This Week with George Stephanopoulos Full Broadcast - Sunday, October 12

This week with George Stephanopoulos starts right now.

Ceasefire overseas.

I think it's going to be a lasting peace, hopefully an everlasting peace.

Political warfare at home.

Trump himself lies consistently, persistently. The lies should not stand.

As Palestinians and Israelis celebrate, President Trump's push to deploy troops in American cities draws protests.

They won't desist! They won't desist!

Plus, as the government shutdown continues, the White House orders mass layoffs of federal workers.

Every Senate Democrat who's going along with this, you lack the moral fortitude to do the right thing.

Republicans have the House, the Senate, and the presidency. They decided to shut the government down. And the president's handpicked prosecutor indicts New York Attorney General Letitia

James over the objections of previous prosecutors.

This is nothing more than a continuation of the president's desperate weaponization of

our justice system.

This morning, Ian Pannell is live in Israel. Pierre Thomas reports on Trump's retribution campaign. Vice President J.D. Vance and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker here live. Plus analysis from our Powerhouse Roundtable.

From ABC News, it's This Week. Here now, George Stephanopoulos.

Good morning and welcome to This Week, a week of stark contrasts. As the president pushed for peace between adversaries overseas, he pushed for prosecutions of political enemies here at home. As he ordered American troops to the Middle East as peacekeepers, deportation forces in the Midwest are being described by critics as stormtroopers.

And as the president prepares to address Israel's parliament, our House of Representatives is not working with pay, while federal employees are working without pay. Thousands more have been fired by the White House. All as Trump's Treasury Secretary authorized a $20 billion bailout of Argentina that will also benefit his former business associates. A lot to cover this Sunday morning.

We begin with Chief Foreign Correspondent Ian Pannel in Tel Aviv.

This week, after two bloody years, the guns finally fall silent in Gaza, a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, and in the next 24 hours, the expected return of all remaining hostages. Tens of thousands of Gazans stream back to what's left of their homes amid catastrophic destruction. Aid groups poised to flood Gaza with desperately needed food, medicine and other supplies. It's been a whirlwind of a week. President Trump announcing the peace deal Wednesday,

hailing it as a great day for the Arab and Muslim world, Israel, all surrounding nations and the United States of America.

We reached a momentous breakthrough in the Middle East, something that people said was never going to be done. We ended the war in Gaza and really, on a much bigger basis, created

peace.

Israel ratifying the first phase of the deal early Friday, agreeing to partially withdraw its troops. The deal mandates the release of the 48 remaining hostages in Gaza, 20 believed to still be alive, the release of Palestinian prisoners, 250 convicted inmates, and 1,700 detained in Gaza, and the distribution of much needed humanitarian aid

into Gaza. Trump's sending his lead negotiators, Steve Whitcoff and Jared Kushner to Egypt to finalise the deal. The two speaking last night in Tel Aviv's hostage square. The crowd booing the mention of Israel's prime minister, but cheering Trump's role.

Your courage and endurance inspired the world, and it was your belief, joined with the bold leadership of my friend and president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, that made this peace possible.

As 200 U.S. troops arrive in Israel to monitor the cease-fire agreement, U.S. officials say they won't be on the ground in Gaza. President Trump is saying he's traveling to Israel and Egypt this weekend to mark the historic deal. And after two years of pain, hostage families await the return of their loved ones. Among the 20 believed to be alive, Eitan Horn, who was kidnapped from kibbutz near Oz while

visiting his brother on October 7. His brother was released in February. His father, it's like telling me, on the one hand, I'm happy because it's probably going to happen. On the other hand, I'm a little unsure, not because I think it won't happen, but because I know who we're dealing with here.

Many questions remain over what comes next, whether Hamas will disarm and how Gaza will be governed after the war. But Trump projects in confidence ahead of negotiations to nail down the next phase of the deal.

There is consensus on most of it and some of the details like anything else will be worked out.

In Gaza, 15-year-old Yusuf Al-Orjani just relieved that finally there is a ceasefire. Praising America and President Trump with 1,000 thank yous. George, half a million Palestinians are believed to have returned to Gaza City and the north of the Strip since the ceasefire, according to Gaza civil defense.

But our producer on the ground this morning reporting that many are now heading back south, because there's basically nothing left. No homes, no access to water, food, or internet. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking increasingly loudly for the return of the hostages expected to be back at home with

their loved ones by midday Monday.

George.

And, Ian, President Trump is heading to Tel Aviv later today. What should we expect tomorrow?

