, Jen Saki, Lawrence O'Donnell, Stephanie Ruhl, and more.

Visit msnbc.com slash live25 to buy your tickets today.

Thanks to you at home for joining us here this hour.

Really happy to have you here.

In the late 1970s, the state legislature in New York passed a new law because of something really gross that they were worried about.

There had been a serial killer terrorizing New York City in the mid-1970s.

He killed a whole bunch of people in New York in 1975, 1976, and 1977 before he was finally arrested in 1977.

And over the course of that sort of reign of terror, there was not only a huge amount of

news interest in the killings, for obvious reasons, because of how terrible and terrorizing those killings were.

There was also this other dynamic at work in which the killer himself really seemed to enjoy and kind of get off on the media attention that was being paid to his case.

He wrote letters taunting the cops.

He wrote to a famous newspaper columnist.

The press was already turned up to 11 on this guy because of his crimes.

But he ended up,

before they arrested him, really courting that attention.

And even after he was arrested, he continued to court the attention and communicate with the press.

So we have this situation in which the appetite for news and information about this terrible killer was limitless.

The killer seemed to know that and want that.

And the combination of those two things in the late 1970s caused New York state legislators to pass a law, to pass a law specifically to try to prevent that guy from selling his story, prevent him from selling the story of his crimes for his own profit.

The killer was named David Berkowitz.

He was known as the son of Sam killer.

And the law that New York passed to try to stop him from telling the story of his crimes for personal gain, that became known as the Son of Sam law.

And it was the first of many such laws all around the country.

And that law had a bit of a meandering journey through the courts over the years.

It became an interesting First Amendment case.

The Son of Sam law, the original one in New York, ended up being challenged and changed over time.

But there's still a son of Sam law in effect.

And the principle of the thing broadly has become

both part of our legal system now and part of our culture.

You'll see son of Sam law type

clauses in plea deals sometimes in high profile cases about high profile crimes.

A lot of states, in addition to New York, have explicit son of Sam laws on the books.

But even in states where the law isn't there, the law is different than that original idea, that bottom line has become part of how we think about crime and justice, right?

The bottom line is, the uncontroversial bottom line is that if you are convicted in conjunction with a notorious crime,

you should not be allowed to obtain personal benefit from telling stories about those crimes.

And sometimes that is a legal stricture, like with the New York Sun of Sam laws and all its successors.

But sometimes it's just a principle that I think Americans instinctively get.

If you participated in a horrible crime, you will never be rewarded for telling tales about that crime.

I think

basically every American would agree with that.

So imagine that there's some terribly notorious criminal case, something that's like the worst of the worst, something related to like child sex abuse, and there is a person convicted in connection with that crime and they are in prison because of it.

Say a news organization or any other entity.

contacts that person in prison, arranges to do a prison interview with that person about his or her crimes, and then that entity releases the interview to the public.

And apparently as a reward to the prisoner for doing that interview, this news organization or this entity that arranged the interview, they then pull strings to get that criminal moved to a cushier prison, a minimum security place, with lots more freedom and lots more privileges than they would ever otherwise have.

What would happen, right,

when that interview got published, when people learned about what had happened to that prisoner as a consequence of doing this interview, right?

Instinctively, the American people would go nuts at that news organization or that entity that did such a thing, right?

There would be over-the-top outrage.

Because for decades, this has been a widely agreed-upon principle.

From son of Sam on down, no criminal, certainly no one convicted in conjunction with a horrific crime like child sex abuse, no criminal should be given a reward for doing interviews about their crimes, right?

It's instinctively repulsive to us as Americans.

But of course, that is what Donald Trump's Justice Department appears to have just done in the case of...

Ghillaine Maxwell, who was convicted of crimes related to mass child sex abuse in the Jeffrey Epstein case.

Trump's Justice Department sent Trump's former personal defense lawyer, who now has the number two job in the U.S.

Justice Department, he sent that man to go meet with Ghelane Maxwell in prison, do an interview, and then she immediately got a big, very important material benefit.

She got bumped down to a minimum security prison where a sex offender like her is not allowed to be.

unless they get some special dispensation from on high, which apparently she got just after doing this interview with the president's former personal defense lawyer.

