transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] Last night, I spent a lot of time going through one story after another about potential corruption, or very real corruption, I should say, in the Trump administration in some detail. But guess what? Because today is a day that ends in Y. We've got so much more to talk about. And this particular story centers around a specific conflict of interest that just a few years ago made right wingers nearly foam at the mouth. Because this is a story about potential corruption involving a president's sons.

Speaker 2:
[00:37] They have been 100% silent when it comes to this current president's son.

Speaker 3:
[00:41] I mean, this is the president's son. Can you give me a bigger conflict of interest?

Speaker 4:
[00:45] No.

Speaker 5:
[00:46] That is what creates this conflict of interest.

Speaker 6:
[00:48] Why was this potential conflict of interest ignored?

Speaker 7:
[00:51] Nothing but conflict of interest when you're taking money from foreign oligarchs.

Speaker 4:
[00:55] So, are we shocked that the president's son is getting special treatment?

Speaker 5:
[01:00] This is about him spedaling influence from being the president's son.

Speaker 4:
[01:04] Whose son actually did profit off of his dad's government service.

Speaker 8:
[01:08] He tried to profit off his dad's political career.

Speaker 9:
[01:10] Profiting off his father's diplomacy.

Speaker 5:
[01:13] Profit off his father's position.

Speaker 10:
[01:14] Profiting off his father's name and everybody is covering it.

Speaker 4:
[01:18] There's vulnerability for bribery there.

Speaker 9:
[01:21] And by the way, did I tell you, his son has no experience, nothing really to offer?

Speaker 2:
[01:26] I hope that they make him accountable.

Speaker 6:
[01:28] It doesn't matter if you're the president's son. Why are they protecting the president's son?

Speaker 1:
[01:34] Man, I love the video archives, don't you? Back when Joe Biden was in office, every MAGA talking head was obsessed with the idea that the son of a president might be profiting off of the presidency. They were shocked, they were incensed, they were pearl-clutching till they broke those pearls. They demanded accountability for the president's son making money off his father's position. And guys, it wasn't even just right-wing pundits who were absolutely obsessed with that story. Trust me here.

Speaker 7:
[02:07] We now know that Hunter Biden is going to be able to meet with prospective buyers at two art shows where his paintings are going to be on display later this year.

Speaker 11:
[02:16] So does this White House not have any concerns about the photos that have emerged showing Hunter Biden at that gallery alongside prospective buyers? Okay.

Speaker 3:
[02:24] On another topic, was it common for President Biden to do favors for Hunter Biden's international business partners? On another topic, a lot of stories about Hunter Biden surfacing this week.

Speaker 5:
[02:34] And Hunter Biden's book is out this week.

Speaker 1:
[02:38] Okay. And I have a question on Hunter Biden's artwork.

Speaker 5:
[02:42] Mm-hmm.

Speaker 1:
[02:44] Now, let's fast forward to today, shall we?

Speaker 2:
[02:49] The company just secured a $24 million contract with the Pentagon for its phantom robot to begin tests with the Marine Corps and help troops breach enemy sites more safely. Joining us now is Foundation Future Industries founder and CEO, Sandcat Patak, and the company's chief strategy advisor, Eric Trump, President Trump's son.

Speaker 1:
[03:10] That's right. In the middle of a war that the president started, his adult son is the chief strategy advisor of a company that just so happens to be winning multi-million dollar Pentagon contracts. And it is not just that one humanoid robot company that has managed to score a Pentagon contract either. Last year, the venture capital firm of Trump's other adult son, John Jr., invested in a new 3D-printed rocket propellant start-up. And eight months later, that company, partially owned by the president's son, landed a nearly $5 million contract with the US Air Force. Imagine that. Now, a spokesperson for John Jr.'s company, of course, denied that their proximity to power represented a conflict, saying the company maximizes transparency and compliance, even though no one at the fund has ever worked in government. And I just have to pause there, because that is quite the interesting, and I would note, quite specific denial. Because while no one at the fund may have technically ever worked in government, Don Jr. helped screen candidates for top jobs at the Pentagon on behalf of his father, the commander-in-chief, after the election. And we know that because Don Jr. even bragged on his podcast about his role in that process during the transition, he specifically mentioned that for whatever reason, he seemed to be screening candidates based on their interest in drones.