Yes, that's right. According to the prime minister's office, he's actually going to meet with the families of the hostages on Monday. He's also going to speak at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. Think of this, if you like, as a victory lap. But then, interestingly, he's also going to Egypt for what's being touted as a peace summit with the leaders of more than 20 countries. The gathering is kind of aiming to mark the end of the war in Gaza or reinforce it, enhance efforts to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East.

Remember, for President Trump, this was never just about Gaza. This was about a much bigger deal, a much bigger vision to enhance the Abraham Accords, establish normalization between Israel and other countries, and at the same time, do business.

George.

The end panel, thanks. Now to President Trump's retribution campaign here at home with the indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James this week on charges that have been rejected by previous prosecutors. Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas has the story.

I am your retribution.

It was the calling card of Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, retribution. As he fended off four different indictments and promised to dismantle what he insisted was a two-tiered justice system weaponized against him. He also claimed law and order was absent across the country

and vowed to bring it back. Nearly nine months into his second stint in the White House, President Trump has been pushing critical agencies like DOJ and Homeland Security to be ultra-aggressive. Instructing ICE to conduct sweeping removals of undocumented immigrants,

and ordering National Guard troops into Democrat-led cities. With a number of courts questioning whether he's stretching the limits of his constitutional authority. This week, his Justice Department secured

an indictment against one of his main political enemies, New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned on going after Donald Trump, and who won a half billion dollar judgment in a civil fraud case against the Trump organization

and his family. DOJ announcing that James is charged with one count of bank fraud, one count of making false statements to a financial institution, which each carry a maximum sentence

of 30 years in prison and up to a million dollar fine. Prosecutors allege that James misled a bank in order to get a more favorable term on a mortgage loan, specifically claiming that the property was going to be a secondary residence, when according to prosecutors,

it was going to be rented for profit.

These charges are baseless. And the president's own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution.

It was the second time in a 14-day span that Trump's Justice Department targeted one of his political foes, after they secured an indictment of former FBI Director James Comey in late September. Both pursuits have come in the wake of that post Trump made referencing Tish James and

Comey and directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to go after them. The charges against James and Comey were brought by Lindsey Halligan, Trump's former personal attorney and newly picked U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who has no prosecutorial experience. Halligan only landed the role after Trump forced out her predecessor, who he previously appointed, Eric Siebert, whose sources say cited a lack

of sufficient evidence in refusing to indict James Orkomi. And as Halligan was in the courtroom bringing charges against James, the Justice Department was locked in two additional courtroom battles,

defending Trump's effort to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago and Portland.

They are being sent here to occupy our city.

With Trump even calling for the arrest of the Illinois governor, J.B. Pritzker, and Chicago Mayor, Brandon Johnson, for failing to protect ICE officers, and repeatedly making false claims that Portland is burning.

It's not a war zone.

Our crime situation has gone down.

But for now, Trump's efforts have been thwarted in both cities. On Thursday, a district judge implemented a temporary restraining order on National Guard troop deployment from any other state into Illinois,

saying that it will only add fuel to the fire the defendants themselves started. That ruling came after a Trump-appointed federal judge put a similar block on his Trump deployment in Portland, writing that conditions there were not significantly violent or disruptive to justify a federal takeover

of the National Guard, and that the president's claims about the city were simply untethered to the facts. But as those cases unfold, Trump has again floated options for circumventing the federal judicial system.

The Insurrection Act, under what conditions or terms

would you implement it? Well, I'd do it if it was necessary. So far, it hasn't been necessary, but we have an Insurrection Act for a reason.

And George, as for that so-called enemies list, DOJ prosecutors are weighing whether to file charges against a number of Trump's political foes, including his former National Security Advisor John Bolton, California Senator Adam Schiff, and others who are under active investigation.

George.

Pierre Thomas, thanks.

And we're joined now by Vice President J.D. Vance. Mr. Vice President, thank you for joining us this morning. Let's start with the Middle East. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Hamas has confirmed they are holding 20 living hostages and that those hostages are going to be released in the next 24 hours, early as today perhaps. Have 20 living hostages been confirmed?

When do you expect to see them?

Well, they've been confirmed, George. Of course, you don't know until you see these people alive, but thank God we expect to see them alive here in the next 24 hours, probably early tomorrow morning U.S. time, which will be later in the day, of course, in Israel. But look, George, we have to remember, this is a remarkable achievement from an administration that really chose a nonconventional path to diplomacy, and I think that's the major takeaway the president United States instructed Mark Marco Rubio Jared Kushner Steve Whitcoff he said get a deal

done talk to the Gulf Arab states talk to Israel find where there's common ground here and actually let's go and find a way to get it done because of that we're on the cusp of true peace in the Middle East really for the first time in my lifetime certainly these 20 hostages are going to come home to their families, George.