Special treatment and a reward for an interview about her crimes.

Not from some craven tabloid or some

soulless exploitative publisher like New York state legislators were worried about in the 1970s.

No, this is from the president's administration.

This is from the federal government.

And in that interview, it's not like the president's lawyer was pressing her real hard on what she was telling him.

At one point, Gillette Maxwell volunteered in this interview that there were multiple members of President Trump's cabinet who had been involved with child sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.

Now, in the interview, the president's lawyer, we can hear, it's on the tape.

The president's lawyer hears her say that about multiple members of President Trump's cabinet.

And he responds to her saying that by not asking anything about it.

You can listen to it.

She volunteers.

Members of Trump's cabinet, people who the president's lawyer would value as colleagues, she says.

She says they were among the people who she knows socialized with Jeffrey Epstein.

She says that bluntly.

And then listen to how Donald Trump's lawyer responds to that.

Listen to the long pause.

he greets that information with, and then he just leaves it sitting right where it is and moves on to a different topic.

Did I think these guys were coming for that?

I really don't.

If you met Epstein, there is no way that this cast of characters, of which it's extraordinary,

some of you in your cabinet who you value as your co-workers and you know would be with him if he was a creep or because they wanted sexual favours.

A man wants sexual favours, he will find that.

They didn't have to come to Epstein for that.

Now, did some...

okay, I don't know.

I wasn't there.

I didn't see it.

So

when's the last time you think

you were with Mr.

Epstein

when he

got a massage?

So this woman who's in prison, a 20-year sentence because of her crimes that she committed with Jeffrey Epstein, She says, you know, hey, members of Donald Trump's cabinet were involved with this thing that I was part of.

We're involved with Epstein.

She's

plural,

right?

Some are in your cabinet.

Some are in your cabinet who you value as your coworkers.

Multiple members of the president's cabinet were involved with Jeffrey Epstein.

And the response to her volunteering this in this interview is not, uh, who?

Which members of the cabinet say what now?

The response is, um, long pause.

Let's move on.

So the president's name, it's been reported, appears multiple times in the Justice Department's documents about the Jeffrey Epstein child sex abuse case.

The FBI reportedly assigned agents to redact Donald Trump's name from the files in the Jeffrey Epstein case.

The Justice Department is refusing to release all of its files and documents from the Jeffrey Epstein case.

They are coddling and rewarding and doing favors for the one living person currently in prison for crimes related to Epstein's case, even as she is volunteering to them that there are more high-ranking Trump officials who were involved with Epstein.

In that context, today, the New York Times reported on thousands of documents about Epstein's finances that were submitted to the U.S.

government by his longtime banker, J.P.

Morgan Chase.

Records of more than 4,000 Epstein financial transactions totaling more than $1.1 billion, which J.P.

Morgan reported to the federal government as possible evidence

of his child sex trafficking.

Reported to the federal government, so therefore in the hands of the federal government.

It has been nearly a week since Democratic Senator Ron Wydrally demanded last week that Trump's Treasury Department release its thousands and thousands of files on Epstein's financial records.

On top of that, NBC News reports as of this weekend that Trump's Justice Department is now specifically opposing the news organization's request to unseal the names of two people who Jeffrey Epstein paid in 2018.

He paid one of them $100,000 and another $1 quarter million dollars.

Federal prosecutors describe these people as potential co-conspirators of Epstein who were paid off by him.

Federal prosecutors describe those payments as potential witness tampering.

NBC News reports that Trump's Justice Department has formally asked a federal judge to keep those names secret as NBC seeks to have them unredacted.

And now today we get this.

which President Trump said did not exist.

Donald Trump, in fact, sued the Wall Street Journal when they reported this summer that Trump had signed a birthday book for Jeffrey Epstein with some sort of a crude doodle of a naked woman and an enigmatic note from Trump to Epstein that seemed to suggest some kind of shared secret between them.

Trump denied he had done any such thing and brought a big splashy lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal for publishing the claim that he had done such a thing, that such a letter with a doodle on it like that did exist.

Well, now today, in response to a congressional subpoena,

what do you know?

