On December 29, 2025, during an episode of Deadline: White House, host Nicolle Wallace welcomed two guests who were presented as analysts but are openly partisan: Basil Smikle, a Democrat strategist, and Marc Elias, a powerful Democratic lawyer who has represented the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and other prominent Democratic causes. The discussion focused on investigating Obama-era officials and quickly turned into an effort to protect Democrats while treating allegations against Trump as settled fact.
Wallace opened the segment by dismissing the Durham investigation outright, stating:
“John Durham spent $7 million and longer than Robert Muller and found Jack diddly squat. So what is this?”
This framing treats the outcome of the Durham investigation as meaningless simply because juries did not convict. It leaves viewers with the impression that nothing improper occurred, despite the fact that misconduct and institutional failures were documented. Reducing a complex investigation to “jack diddly squat” is a way to shut down discussion, not inform viewers.
Basil Smikle then framed any investigation into Democrats as an attack on democracy itself, saying:
“Um, it maybe they feel that Obama’s getting a little too much ink right now and people are talking about him too much. But I think to Marc’s earlier point, it’s about going after anyone and everyone who could be viewed as is as undermining Trump’s, you know push to authoritarian power.”
The accusation of “authoritarian power” is asserted as fact, not argued or demonstrated. It is presented as a given, with no acknowledgment that investigations are a normal function of government—unless, apparently, they involve Democrats.
Smikle continued by describing a supposed tactic used by Trump and his allies:
“And their tactic is we’ll let them spend money, get the lawyers, push them in the court so they can, you know divide their time and not pay attention to what’s going on.”
That description mirrors exactly what was done to Donald Trump and those around him for years: endless investigations, legal battles, and court proceedings that consumed time, money, and attention. When Democrats deploy this approach, it is framed as accountability. When the possibility of similar scrutiny arises in reverse, it is labeled authoritarian.
Smikle then claimed heightened awareness and engagement on the Democratic side:
“But the reality is we are all paying attention now.”
That assertion rings hollow on a network that consistently presents only one side of political disputes. Viewers are not being shown competing arguments or inconvenient facts. They are being shown a curated narrative, repeated nightly. This is not paying attention—it is selective exposure that leaves audiences less informed, not more.
Wallace then made one of the most consequential statements of the segment, saying:
“Um, Marc Elias, I, every time they talk about this, I, I cover it. Because it is so it is so dangerous to be fabricating a pretense to investigate President Obama.”
On MSNBC, Trump is portrayed as “fabricating a pretense to investigate President Obama,” repeatedly warning that such an investigation would be “dangerous,” “authoritarian,” and meant to “intimidate people.” The framing is unmistakable: accountability itself is treated as illegitimate before any facts are examined.
She immediately followed that statement with:
“Because President Trump is sad that he was investigated for actual crimes committed out in public on live TV. I mean the, the eye for an eye is obviously how he thinks and operates.”
Trump was investigated but never charged or convicted of any crime related to the Mueller investigation, which is why those claims remain allegations—not crimes. Presenting them as “actual crimes” skips the legal process entirely while asserting guilt as a settled conclusion.
Wallace went on to claim:
“But the, the the the truth of it is that there’s never been an iota of evidence that Trump’s most loyal lieutenants in his first term could ever scrounge up.”
This absolute claim dismisses documented findings and criticisms related to the conduct of federal agencies during the Trump–Russia investigation. Stating there was “never an iota of evidence” is not a neutral assessment— it is a defense designed to shut down discussion.
Marc Elias then warned of the dangers he believes lie ahead:
“Uh, a lot could go wrong. So, I mean let’s not forget John Durham, uh, investigated for all that money and all that time and brought, uh, two indictments that LED to not guilty verdicts.”
Elias framed the acquittals in those cases as proof that the investigations themselves were unjustified, reinforcing the narrative that legal outcomes alone determine whether scrutiny was warranted in the first place.
He then personalized the issue and framed himself as a target, stating:
“Look, Donald Trump is doing this. Pam Bondi is doing this because he, they’re trying to intimidate people.”
And added:
“You know one of the first things you and I talked about after, uh, Donald Trump came to office is he went to the department of justice and gave a speech and called me a communist who was trying to destroy America. And he said that because he was trying to intimidate me.”
Elias pointed to a past insult from Trump—being called “a communist who was trying to destroy America”—as proof of intimidation. If that qualifies as intimidation for a Democratic power lawyer, the label speaks for itself.
Taken together, the message of the segment is clear. Allegations against Trump are treated as proven crimes. Investigating Democrats is framed as dangerous and illegitimate. Democratic operatives are cast as victims. No opposing viewpoint is allowed. This is not journalism. It is three Democrats protecting Democrats, and it leaves viewers less informed than when they started.
Transcript:
Wallace: John Durham spent $7 million and longer than Robert Muller and found Jack diddly squat. So what is this?
Basil Smikle, Democrat Strategist: Um, it maybe they feel that Obama’s getting a little too much ink right now and people are talking about him too much. But I think to Marc’s earlier point, it’s about going after anyone and everyone who could be viewed as is as undermining Trump’s, you know push to authoritarian power. And if people are starting to talk more about Barack Obama and they start to see Michelle Obama out there a lot more, if there are people talking about how to actually protect themselves to Marc’s point, um, going forward in this election cycle, it’s like we gotta go after everybody. We’ve got to tarnish their name, we got to pull them down. And their tactic is we’ll let them spend money, get the lawyers, push them in the court so they can, you know divide their time and not pay attention to what’s going on. But the reality is we are all paying attention now. Because when you when you treat everybody as a nail and yourself as a hammer, it makes us feel threatened by you. And when we feel threatened, we are going to find ways to make sure that we shore up our defenses. And that can come in a lot of different forms. It’s, it’s yes, it’s legally, but it’s also organizing. It’s mobilizing. So this to me, I mean the, you know Marc can speak more to this perhaps. But to me, this is we’re just gonna go after anyone and everyone to keep to pull them down, so they can’t fight back. But that’s why you’re seeing a change in the ecosystem, cause people fail, have more agency to fight back.”
Nicole Wallace: Um, Marc Elias, I, every time they talk about this, I, I cover it. Because it is so it is so dangerous to be fabricating a pretense to investigate President Obama. Because President Trump is sad that he was investigated for actual crimes committed out in public on live TV. I mean the, the eye for an eye is obviously how he thinks and operates. Um, but the, the the the truth of it is that there’s never been an iota of evidence that Trump’s most loyal lieutenants in his first term could ever scrounge up. They spent years looking for just this and now they have, um, less experience is the most generous thing I think I can say about Kash Patel and Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, lawyers doing the same thing that more experienced lawyers like Bill Barr and John Durham already did. What could go wrong?
Marc Elias: Uh, a lot could go wrong. So, I mean let’s not forget John Durham, uh, investigated for all that money and all that time and brought, uh, two indictments that LED to not guilty verdicts. Uh, and for those individuals who were targeted as part of that, a lot went wrong. They had to go through a criminal trial only to have the juries quickly dismiss the charges. And as you say, we’re now dealing with a much less set of competent or, or principled, uh, lawyers. Look, Donald Trump is doing this. Pam Bondi is doing this because he, they’re trying to intimidate people. You know one of the first things you and I talked about after, uh, Donald Trump came to office is he went to the department of justice and gave a speech and called me a communist who was trying to destroy America. And he said that because he was trying to intimidate me.