Speaker 12:
[04:35] During transition, you're going through, you're interviewing some of these guys. Who's going to be Secretary of the Air Force or whatever? This one was particularly germane because it was like, everyone was like old F-15 pilot and that's incredible. But they want to go with what they know, which is we're fighter pilots, but are they better served with a drone that costs a tiny fraction of that of a plane?

Speaker 1:
[04:59] So can you guess? You probably can. What business Don Jr. and Eric Trump just so happened to be heavily invested in? If you guess drones, ding, ding, ding, you're correct. Both John Jr. and Eric Trump are heavily invested in drone companies. Last year, a drone company called Unusual Machines gave Don Jr. 200,000 shares of its stock in exchange for his help as an advisor. And while company officials and Pentagon officials and Don Jr. himself have all said that Don Jr. has not reached out to the Defense Department about that company, the company has seen some notable success since they brought Don Jr. on. See, after that help from Don Jr. screening candidates for top jobs at the Pentagon, Trump ended up picking Dan Driscoll as his army secretary. And Dan Driscoll just so happens to have promised to revamp contracting efforts to speed up Pentagon purchases of, you guessed it, drones. And last year, while giving a speech to army leaders and industry executives, Driscoll actually showed off a drone that the army built using parts from the company Don Jr. is an investor in. He told the company, quote, Across the army, we will equip soldiers with these kinds of expendable drones. Now, that same day, the army's 101st Airborne Division announced it intended to buy 300,500 drone engines from that company. It was the first major direct order the company had ever gotten from the Pentagon. And the company's stock jumped a whole 8% that day. Now, as eye-popping as all that is, everything I have mentioned so far is just chump change compared to what might be coming. You see, last month, yet another drone company, one backed by both Don Jr. and Eric Trump, did what is called a reverse merger, basically merging with a golf course company that, of course, was also backed by the Trumps. And the reverse merger will mean that the new drone company, which was only formed last year, by the way, will be able to expedite its path to becoming a publicly traded company because the golf course holding company was already listed on the stock exchange, so it expedites the whole process. Remember what happened to that other drone company? Don Jr. was invested when the Pentagon announced it was going to buy 3,500 drone engines from them. Well, this new company is specifically targeting Pentagon sales, and, oh boy, are they in luck because this week, the Pentagon released its budget request for the upcoming year, and the Pentagon is requesting $74 billion for investment in drone and counter drone technologies. Just to put that number in perspective, that is triple what the Pentagon spent last year on the very same thing. It is the largest investment ever in the drone industry. What a lucky time to be heavily invested in the drone industry. How would they have predicted that? And this new drone company that Don Jr. and Eric are a part of isn't just looking to sell its wares to the Pentagon. Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that the company was also making sales pitches to several countries in the Gulf, you know, so they could defend themselves in the war that Don Jr. and Eric Trump's dad started. Now, that company also denies there is any conflict of interest in having Don Jr. and Eric on board, and Eric Trump defended the investment by saying that drones are clearly the wave of the future. Now, while the rest of the country is struggling with higher gas prices and rising costs and are worried about sending their loved ones into what could be another forever war, the Trump family appears to be profiting from the war, and in really no rush to end it.

Speaker 13:
[08:32] What do you say to the American people who question how much longer this will take? Obviously, you know that they are having higher...

Speaker 14:
[08:39] You are such a disgrace. Did you hear what I just said? Vietnam. How many years was Vietnam?