There There it is.

The text apparently written by Donald Trump to child sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.

This is what it says.

Voiceover.

There must be more to life than having everything.

Donald, yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is.

Jeffrey, nor will I, since I also know what it is.

Donald, we have certain things in common, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey, yes, we do, come to think of it.

Donald, enigmas never age.

Have you noticed that?

Jeffrey, as a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.

Donald, a pal is a wonderful thing.

Happy birthday, and may every day be another wonderful secret.

And then it is signed.

See the typewritten text there, Donald J.

Trump, with the handwritten signature, Donald, beneath it.

So it is

all written like on the body of a naked woman-ish.

The president apparently describing a shared secret between him and Jeffrey Epstein, a bizarre reference to age,

and quote, certain things that the two men have in common.

Yeah, okay.

The White House today decided to claim that this is not really from Donald Trump, that this is clearly, in their words, not his signature on this document.

Pretty immediately, other examples were obtained of President Trump signing his first name in various contexts right around that time.

And the signature from those

other uncontested signatures of his,

I don't know, looks pretty exactly the same.

I mean, just a layman's understanding of these things.

But here, look.

This is the birthday book for Epstein

that has Trump purportedly signing it, Donald, in 2003.

Here the New York Times publishes an example of a book Trump signed to Jeffrey Epstein in 1997,

Donald.

Here's the Wall Street Journal publishing an example of a letter Trump signed Donald in the year 2000.

Here's the Wall Street Journal publishing an example of a letter Trump signed Donald in 2006.

Now I'm no forensic handwriting expert, but if the White House is hinging its whole defense against how ferociously creepy and suspicious this all is on how much these signatures don't all look alike, how much these signatures don't look like each other, if that's their defense,

that's a terrible defense.

This is the sitting president of the United States.

In addition to the creepy, our shared secret, naked woman, references to never Aging document from Epstein's birthday book, Epstein's estate also today handed over to Congress this photo in which Epstein, who you see on the right there, is holding a big novelty check for $22,500.

It is a check that is made to look like it is from Trump to Epstein.

So it's Trump purportedly paying Jeffrey Epstein more than $22,000.

The caption alongside the photo, which the Wall Street Journal says was written by a longtime Mar-a-Lago member, indicates that the check is because Epstein

sold

to Donald Trump a, quote, girl who is described as, quote, fully depreciated

for $22,500.

What's that about?

This, of course, comes after President Trump said just earlier this summer that the reason he had a falling out with his longtime friend Jeffrey Epstein after 15 years of friendship was because Epstein, in Trump's words, stole a young woman from him.

One of Epstein's sex trafficking victims,

who Trump says Epstein stole from Trump's spa at Mar-a-Lago.

Real normal stuff here, you guys.

Real normal.

I mean, what in presidential history even approximates a scandal this disgusting?

What in the history of the United States of America for anybody in any position of public trust approximates the level of repulsiveness that Donald Trump brings to the presidency with this trailing behind him like a snail trail?

One of the members of the oversight committee who obtained these new documents is going to to join us live here in just a moment, Congressman Raja Krishnamurthy.

Congressman Krishnamurthy is on the oversight committee.

He's also from suburban Chicago, where they're also having to gear up to contend with Trump pledging a military invasion of their city.

Trump this weekend threatening, literally, war against the city of Chicago.

in a online post this weekend, not metaphorical war, but war as in, I'm sending the U.S.

military to invade and wage war on you.

This weekend there were huge protests in Chicago.

No Trumps, no troops.

No Trump, no Trump, no troops, no troops in our streets.

Democratic leaders had called for Chicago residents to get loud and also stay peaceful in protesting and demonstrating against what Trump is trying to do.

That is exactly what Chicago did this weekend.

There were huge protests in Chicago this weekend, downtown.

In addition to the big Chicago protests, people from Chicago and from Illinois more broadly also protested at the military base where Trump is staging federal agents for this purported invasion.

People protested at a hotel where Homeland Security agents are reportedly staying.

People protested outside Chicago in Rockford, Illinois, where federal agents have put up a fence around the courthouse for some reason.

Chicago protested again today, an interfaith rally led by clergy of all different faiths.