I think this is a great moment for our country. Our country should be proud of our diplomats who made this happen. It's really a great moment for the world, too, which is why the president's going to go over

there and celebrate with these hostages. But it's a great thing, and I'm very excited about it. 200 US troops are being sent to Israel to monitor the agreement. What exactly will they be doing? Will they actually go into Gaza? And are you concerned they could get caught in some crossfire?

George, so that story is actually misreported. We already have troops at Central Command. We've had them for decades in this country. They are going to monitor the terms of the ceasefire. That's everything from ensuring that the Israeli troops are at the agreed upon line, ensuring that Hamas is not attacking innocent Israelis, doing everything that they can to ensure the

peace that we've created actually sustains and endures. But the idea that we're going to have troops on the ground in Gaza, in Israel, that is not our intention. That is not our plan. There was a bit of a misreporting there, but we are going to monitor this piece to ensure that it endures. The other piece of good news that's been under-reported, I think, George, is that

Indonesia and a number of other majority Muslim states, they've actually offered to send ground troops to Gaza to ensure the necessary peacekeeping takes place. That's not something the United States is going to be expected to do. That's something the Muslim world is going to step up and do. And that, again, is because of the Trump administration's diplomacy.

The president has also pushed for National Guard deployments in several American cities. As you know, that's been questioned by several federal judges, including Trump appointees. Also the Republican governor of Oklahoma and chairman of the National Governors Association, Kevin Stitt. Here's what Governor Stitt said. We believe in the Federalist system, that states rights. Oklahomans would lose their mind

if Pritzker and Illinois sent troops down to Oklahoma during the Biden administration. How do you respond to Governor Stitt?

Well, I'd say to Governor Stitt, you have to look at what's happening on the ground in Chicago. And the reason why Illinois is a different case from Chicago is because Chicago has been given over to lawlessness and gangs for too long George. If you look at the murder rates in Chicago, the violent crime rates, you have you have women who have young families, they're terrified their kids

are gonna get killed in a drive-by shooting. We have accepted this for far too long in the United States of America and some of our biggest cities and Chicago unfortunately is the worst. It's a beautiful city. It's got great people. We know the gross majority of the violent crime

in that city is committed by a very tiny fraction of the population. Why shouldn't federal troops empower the people in Chicago to live safe lives when the governor and the local mayor just simply refused to do their job.

But as you know, a federal judge, a U.S. district judge, has blocked the effort to deploy troops in Chicago. And it was Judge Perry, and she actually said that a lot of these claims that were made, especially in the court filings, lack credibility.

Well, George, we're obviously gonna litigate this as much as we can. We think that we have the authority to provide proper safety to our citizens all over the United States, but particularly in Chicago. But I think for any federal judge or anybody else to look at the situation and say, is

it tolerable? And I think the obvious answer, George, is no. The president looks at this situation. He sees the fact that you have multiple people dying of murders every weekend in the city of Chicago and he says this is intolerable. It's not just the people who live in Chicago, it's the law enforcement in Chicago, federal, state, and local who are trying to keep us safe.

George, you've seen ICE agents being teed off on in suburban Chicago and in places all over the state of Illinois and other places too. You see a thousand percent increase in violence against our ICE agents. They're being assaulted, they're being beaten, they're being shot at.

I think all Americans, Democrat or Republican, we look at this scenario, we say, this is not acceptable. We want people to be safe. We want our law enforcement officials to be empowered, to keep us safe. We can do this.

And that's exactly what the Trump administration

has committed to doing Governor Pritzker is our next guest President Trump has said that he should be in jail Do you think governor Pritzker has committed a crime?

Well, I think governor Pritzker has certainly failed to keep the people of Illinois safe and it's interesting to me, you know Governor Pritzker will talk a lot I'm sure about how bad Donald Trump is about how bad I am and about how bad Donald Trump is, about how bad I am, and about how bad the administration is. He is the governor of a state that where its biggest city has murder rates that that rival the most violent places in the third world, George. Why is he so mad at Donald Trump for trying to keep Chicagoans safe? He should be mad at the criminals that he has failed to keep at bay. We're trying to

help him and we're trying to help the residents of his biggest city. I wish that he would let us because he certainly isn't doing the job himself.

I asked if you agree with President Trump that Governor Pritzker has committed a crime.

Well, I think that Governor Pritzker has allowed a lot of people to be killed in the city of Chicago and elsewhere, George. I think that it's disgraceful and I think that he absolutely should suffer some consequences for the fact that there are thousands of innocent Chicagoans who are dead because he failed to do his job.