Speaker 1:
[08:45] In case you're wondering, and you probably know this, but it depends on how you count it, but the US military's direct involvement in Vietnam lasted at least eight years. So for the sake of the more than 50,000 US troops in the region this very moment, I hope this war is nowhere near that long. I think we all do. Which brings me to the other major potential grift the Trump family appears to be using this war for. Because Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner is still somehow one of Trump's top negotiators trying to end this war. Well at the same time, The New York Times reports that Jared is trying to raise $5 billion more from Gulf Nations for his investment firm. Now I should note that the firm says it does not intend to take in any additional capital while Jared is volunteering for the government, though I would note no restrictions are mentioned for lining up capital for when he leaves. And as for the White House, they say that Kushner only acts in the best interest of the American public. The thing is, they generally have definitely a different definition of what is in the best interest of the American people than you and I do. So there's that. Now, when the person making major decisions on behalf of the US government is also in a position to profit off of those decisions, that's obviously a huge problem. As the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, Jamie Raskin, put it in a recent letter demanding answers from Kushner, Kushner's decision to act on these two rules, one public for the government and one private for personal profit, creates a glaring and incurable conflict of interest. Raskin asked Kushner directly about his negotiations with Iran, asking, are you representing 100% the interests of your business partners in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil autocracies, or are you representing 100% the interests of the American people? Or is it a 50-50 split that you apportion in your loyalties between your official and corporate clients? To whom do your professional obligations and fiduciary duties belong? And those are all excellent questions. And joining me now is the person who asked them, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He's the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. There's so much to ask you about. I just want to start just by getting your reaction to the sheer shamelessness of what we saw today. Eric Trump on Fox News bragging about a new Pentagon contract. What went through your head when you saw that?

Speaker 15:
[11:03] It's jaw-dropping that it's so brazen and out in the open in the daylight. But Trump essentially wants to move us into an Orban or Putin or Xi-type government. You can call it state capitalism or you can call it state socialism. It almost doesn't make any difference. It has nothing to do with free markets and honest contracting. Basically, the idea is the guy who's the lead autocrat who runs the government gets his family and his close friends and business associates, all the government contracts and gets them all wealthy. And I have a Republican colleague who told me he was at the White House and was told by someone from the Trump family, we are going to be the richest family on earth when this administration is over.

Speaker 1:
[11:48] They're heading toward that. I mean, the last number we saw was 1.4 billion. Let's see where we are soon. It wasn't that long ago, and I just tried to play a bunch of this, remind people, I think everybody remembers this, when Fox News and a lot of the MAGA talking heads were so concerned, so outraged, with how they saw a president's adult child could benefit from their father's office. And, of course, I'm talking about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. Now it's a whole different level, wackadoo story. That hypocrisy obviously isn't lost on me. I kind of lived it, but I wonder what you make of it.

Speaker 15:
[12:24] Well, they never even charged that Hunter Biden had any government contract in the United States. They never charged that he had a government contract with a foreign government. And this is routine business in Trump land now. They don't even bother to deny it. They brag about it. The line between, they do. And so, the foreign government emoluments clause, I know it sounds quaint to cite the Constitution in this context, but Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution says that nobody in federal office, including the president, shall receive a present and emolument, which means a payment in office or title of any kind whatever from a king, a prince, or a foreign state without the consent, the approval of Congress. And Donald Trump has not once come to Congress. What they did in the first administration was like, Ma and Pa brick and mortar stuff will collect millions and millions of dollars in the Trump hotels, in DC and New York, the golf courses. But now they've moved into the digital era. And so they've moved into crypto. So there are hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars flowing in from foreign states and private entities closely aligned with foreign governments. And they're doing the drone defense contracting here. And the Trump family is getting rich off of defense contractors, military contracting, and foreign governments that are all involved in this war. Which is why I posed to Mr. Kushner the question, when you're over there negotiating on the Iran war, are you negotiating to keep it going or are you negotiating to end it? Because you're getting rich off of it.

Speaker 1:
[14:06] And where are your loyalties? I love how you posed the 50%, 50%. As I said earlier, and you just alluded to it too, this $24 million could somehow end up being only a drop in the bucket of the money that could be made off of the Trump family's drone ventures given the Pentagon's new $74 billion proposed drone budget. It's difficult to even conceive of how much money that really is. It's a lot more than they've asked for in the past. But how are you making sense of the scale of this? And what do you think? I mean, you've been asking questions, you've been raising issues. What do you think can be done about it?