Chicago churches have been doing nonviolence trainings and helping their parishioners prepare for what is expected to be big,

peaceful, sustained, and repeated protests if Trump follows through on his promises to play civil war with U.S.

troops on Chicago streets.

Where he has already been playing civil war on the streets of Washington, there was a huge, really big protest through the streets of Washington this weekend.

I mean, look at this.

I do not mean to downplay the ongoing protests and resistance that have been happening in Washington ever since Trump sent in the troops there.

People every day have been banging pots and pans on the streets and outside metro stations.

People have just been relentlessly heckling and following and questioning Trump's federal agents in the streets.

There have been graffiti and posters and stickers all over the city that say things like, these posters say, take off your masks, public servant should face the public.

Even in the court system, there have now been at least seven instances reported in D.C.

in which Trump's federal prosecutors tried to bring felony charges against someone in DC and the grand jury refused to bring the charge.

Got a lot of attention when the guy who threw the sandwich ended up not getting charged because the grand jury said that he shouldn't receive a felony charge, but it's happened at least seven times now.

not just to the sandwich guy.

Regular citizens on grand juries are refusing federal prosecutors cases in D.C.

It's really quite unheard of in terms of the way that grand juries and prosecutors and indictments usually work.

But the courts in D.C.

are now facing that over and over and over again as Trump's federal prosecutors just blunderbust their way through the whole thing, just failing to be able to put together the legal predicate to bring people through the justice system for any of the reasons they're purporting to bring people before the courts.

This is something we saw happen to Trump's federal prosecutors in Los Angeles when he invaded that city too, grand juries in Los Angeles refusing to bring felony indictments against people who prosecutors wanted indicted.

Happened in Los Angeles.

It's now happening over and over and over again in Washington, D.C.

And this is,

this is just, with these grand juries,

it's another instance of regular people, regular Americans, everyday Americans, refusing to be intimidated, refusing to go along with this administration, just saying flat out no.

Even as people in power and people in supposedly proud and powerful institutions keep caving, regular people keep saying no.

And so D.C.'s protest and resistance and the whole city's proverbial one-finger salute to this president and his military invasion of the city, it has been sustained and creative and relentless and fired up and tireless and sometimes surprising.

But on top of all the things they have been doing, DC just pulled another rabbit out of their hat with this massive protest this weekend.

Church bells all over the city ringing out in support.

Thousands, tens of thousands of people shutting down blocks and blocks and blocks of big main streets in Washington.

DC just saying with one big, loud, non-violent voice, no.

Of course, all this comes on the heels of the really big protests we saw all over the country last week, especially on Labor Day.

And further and ongoing protests this weekend in places like Mount Kisco, New York, and in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, even in rural Georgia outside that Hyundai plant where they raided the Hyundai factory and took away nearly 500 people, including at least some U.S.

citizens.

You may have already heard this, but the organizers of the No Kings rallies, remember the No Kings rallies that happened back in June, those huge protests in June that attracted more than 5 million people across the country?

Organizers

from the No Kings events that happened back then have just now announced the date for the next No Kings demonstrations.

They're going to be October 18th.

So that's going to be

no thrones, no crowns, no kings.

Saturday, October 18th.

It's about six weeks from now.

They just announced it like yesterday.

They've already got hundreds of rallies and demonstrations planned that day.

They say they are expecting more people to show up in October than the 5 million plus people who showed up in June.

Indivisible organizer Ezra Levin did an interview about it with Rolling Stone today, in which he told Rolling Stone that there isn't a single large flagship event they want everybody to travel to on October 18th.

Instead, they just want protests everywhere.

They want people to organize No Kings Day protests wherever they are in the country on October 18th.

Ezra Levin telling Rolling Stone, quote, I would highly recommend to folks looking to participate in No Kings,

do not travel more than an hour.

If you're having to travel more than an hour to get to your local No Kings protest, then start your own.

Again, that date, October 18th.

This is a president who has no kings protests against him because he is trying to behave as if he is an indomitable force.

He is trying to behave as if he has monarchical power.