It's really a yes or no question. Do you believe he's committed a crime?

George, you're going to keep on asking this question. I'm going to keep on telling you that Governor Pritzker has failed to do his job. He should suffer some consequences. Whether he's violated a crime, ultimately, I would leave to the courts. But I certainly think that he has violated his fundamental oath of office. That seems pretty criminal to me.

I'd leave it to a judge and jury to decide whether he's actually violated a crime.

Let me also ask you, as we saw the indictment this week of Letitia James on questions of Mortgage fraud also Lisa Cook is rate has been accused by the Trump administration of committing mortgage fraud as well the Journalism outlet ProPublica has actually published a story and I want to show it up on the screen right now That says that several members of the Trump administration have faced similar questions Labor Secretary Lori Chavez de Remer entered into two primary residence mortgages in quick

succession. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has primary residence mortgages in New Jersey and Washington D.C. Lee Zeldin, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, has one primary residence mortgage in Long Island and another in Washington D.C. How do you respond to critics who say that the Trump administration is engaging in a

double standard here?

Well, I'd say two things, George. First of all, ProPublica is basically a left-wing blog. I'm not shocked that you found a left-wing blog that can attack members of the Trump administration. But second, and this is the most important, is what does the law say? Letitia James was indicted in a left-leaning part of our country, a part that voted very heavily against Donald J. Trump, for the crime of mortgage fraud. When I read the indictment, when I read the facts in the case, I see a person who committed mortgage fraud. Now, of course, the jury is going to decide whether she ultimately committed a crime.

We don't try her. The administration doesn't try her. A judge tries the case, and a jury decides whether she's ultimately guilty. That is what is going to determine whether she goes to prison. I think we let the facts drive this. And George, that's what we've tried to do in the administration's Department of Justice. We've asked ourselves, has a person violated the law? And if that person has violated the law, then we decide to prosecute them.

That's what the Department of Justice should do. It didn't do that under Joe Biden's administration. It does under Donald Trump's. On the facts, do you dispute the facts that ProPublica reported? Do I dispute a far left blog that I haven't read that you brought up in this interview? I have no idea, George. I have no idea what they actually said, but I'd certainly question the source. I question their credibility. And most importantly, I'm not worried about what they said about members of our

administration. I ask the question, what does the law say? And if the law says that you engage in mortgage fraud and a local prosecutor, a local grand jury, and finally a jury convicts you of that crime, then that is how the justice system is meant to work in the United States of America.

The White House Borders our Tom Homan was recorded on an FBI surveillance tape in September, 2024, accepting $50,000 in cash. Did he keep that money or give it back?

George, you've covered the story ad nauseum. Tom Homan did not take a bribe. It's a ridiculous smear. And the reason you guys are going after Tom Homan so aggressively is because he's doing the job of enforcing the law.

I think it's really preposterous. I know Tom. I think that he's a good man. He gets death threats. He gets attacked. He gets constantly threatened by people because he has the audacity to want to enforce the

country's immigration laws. I think that it would be a much more interesting story about why is it that Tom Homan, who is simply enforcing America's immigration laws, is getting constantly harassed and threatened to the point of death threats. That's a much more interesting question

that I think journalists should focus on. We can agree to disagree on that question.

Well, you said he didn't take a bribe, but I'm not sure you answered the question. Are you saying that he did not accept the $50,000?

George, this story has been covered ad nauseum. He did not take a bribe. Did he accept $50,000? I'm sure that in the course of Tom Homan's life, he has been paid more than $50,000 for services. The question is, did he do something illegal? And there's absolutely no evidence that

Tom Holmes has ever taken a bribe with anything illegal, which is why he's working in the administration. I'm asking you, did he accept the $50,000 that was caught on the surveillance? Did he accept that $50,000 or not? George, I don't know what you're talking about. Did he

accept $50,000 for what? He was recorded on an audio tape in September 2024 in FBI surveillance tape, accepting $50,000 in cash. Did he keep that money?

Accepting $50,000 for doing what, George? I'm not even sure I understand the question. Is it illegal to take a payment for doing services? The FBI has not prosecuted him. I've never seen any evidence that he's engaged in criminal wrongdoing. Nobody has accused Tom of violating a crime, even the far left media like yourself. So I'm actually not sure what the precise question

is. Did he accept $50,000? Honestly, George, I don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is that he didn't violate a crime.

So you don't, what was caught on the tape, you're saying right now you don't know whether or not he kept that money.