Speaker 15:
[14:44] I mean, this is why we have to raise a huge hue and cry across the country. And people understand instinctively that the whole administration is a get-rich-quick scheme for the Trump family. And we can't normalize any of this behavior. If we normalize the millions of dollars that Trump got at the Trump Hotel in Washington, which we called the Washington Emolument, if we normalize that from China, from Indonesia, from Saudi Arabia, from Qatar, well, then they say, hey, we can get away with it. Let's go for billions in the second term. And similarly, if they are able to say, okay, Trump family members setting up businesses and getting defense contracts, if we can get away with it once, let's just blow it up and let's do lots of them. Let's go from millions to billions, as you're saying. And so we've got to put corruption right at the center of the movement of democratic opposition and resistance to what Trump is doing. And the war and the war profiteering are obviously completely intertwined.

Speaker 1:
[15:43] No question about it. And I think people care and are paying attention to it. It is absolute corruption at the highest order here. The other thing, there was a story today, I'm sure you saw it because you see everything, but I don't know if everybody out there saw it. The Trump administration agreed to use $1.25 million of taxpayer dollars to pay out a former Trump campaign advisor, Carter Page. And this isn't the first time this has happened. Michael Flynn also got a $1.25 million taxpayer payout just last month. I just wonder, it feels a little like the old school Oprah, like everybody gets $1.25 million. I don't even know. What you make of this pattern, how significant is the pattern to you?

Speaker 15:
[16:25] Well, that is the going rate for Trump cronies and sycophants who did his bidding in the first administration and also it's an implicit promise to people who are doing his bidding right now. Now, in both cases, here's the remarkable thing, Jen, they already lost their cases in federal court. Okay, so Michael Flynn lost his case. He perjured himself. He lied and was found guilty of lying. He pled guilty twice to lying. Then he brought a lawsuit somehow complaining that he was wronged when he lied and he was convicted of it. And he lost in federal court. And yet the Department of Justice, that is Trump's Department of Justice, settled with him for $1.25 million. I don't know if that's what gave Carter Page the idea or if they basically just said, let's give everybody $1.25 million. But they felt that he was a loyal sycophant to the Trump regime. And he also got himself in trouble in the first administration. So he sued and he lost in federal court and he lost in appeals court. And nonetheless, they're settling a case, the Department of Justice is settling a case that they've already won against these Trump lieutenants. It's the most amazing thing I've ever seen. It's an absolute ripoff of the Settlement Fund, which exists for settling real valid causes of action against the government. And here's the other thing we got to watch on this. The Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers are all filing their own financial claims here. But you know, section four of the 14th Amendment says that no money shall go from the Federal Treasury to pay for insurrection or rebellion. And that's exactly what we'd be doing if we paid these people who've been convicted of trying to overthrow the government with seditious conspiracy or who attacked our police officers. It's just an outrage what's taken place.

Speaker 1:
[18:14] It absolutely makes you think they're not good negotiators. And also, why wouldn't Carter Page ask, I suppose? But that is an important thing to watch. Okay, we have to take a very quick break. But before we do, I just want to show you something Donald Trump's Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick really did not want to talk about today because we're going to definitely talk about it.

Speaker 8:
[18:35] The American people wants to know, why did you lie about your relationship with Epstein?

Speaker 16:
[18:41] The House Oversight Committee. And I have agreed. We will spend the time together.

Speaker 8:
[18:46] Reclaiming my time, I do not accept that answer. We've heard that one. We are our own committee. We have our own reason to test your credibility and veracity. Please answer the question, why did you lie to the Post?

Speaker 16:
[19:01] I have voluntarily agreed to spend the time and talk about it.

Speaker 8:
[19:06] I reclaim the time. Let the ref reflect your dodging the question.