While in reality, this is a weak and unpopular president who bizarrely and implausibly is trying to extricate himself from the Epstein scandal with all the skill of a sea cucumber trying to play the piano.

He has a 15-year association with the country's most notorious child sex abuser and child sex trafficker.

And as the country learns more and more about that disgusting scandal, trying to manage perceptions of the president's own involvement in it is becoming a preoccupying cover-up of his administration.

That is not great.

The latest NBC polling shows that Donald Trump is underwater by 14 points on his overall approval rating.

He is underwater 14 points on his handling of deportations and immigration.

New polling by CBS and YouGov shows that by 14 points, people do not want him sending troops to DC.

By 16 points, they don't want him sending troops anywhere else either.

He's underwater in the NBC poll, 18 points on his handling of trade and tariffs.

He's underwater, 22 points on inflation and the cost of living.

His job numbers are the worst job numbers we have seen in this country in 16 years.

And that's if you cut out the pandemic to be nice to him.

He started these radical new gambits on redistricting the Congress to try to essentially force Republicans to hold on to power.

That is something the public is against 80-20.

He has started this radical new gambit on undoing the nation's access to vaccines when the public is basically 80-20 in favor of vaccines.

He is unpopular generally.

He is unpopular even on the things he most wants to be known for, things like this stupid tariff stuff.

And the radical new things he's trying to do to shock the country and change the subject, this redistricting stuff and the vaccine stuff, all that stuff is even less popular than the other stuff, which is already radically unpopular.

He's not doing anything the country likes at all.

But sure, his way out of this is to try to convince everyone that

that's definitely not his signature.

One of those is obviously different, right?

Congressman Raja Krishnamurthy is here tonight live.

Plus, we've got one of the people who's trying to clean up the disastrous mess Trump has made on COVID vaccines.

We've got a lot to come tonight.

Stay with us.

At a time like this, we can't forget that the fight for a brighter future isn't defined by any single moment.

It's defined by the work we do, the values we stand for, and the commitment we make to each other each and every day.

Please consider making a gift to the Obama Foundation today.

It's the best way to support our mission and help these young leaders continue to build a fairer, kinder, more hopeful future for all of us.

I think that you have to have faith that in the end it'll all be okay.

That no matter who wins a presidential election, we will live in a democracy.

The First Amendment will govern what journalists can say and do.

The Constitution will protect the rights of everybody.

If you can agree that most people want those things, our show is about trying to bend the arc toward that end result.

Deadline Deadline White House with Nicole Wallace, weekdays from 4 to 6 p.m.

Eastern on MSNBC.

Hey, everyone, it's Chris Hayes.

This week on my podcast, Why is This Happening?

Harvard political scientist Erica Chenoweth.

People often find out the world they're in after the fact.

And that's what makes this wave of global autocratization, as they call it, much more like the one that was in the 1920s and 30s than the one that was in like the 1960s and 70s.

Because in the 60s and 70s, there were bright lines.

There was a coup outright by the military declaring themselves the caretaker government, or there was an armed revolution that won.

We're in a different world where most of the aspiring autocrats today are elected authoritarians.

That's this week on Why Is This Happening.

Search for Why is This Happening where you're listening right now and follow.

Among the Jeffrey Epstein materials obtained by the House Oversight Committee today is that creepy birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein, reportedly from President Donald Trump.

Trump had previously said any such letter did not exist.

Now that it very clearly does exist, Trump's administration is claiming that the signature on the letter is so obviously not Trump's, it must be a forgery.

Even though that signature appears to be a quite remarkably similar match with Trump's signature from several other unrelated documents from the same time period.

That letter, though, is not the only thing the Oversight Committee got in response to its subpoena to the Epstein estate today.

They also reportedly received at least some financial records.

And that's important because financial records, the records of the money sloshing in and out of Jeffrey Epstein's many bank accounts,

that's at the heart of most of the remaining open questions

about Epstein's crimes.

Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, has been digging into Epstein's financial network for the past three years.

His investigators say they've reviewed confidential Treasury Department files that show that several big banks flagged as suspicious more than $1.5 billion in transactions by Epstein over the space of more than a decade.

Disturbingly, banks did not report those thousands of suspicious transactions to the government until after Epstein's death in 2019.