I don't know what tape you're referring to, George. I saw media reports that Tom Homan accepted a bribe. There's no evidence of that. And here's, George, why fewer and fewer people watch your program and why you're losing credibility. Because you're talking for now five minutes with the Vice President of the United States about this story regarding

Tom Holman, a story that I've read about but I don't even know the video that you're talking about. Meanwhile, low income women can't get food because the Democrats and Chuck Schumer have shut down the government. Right now we're trying to figure out how to pay our troops because Chuck Schumer has shut down the government. You are focused on a bogus story.

You're insinuating criminal wrongdoing against a guy who has done nothing wrong instead of focusing on the fact that our country is struggling because our government's shut down. Let's talk about the real issues, George. I think the American people would benefit much more from that than from you going down some weird left-wing rabbit hole where the facts clearly show that Tom Homan didn't engage in any criminal wrongdoing.

It's not a weird left-wing rabbit hole. I didn't insinuate anything. I asked you whether Tom Homan accepted $50,000 as was heard on an audio tape recorded by the FBI in September 2024, and you did not answer the question. Thank you for your time this morning.

No, George, I said that I don't. Governor David Picard is up next.

We'll be right back.

We're heading to Chicago because we want to save Chicago. Do you know they had over 4,000 people killed in Chicago over a short, 4,000 people, and I have to watch this slob of a governor stand up

and say that, well, everything's OK. We've got it under control. Here in Chicago, we have brought crime down precipitously. The president, on the other hand, has some idea in his head that things are getting worse and worse.

It's a hellhole.

It's some kind of hellscape in Chicago or in Illinois.

And we are joined now by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker. Governor Pritzker, thank you for joining us this morning. I know you just heard Vice President Vance, he didn't directly answer whether he agreed with President Trump that you've committed a crime, but what he did say was it seems pretty criminal to him, your behavior. What's your response?

Well, you just heard a tidal wave of lies from the Vice President of the United States. It's a bit shocking, and you heard over and over again him just making things up on national television with you. You know, there's a reason why the judge here in federal court said that the administration lacks credibility, and why even the Nobel Prize Committee chair said that the administration lacks integrity.

This administration, led by a 34-time convicted felon, is threatening to jail people that are their political opponents. They're making things up to go after people. We're seeing it day in and day out. And the fact that he's made a threat against me, I'm not afraid.

I'm gonna stand up for the people of my state. And we've got to all stand together because there is truly unconstitutional actions that are coming out of this administration, coming at the states and the people of the United States. And all of us, Democrats and Republicans,

need to speak out about it.

One thing I'd point out, you mentioned Governor Stitt, United States and all of us, Democrats and Republicans, need to speak out about it.

One thing I'd point out, you mentioned Governor Stitt, who said specifically, like, we shouldn't be federalizing troops in one state and sending them into another, that he would be offended if I had troops going into his state. I am offended that Greg Abbott has troops coming into my state. And even Governor Scott in Vermont has called this unconstitutional.

So good news, Republicans are now calling out

the Trump administration, more should do so.

As you know, President Trump called for the prosecution of James Comey, it happened. He called for the prosecution of Letitia James, and it happened. He said, you committed a crime. Are you worried the Justice Department

is gonna come after you?

It's true that the President says things and sometimes he follows through on those threats. And he certainly has the power of the presidency. He does not have the power to overcome the Constitution. And so am I afraid? I am not afraid. Do I think that he could do it? He might. But as I've said before, come and get me. I mean, you're dead wrong, Mr. President and Mr. Vice President. And I will stand up for the law and the Constitution. That's what we do in the state of Illinois.

The latest federal judge has allowed troops from Texas to remain in Illinois, but said they can't be deployed in Chicago. What is the situation exactly on the ground right now?

Well there are federalized troops that have been sent here from Texas. They are in a federal facility. They're not allowed to come onto the streets of Chicago or our suburbs or anywhere in Illinois according to the determination of the judge. We have also troops from California, not sent by California, but rather by the president when they were deterred from Oregon.

So we've got two states, other states' troops, and of course the Illinois National Guard that's been federalized and under the direction of the president of the United States. None are allowed on the streets of Chicago right now because we've won the temporary restraining order and the streets of Chicago right now because we've won the temporary restraining order and the appeal of that TRO. And we hope to continue to win.

Look, we've got to rely on the courts to do the right thing. I realize that sometimes that's risky business, especially when some have been appointed by Donald Trump. But we've seen that even a Trump-appointed judge out in California, in the West Coast, has ruled against the administration.

So I do think that their oath of office actually matters to them, and that they'll make the right determinations.

But as you just heard Vice President Vance say that those troops are necessary because under your watch and under the watch of the mayor of Chicago, the streets have been given over to lawlessness, Those are his words.