Speaker 1:
[19:12] The stonewalling continues, but we just got some big news that could be bad news for the people who want the remaining Epstein files to remain secret. We're going to talk about it after a quick break. Believe it or not, it has been 155 days since Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law after it passed the House and Senate with near unanimous support. And since then, the administration has continued to stonewall not just the public release of the files, which they have definitely done, but also requests for even the most basic information. I mean, just today, House committee ran into this with Commerce Secretary Howard Ludnick, I played this right before the break, who famously got caught in a lie about visiting Epstein's Island and is still refusing to answer questions about it. So the bad news here is that everyone in Trump's orbit still thinks they can stonewall and get away with it, but the good news is that people not fully bound to the president are still pressing for answers. I see you, Madeline Dean, that was great. But that's not the only place where questions are being asked. Even inside the Justice Department, the independent office of the Inspector General announced today that it is conducting an audit of the agency's compliance with the law, requiring them to fully release the Epstein files. And the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Robert Garcia, announced he is now pursuing contempt charges against fired Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was scheduled to testify about her handling of the Epstein files before the committee earlier this month. So no matter how much the Howard Lehtnicks of the world refuse to answer questions, there are plenty of people continuing to demand answers. One of them is back with me, Congressman Jamie Raskin. Thanks for hanging with us through the break there. I just want to start with this news about the Justice Department Inspector General announcing an audit of the agency. Because I think when you hear anything, even when you say it's an IG coming from this administration, you're skeptical, but this is good news. What do you make of it?

Speaker 15:
[21:17] It's definitely good news. It is progress if the IG is going to do their job as you imply. I mean, there's reason to be skeptical given that they sacked 18 Inspector Generals the minute they got in to clear the way for all of this corruption that permeates the government at this point. But look, they are in such blatant violation of the Epstein-Files Disclosure Act, Transparency Act, that it's hard to see what an IG would do other than find they're in violation of the law. They had to turn over everything in there, and they started by saying, we're going to turn over 3 million of 6 million documents without any satisfactory explanation for why. I mean, they said some of it is duplicative. Well, it called for the release of everything. We'll be the judge of whether or not it's duplicative or not. So they're in violation there. Then of the half that they release, there are tens of thousands of redactions in critical places, and then they disclose the names of a lot of the victims, while they're redacting the names of the perpetrators and the conspirators and the enablers. So I think that any competent inspector general is going to have to find that this just is an outrageous violation of the law and a betrayal of everything that Congress wanted to accomplish. Also in turning it over, it's like a wild goose chase. I would be amazed if everybody who's gone over to look at all of this stuff has been able to find even go through 5% of it, 5% of what they released, so maybe 2% of everything. It's like a wild goose chase. The way it's set up, it's extremely difficult. We should have the computers over on Capitol Hill. It should be available not just to members who have to go vote and be in committee and hearings and so on. It should be open to staff people that we appoint to go go there. And then, you know, we need to make it available to the public because after all, it wasn't just supposed to be released to Congress, it was supposed to be released to everybody.

Speaker 1:
[23:17] It's so true. I mean, I'm just going to have a dose of optimism in my soul here that something will happen out of this because we have to sometimes. Let me ask you about something else because Congressman Robert Garcia said Oversight Committee Democrats are moving toward an effort to bring contempt chargers against Pam Bondi. I think a lot of people are cheering about that. But even if that passes, it's, of course, the Justice Department who enforces the subpoena. House Judiciary, which you sit on, does have oversight power over DOJ. But Democrats, of course, are not in power or not in the majority. Do you see any path to compelling the DOJ to enforce the House subpoena here?

Speaker 15:
[23:54] Well, remember, the House subpoena has not been adopted yet, so they need to get a majority on the Oversight Committee. I'm not aware of any Republicans who are saying they're going to vote for contempt against Pam Bondi the way that they all voted for contempt against Hillary Clinton, of all people, and Bill Clinton. So, there needs to be pressure put on the Republican members of the committee to do that. At that point, we would be expecting the Department of Justice to enforce the subpoena against itself, or against its former Attorney General. That is kind of a counterfactual, hypothetical proposition, I'm afraid. But it's just very important to continue to insist upon the rule of law, even when these people betray it at every turn. And that's why we are constantly on offense trying to remind them of what the rule of law really stands for.