Nevertheless, the federal government has those documents now, and Senator Wyden says Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant is refusing to hand those documents over, refusing to hand over those Epstein financial records to Wyden's investigators.

In a letter last week, the senator accused Besant of, quote, impeding my investigation into the financing of Epstein sex trafficking and quote, preventing transparency into one of the worst pedophile rings in U.S.

history.

Wyden wrote, quote, the Treasury records shine a light on how high-profile individuals paid Epstein staggering sums of money, which was then used to move women around the world or engage in dubious transactions indicative of money laundering.

Treasury Department has responded to these demands from Senator Wyden by calling these requests political theater.

It's the worst play ever, if this is theater.

But Wyden's accusations about financial institutions are bolstered by an investigation published by the New York Times today, which lays out in detail how J.P.

Morgan Chase facilitated and profited from Epstein and his financial network for years, despite red flags and suspicious transactions and many warnings from the bank's own executives.

That said, since Trump's Treasury Department continues to stymie Senator Wyden's investigation,

it's really only the press and the House Oversight Committee that are currently getting anywhere in terms of obtaining new Epstein material and getting to the bottom of his case and who else was involved in what he did.

When the Oversight committee today got a hold of that creepy birthday letter from Donald Trump, Congressman Raja Krishnamurthy of the Oversight Committee posted it online.

He wrote, quote, if Trump lied about this, what else is he hiding?

This is disturbing, disgusting, and

extremely troubling.

The full Epstein files must be released.

Now, joining us now is Illinois Congressman Raja Krishnamurthy.

He sits on the Oversight Committee.

Congressman, I really appreciate you being here.

I know a lot's going on all at once.

Thank you so much, Rachel.

Let me just ask if you've had an opportunity to look through the materials that your committee obtained today.

If you can give us your response to what you've seen thus far and how you'd characterize these materials.

I've seen some.

Our committee is like actively going through these documents as we speak.

And as you said,

there's a lot there, but I think what it really points to is the need for the full disclosure of all the Epstein files.

Unfortunately, we still haven't received the vast majority of those.

And as you said, I think contained within them is important financial records.

Just one data point for your viewers.

The survivors and others estimate that there's more than $1 billion in wired transaction activity associated with this child sex trafficking ring, including some very highly unusual payments, including $170 million that Leon Black had wired Jeffrey Epstein for quote-unquote tax and estate planning, which sounds highly dubious to me.

But those are the types of records that we need.

We haven't yet received those, and I think they and others might be among the remaining files that we've asked from the Justice Department.

I want to ask your reaction to one of the documents that was

revealed to your committee today that I just don't know

how to make heads or tails of it.

It involves Jeffrey Epstein holding a mock-up of a big check that

is sort of designed to look like it is from Donald Trump.

It's for $22,500.

This was part of the birthday book of

letters and things put together for Epstein's 50th birthday.

The Wall Street Journal describes a Mar-a-Lago longtime member as being the sort of author of this document in which this picture is there.

And then his caption on the picture essentially describes

Trump as like engaging in a sale with Epstein of a woman who's described as depreciated.

I don't know what to make of this other than being deeply weirded out by it.

Do you have any sense of what this is about?

No, I don't.

And it's among those various, very strange documents within that birthday book.

But this is yet another example of just the type of people of ill repute that Donald Trump hung around.

And of course, this gentleman thought it was a joke, but in hindsight,

it appears to be maybe suggestive of other activities that Epstein was involved in.

I just want to say one other thing, which is that, you know, we met for two and a half hours with survivors of the Epstein abuse and child sex trafficking ring.

And, you know, these people were real life people who suffered tremendous abuse and trauma at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein.

More than a thousand girls may have been victimized.

And to see these men kind of talk about

these women in this way is especially disgusting in light of what we've learned now.

Congressman Raja Krishnamurthy, thank you so much for your time.

I know that things are particularly tense back home in Chicago and the Chicago suburbs right now as Trump is threatening war and invasion of your city.

We've been covering your constituents and others being out there demonstrating in the streets this weekend.

We'd love to stay in touch with you on that over the next couple of weeks as we see how it informs.