Yeah, well, you know, they've said that Portland is on fire. Portland is not on fire. In Chicago, we've cut the homicide rate in half. We've got double digit declines in all of our violent crime statistics. He says that we've got the highest crime rate in the entire world.

That's ridiculous. We're not even in the top 25 cities in the United States. And Illinois itself is the 19th safest state in the United States. I'd like to be in the top 10, but 19th is a whole heck of a lot better

than Texas or Florida.

But if the president invokes the Insurrection Act, there's not much you can do, is there?

Well, the Insurrection Act is called the Insurrection Act for a reason. There has to be a rebellion. There has to be an insurrection in order for him to be allowed to invoke it. Again, he can say anything he wants, but if the Constitution means anything, and I guess we all are questioning that right now, but the courts will make the determination. If the Constitution means anything, the Insurrection Act cannot be invoked to send them in because

they want to fight crime. Let me add that they're claiming in court that that's not the reason that they're calling up troops to send them into our states. They're claiming in court that this is about protecting ICE facilities and ICE agents and not about crime on the streets. But then you hear Vice President Vance

and the President of the United States contravening that and saying exactly what they actually think. They just want troops on the ground because they want to militarize, especially blue cities and blue states.

Governor Pritzker, thanks for your time this morning.

Thank you, George. Roundtable's up next. We'll be right back.

Russell Vogue said the reductions in force have begun related to this shutdown. How many layoffs have you authorized for this first round and

from which agency? And it will be Democrat oriented because we figure, you know, they started this thing, so they should be Democrat oriented. It It will be a lot, and we'll announce the numbers over the next couple of days, but it will be a lot of people, all because of the Democrats. These are largely people that the Democrats want. Many of them will be fired.

Firings have begun, 4,000 laid off starting late Friday, creating some confusion and chaos in Washington, D.C. In fact, the White House had to say yesterday that several employees of the CDC are actually going back to work after they were fired. We're going to talk about all this on our roundtable, joined by former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former DNC Chair Donna Brazile, and Sarah Isger,

Director of Public Affairs at the Justice Department during President Trump's first term, now the editor of SCOTUSblog. Donna, let me begin with you. You heard the president right there. You heard Vice President Vance earlier saying this is Chuck Schumer's shutdown. The consequences are starting to take hold right now. Are you worried the Democrats are going to get blamed?

No, George. Let me just tell you this. Democrats stayed on the job. House Democrats did not leave. They stayed in Washington, D.C., begging Speaker Johnson to come back, bring the Congress back so that they can continue to work out a compromise. Instead of a compromise, what you hear from the White House is retaliation. We're going to retaliate and hurt Democrats. We're going to hurt Democratic cities.

This is not the way to get the government reopened. So I think Democrats should continue to insist on protecting the health care of millions of Americans. If the Republicans want to play a game, it's a game they'll play by themselves. So far do show that more people are

blaming Republicans and Democrats. I think at this point, though, honestly, it's a non event for Donald Trump's presidency. You see, for instance, this Gaza deal. I think long term that will be a much bigger deal politically because that was an area where he was actually losing support from his base. You see young Republicans turning wildly against Israel. Now the majority saying they sympathize

more with Palestinians. That was an area where I saw some real political damage potentially for the president. At this point, whether Americans are blaming Republicans or Democrats, I just am not sure President Trump's presidency

will be affected.

Chris, pick up on that point. I was working in the White House during the first government shutdown back in 1995. It was high drama. This one does seem to be much more low key.

Well, yeah, because compared to everything else that's going on, people are like shrugging their shoulders a bit. I mean, you know, we have troops being sent all over the country. We have indictments that are being brought. We have now layoffs that are a part of this.

Look, I've always felt and felt this when I was governor. When the government shuts down, it's the failure of both sides. It's the failure of both sides. And you just have to listen to President Trump, what he said before he was president. He said whenever the government shuts down down it's the president's failure. At that time he was blaming it on Barack Obama, so it was more convenient.

So I think everybody takes a hit on this, no matter what. And if it's possible, it's driving the credibility of the Congress even lower. And I don't know if there's much more to go for Republicans and Democrats in Congress. And so I think what's happening is, inadvertently, and I warned this when we talked about this previewing it a while ago,

I think the problem for Democrats is it empowers Donald Trump even more. When the Congress is not here and not doing their work, well, he's gonna do it. And I think that that should be a political concern for them long-term, that they're empowering him more.