We're not backing down, Rachel.

Yeah, I can see it.

Thank you, sir.

Much more news ahead here tonight.

Stay with us.

I think that you have to have faith that in the end it'll all be okay.

That no matter who wins a presidential election, we will live in a democracy.

The First Amendment will govern what journalists can say and do.

The Constitution will protect the rights of everybody.

If you can agree that most people want those things, our show is about trying to bend the arc toward that end result.

Deadline White House with Nicole Wallace, weekdays from 4 to 6 p.m.

Eastern on MSNBC.

Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter.

Each morning, read sharp insights from the voices you trust.

Catch standout moments from your favorite shows.

The second Trump administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to radically transform America.

Stay up to speed with our latest podcasts and documentaries and get fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news.

It's everything you love about MSNBC delivered to your inbox.

Sign up now at msnbc.com.

It's titled why grandparents must lead on vaccines.

Quote, many of today's parents never witnessed the devastating effects of polio or whooping cough.

But we grandparents remember we saw children on crutches or or struggling to breathe inside iron lungs or deaf from post-measles infections.

This is our lived experience.

As the family's trusted messengers, many of us grandparents are eager and capable of getting the word out to young families, preschools, and communities.

The message, it is crucial for children to be vaccinated.

Our grandkids are counting on us.

Vaccines are safe and effective.

That op-ed was written by two nurses who also happened to be grandparents.

They say they have been increasingly concerned by the way in which public trust in vaccines has been undermined by Donald Trump and the people he's put in charge of public health.

And so they're doing something about it, something simple and direct and therefore also kind of radical.

This weekend, they helped launch a nationwide new grassroots voluntary organization that is called Grandparents for Vaccines.

Can't believe we have to do this, but we do.

They are sharing their firsthand experience as old people of what life was like before vaccines became widely available.

They're going to host events and do panels and run campaigns to just flat out tell younger people what it was like to live in a world with polio and whooping cough and all these other plagues from which we were saved by vaccines.

The Grandparents for Vaccines group is starting this movement as the American Academy of Pediatrics is urging parents to, quote, get their youngest children vaccinated for COVID.

Of course, Trump's hand-picked health secretary,

Trump's hand-picked health secretary, Robert F.

Kennedy Jr., who has no medical experience, he says healthy kids no longer need a COVID vaccine, but the doctor's group, the American Academy of Pediatrics, is publicly recommending that all kids, all people ages 6 to 23 months, receive a COVID vaccine.

And while the federal government fails and falls apart under Trump's watch when it comes to public health, individual states are now starting to take matters into their own hands as best they can.

They're picking up the slack in terms of the governance on this issue.

In Illinois, Governor J.B.

Pritzker's Health Department is reportedly exploring the possibility of bulk purchasing COVID-19 vaccines straight from manufacturers.

The New Republic's Greg Sargent reports that a coalition of states led by Massachusetts Governor Mara Healy is planning to coordinate on the purchase and distribution of pediatric vaccines should the federal government government restrict access to them.

Massachusetts is also requiring, as a state, they're requiring that health insurers cover vaccines recommended by the state, regardless of what Kennedy's corrupted CDC recommends.

On the West Coast, Oregon, California, Washington, and now Hawaii have formed a public health alliance on the West Coast to provide vaccine guidance, given the Trump administration dismantling the elements of the CDC that responsibly used to do that.

The governors of those states argue that the CDC has, quote, become a political tool that increasingly peddles ideology instead of science, ideology that will lead to severe health consequences.

We will not allow the people of our states to be put at risk.

A growing number of democratically led states, blue states, are taking action

because they need to.

And it's not just the West Coast.

It's not just Illinois and Massachusetts, also New York, also now today blue state Minnesota, Governor Tim Walls signing an order to help people in his state get the COVID vaccine.

All these action in all these states will have a tangible effect on the lives of people who live in blue states.

Blue states are forming coalitions.

They are each doing what they can to start governing on public health as the Trump administration stops.

How much can blue states do on their own?

And what type of dynamic does this create in the country when we have red state science and blue state science and infectious and communicable diseases in the middle of it?

Hold that thought.

Stay with us.

Do you want to get a COVID booster this year?

You want to get a COVID vaccine?

Have you thought about how you might be able to get it?

Do you know?

Do you know anybody who's tried?

On Friday, the Washington State Health Department's chief science officer signed a standing order for the COVID vaccine, which should allow most residents of Washington state to be able to go directly to a pharmacy or a clinic to get a COVID vaccine without an individual prescription.

They're trying to rationalize this in Washington state to make it easy to get a COVID vaccine if you want one.

They have to do that on the state level because the FDA, under Trump Health Secretary Robert Kennedy, just slashed its federal recommendations of who should be eligible to get the vaccine, leading to both bottlenecks and confusion nationwide for people who want to try to get one.

In signing this new order, Washington State's chief science officer said this.

He said, we want to ensure all Washington residents have access to the protection these vaccines provide based on the best available science.

And yes, that's a radical thing to say these days.

Joining us now is the Washington State Department of Health's Chief Science Officer, Dr.

Tao Sheng Kuang Get.

Dr.

Kuang Get, thank you so much for joining us this evening.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you so much for having me.

Let me ask about the decision of your state to join with some other states on the West Coast, this West Coast Health Alliance, to try to work together on vaccine issues.

Why have you done that?

And what do you anticipate doing in this new compact?

Well, there have been federal changes that have introduced a lot of uncertainty and confusion for people around vaccination and COVID-19 vaccination.

And so the governors of our states, California, Oregon, Washington, and then joined by Hawaii, created this alliance to really elevate and affirm the really important public health value that public health policy is best when it's based on science.

In terms of vaccination, obviously there's a public health component to this, not just an individual health.

component.

These are communicable and infectious diseases that we are talking about, and the overall vaccination level in the community matters in terms of how big epidemics and outbreaks can get.

Is it smart for individual states who

may have differences with the federal government on these things to join together rather than doing this on their own?

We're seeing what you're doing on the West Coast.

We saw Minnesota take some similar steps.

We've seen Massachusetts take some similar steps.

Some other states in the Northeast talking about it.

Is a larger group of states a better approach, given that it's a public health matter that applies to hopefully as many people as possible?

One thing that's in common with the actions of all of the states that you just mentioned is that it's their actions really aligned at making sure that COVID-19 vaccine policy is based on the best available science.

And it's true, there are concerns by many in public health that there will be

a variety of different recommendations throughout the country, state by state or region by region.

And

that's why those of us in the West Coast Health Alliance and as well as many in other states really have focused on the recommendations of trusted national

organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, like the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, who have a long tradition of establishing very solid science-based vaccine recommendations for people.

So by citing these national, national and well-trusted associations, we're hoping to avoid some of the fragmentation that many fear.

Given the sort of chaos and changes at the federal level, is there any reason to be concerned about whether there will be sufficient vaccine to buy, to procure by states or by any other means for enough Americans who want to be vaccinated?

That definitely is a concern.

And even now we are hearing that people are having difficulty getting access to COVID-19 vaccine because of supply issues.

And this is not unusual.

Oftentimes when there's a new vaccine available, we go through a period where supply isn't where we want it to be.

But we were hearing from ordinary Washingtonians that they were having difficulty getting vaccinated because some pharmacies were asking for a prescription, a prescription from a healthcare provider, which is an extra step that they didn't used to require.

So that's when we realized that a statewide standing order, which is like a prescription, except instead of signed by your doctor, it's signed by me as a state health officer, that a prescription, a statewide standing order could be a prescription that will make it easier for people to get access to COVID-19 vaccine.

Dr.

Taoshin Kwanget, the Washington Department of Health's chief science officer, thank you and thank you for your clarity in explaining that at a time when a lot of people, I think, are confused about what's going on.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for having me.

I'll be right back still with us.

All right, that's going to do it for me for now.

MSNBC presents the chart-topping original podcast, The Best People with Nicole Wallace.

This week, she sits down with activist Stacey Abrams.

My mission is to activate the potential in everyone else.

This is our country.

This is our fight, and we can win.

The Best People with Nicole Wallace.

Listen now.

For early access at free listening and bonus content, subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.