First of all, George, I was also a congressional staffer back then, and it was not a pretty picture when Congress, when the government is shut down. It's not a pretty picture for government workers, and it's not a pretty picture for the United States of America. There are hundreds of thousands of government employees

who are now working on a job. They have to pay their mortgages, they have to buy their groceries, they have to pay for their gas, they have to take care of their child care, and they need to get paid this week. So the president, I know he's on his way to Israel, but he needs to authorize somebody to work with Democrats to get this government back open.

It hurts when our government is not functioning.

Sarah, let me ask you about these prosecutions. We saw Letitia James prosecuted this week, James Comey last week. In both situations, the indictment came after the president fired his own appointment as the U.S. attorney in Virginia, after they had rejected bringing charges saying there was insufficient evidence, put in his former personal attorney. You worked for Jeff Sessions as first attorney general. You were in the just term and the first term. What would you have done if that happened

during the first term?

There were very different people in office during the first term than in this term. I think that's the big difference. I don't think Donald Trump has changed. I think the personnel in the Department of Justice has changed.

In the first term, there was really a united front about the role of the Department of Justice and the purpose of the rule of law telling the president this is not what the Department of Justice will do. Obviously, I think there's a lot more fractures in this Department of Justice. There's a lot different feeling of what the role is. Now, what you will hear from MAGA, what you will hear from those people in the Department

of Justice is, this is what deterrence theory is about. When you're playing a cooperative game and the other side defects, in this case, the Democrats with the Alvin Bragg prosecution as the biggest example, then you hit them back disproportionately to create that deterrence. I think the problem they will find

is that actually, that was incredibly unpopular for Democrats. When you asked who was a bigger threat to democracy in the run-up to this last election, they said Democrats were.

So if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying that you and more importantly, the Attorney General would have tried to stop it.

I think you saw many times during the first administration that people at the Department of Justice acted very differently, offered to resign, and the President, interestingly,

didn't take them up on that this time he is. Look, first off, let's just talk about the Letitia James prosecution specifically, and I'll get to the broader point. We're talking about, even if you agree that she's guilty of something, which I think we have a long way to go on that, we're talking about a total loss of $1,800.

$18,000.

No, no, George, because that's $18,000 over the life of the loan. She's only had the loan for five years. So you can't charge somebody for something that they would have gotten 30 years from now. If she sold the house, she wouldn't

get the entire benefit of the lower mortgage rate. She'd only get the amount that she's been in the house, or owned the house house for five years. The standards in the Justice Department manual, as Sarah knows, would not have permitted us to bring this prosecution. Those things are being thrown away. It's too small an amount of money to put federal resources on. We know why this was done. It was done because Donald

Trump told the Justice Department to prosecute Letitia James. And when the professionals there wouldn't do it, he put somebody in who would just follow his instruction, whose previous job was reviewing exhibits at the Smithsonian. So that's what we see going on here.

And here's the difference between Trump II and Trump I. And I'll say it more directly than Sarah did. This is no longer, the Department of Justice is no longer the premier prosecuting office in America. What it is now is a copo regime who goes out and executes hits

when directed by the Don to do so.

That's what it is.

The season of retribution is in full throttle. The president says, and he said, and I had to print it out. I used a lot of ink. Pam, I reviewed over 30 statements. He directed the attorney general to make a move or else she made the move. You know, when Richard Nixon did this back in the day, I was still a young kid.

Me too. I just want to let you know. Elliot Richardson, the attorney general resigned, resigned rather than carry out the corrupt orders of the president. Pam Bondi should have resigned rather than carry out.

George, one other thing. Let's just remember this. This is going to be motions in court in both the Comey case and in the James case that this is retaliatory prosecutions directed by the President of the United States. And these cases may very well be dismissed on that basis.

I think that's a real problem for the judiciary at this point. It would actually be better for the country if this went to trial and they had to show whether they had evidence or not. As Chris and I are looking at this indictment, we don't see a lot yet.

They're not showing all their cards at a minimum. But you're exactly right that this is sort of a textbook selective prosecution or vindictive prosecution claim. I guess I'm hoping that they don't get thrown out on those grounds though, because I think it would provide more fodder, frankly,

against the judiciary, sort of bringing the judiciary further into these political fights.

So that's like discovery? So you have to keep digging and digging to see the finger of the president telling the attorney general to do this?

Look, and let's be clear, Alvin Bragg wasn't going after business fraud up in New York when he brought his. He and his office investigated Donald Trump for years until they could find something that Donald Trump did. He basically ran on that.

Over two administrations. And Michael Corn. And Michael Corn provided much of the evidence that these attorney generals wanted to.

That was a vindictive prosecution for the purpose of hurting Donald Trump. What I think Donald Trump should think about is that it didn't hurt him. And the exact same thing as a threat here, this will actually hurt his administration far more

than it will hurt the people he's going after. Chris, I want to ask you about the National Guard deployments. You were a U.S. attorney. You were also governor of New Jersey. Let me ask you the question I asked J.B. Pritzker. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, there's not much a governor can do, is there?

No, there's not. And J.B. wouldn't answer the question, but I will. There isn't. you know, when you were bringing it up, because we haven't looked at it probably since law school. The fact is that if the president makes a determination that violence has gotten to a point in the country where he has to federalize those troops and send them in, there's really not much you can do about that.

That's a president's...

Whether it's true or not.

Correct. That's a presidential determination. Now, Pritzker could always bring a court action and then the courts could decide whether the facts are there to support his invocation of the Insurrection Act. But at the first glance at this, George, when you're sitting there as the governor and the phone rings and it's the president saying I'm sending in the troops because I'm invoking the Insurrection Act, you can't stop him if you're the governor. You are the commander-in-chief of the National Guard in New Jersey when I was

governor, but not if the president says he's taking those troops.

Sarah, we only have 30 seconds left. Do you think it's going to get that far? Is the president going to invoke the Insurrection Act?

Nearly half of U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act during their terms, some more than once. Donald Trump said he would do it during his first term. Not over the objection of the governor to desegregate the schools. The Insurrection Act for years, lawyers have been saying this is far too broad. They warned about it at the beginning of the Biden administration. This is the time to change the Insurrection Act. We missed the opportunity then, and here we are.

Yep. Thank you all. Up next, a report on how legal migrant farm workers are being impacted by the Trump administration's deportation agenda. We're back in a moment. The Trump administration has moved aggressively to deport undocumented immigrants across the country, but that crackdown has also impacted

the legal migrant workforce, especially on the nation's farms. Maria Villarreal traveled to Idaho for a firsthand look at the fallout.

We all come on the H-2A visa program, so we come all here legally. So basically 90% of the workforce here is from Mexico. Well we usually get like a lot of applications. We're not getting that many now because people are afraid that even when they're legally here they're getting here they getting like a arrested for no reason.

So we've got at people have about 300 workers. We have about 82 h 2 a workers and then it just depends on the timing.

Why he produce has transformed into a big family business passed down through 3 generations and it's now in the hands of shame Myers who not only runs the operations but also has become an advocate for immigration reform because the fight has landed literally in their backyard caught in the middle of all of it are the workers

families, he's known for decades.

A little cut us. These guys are able to come from Mexico. We have some from South Africa that are coming this year. They come from other countries. They're given the visa for eight to nine months, and they're allowed to stay the entirety of that time.

They have to be pre-interviewed and qualified. And then when they come, we provide the airfare or the bus travel, their housing when they get here, and everything really when they're here except for food and clothing. That's part of the requirements that we have to cover.

That seems like a big cost though because, I mean, that's a lot to get a group of workers. Why not just hire people from here?

Yeah, so we would love to hire people from here. The reality is we can't find the numbers of people here. We're in a rural area, number one. Number two, this is hard work. It is difficult work. And there are lots of people that are not willing to do it.

There is a clear directive from the administration that they want mass deportation, right? That is impacting, then, our labor force. Is that what I'm understanding?

It's absolutely impacting the labor force and the president said so himself. He said the aggressive raids are hurting our farmers. And I think anybody that understands

economics knows that that means higher prices for them at the

grocery store.

Even the Labor Department points to a potential food crisis stemming from these immigration raids saying in part that the combination of low migrant influx and no available legal workforce threatens the availability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers. Originally from Pueblo, Mexico, Ileana started in the fields as a seasonal worker almost

20 years ago, working her way up while providing for her family.

I knew from the beginning that I was in a country that offers you opportunities for whoever wants to take it, you know?

Ileana is studying to become a U.S. citizen, But the reality is not everyone is as lucky as Iliana with the Trump administration's aggressive approach to immigration and mass deportation raids happening in the fields. Visa holders held up at the border. Workers are hard to come by. Over the last few months tariffs and raids have put farms and manufacturing plants on a target list. Most fearful of being deported even if they're here legally with a visa. At least three bills have been filed by Republicans and Democrats acknowledging the growing problem of a limited domestic workforce and a reliance on migrant labor. But after more than a decade of advocating for change,

Shay worries this may be another can that gets kicked down the road.

To continue to not fix this problem is absolutely completely wrong. The ethics are wrong. Like, we as Americans try to do the right thing. Let's do the right thing.

Thanks to Maria. You can see her full report Monday night on ABC News Live Prime. That is all for us today. Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Check out World News Tonight,

Check out World News Tonight, and I'll see you tomorrow on GMA.