Speaker 1:
[24:47] It is. I got a little ahead of myself there. Thank you for reminding us of the steps to come. Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you as always for joining us.

Speaker 15:
[24:55] You bet.

Speaker 1:
[24:56] Okay, coming up, remember when Donald Trump's war with Iran was just a little excursion? His words, not mine. That was only going to take a few weeks. Well, today in the Oval Office, Trump said, and I quote, Don't rush me, we were in Vietnam for 18 years. Quite a shift. Very few people have more experience messaging about military conflicts than Admiral John Kirby. And my guess is he's going to have some thoughts about what we heard from the president today. We're going to be right back. Okay, I'm gonna read you something that Donald Trump posted online. I want you to decide whether or not you personally believe it. And here it is, quote, I'm gonna do my best with this voice. For those people, fewer in number now than ever before, that think that I am anxious to end the war, if you would even call it that, with Iran, please be advised that I am possibly the least pressured person ever to be in this position. I have all the time in the world, but Iran doesn't. I am not anxious, I am not pressured. Hmm, kind of sounds like you are, doesn't it? Now, setting aside all the reports outlining how Trump is searching for a way out of his war of choice, of course, and the very real fact that Iran does indeed benefit from a drawn-out conflict, there's a lot of evidence that all the time in the world is not necessarily making things better on this side of the conflict. Just today, the head of the International Energy Agency warned that the world is facing its biggest energy security threat in history. Gas prices remain incredibly high, thanks to the continued blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Yesterday, The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon told Congress it could take six months to fully clear the Strait of Mines deployed by Iran. And it appears that story might have crossed Trump's desk, because today, he ordered the Navy to shoot and kill Iranian boats that are laying such mines. But the clock is ticking, and the longer this conflict goes on, the bigger the consequences get, which is why it was interesting that Trump made this particular comparison when asked about his war timeline.

Speaker 10:
[26:56] On the war with Iran, how long are you willing to wait until you get a unified response?

Speaker 14:
[27:01] Don't rush me, Jeff. You know, guys like you, you want to say, oh, so we were in Vietnam, like, for 18 years. We were in Iraq for many, many years. We were in for all the — I don't like to say World War II, because that was a biggie, but we were four and a half, almost five years in World War II. We were in the Korean War for seven years. I've been doing this for six weeks, and we're — the military is totally defeated.

Speaker 1:
[27:30] Joining me now is retired Rear Admiral John Kirby. He's the former Pentagon Press Secretary and White House National Security Communications Advisor, was also the spokesperson at the State Department. He's basically had every single job in national security. Let me start by asking you this. It's great to see you, of course. I mean, referencing the Vietnam War, given his own history of claiming bone spurs, it was quite a choice on Trump's part. But the intention seemed to be to set the expectation that this could go on for a while, right? That though he said two weeks, four weeks, six weeks, he may need much more time. I just wonder the impact of that, one on the men and women serving, people who are stationed in the Middle East, who don't know where this is going, but also really on the outcome of this war and the impacts of it on the country.

Speaker 17:
[28:17] Yeah, that's exactly right. When I heard those comments, I had the same phrase, set the expectations. That's exactly what he's doing. He's preparing the American people. And you're right, he's preparing troops and their families for a longer fight than what they had previously anticipated, or at least what he had previously anticipated for. But you know what, Jen, he's also setting the expectations for the negotiating table. I mean, he extended the ceasefire because he really wants to try to find a diplomatic way out of this and say what he wants. I mean, it's clear he wants to find an exit ramp. So you extend the ceasefire in the hopes that the Iranians will come to the table. And you say things like, I'm not in a big hurry to convey to the Iranians, like, hey, I can wait you out. You know, now's your chance. You got to come to the table. The other audience that he's talking to, in my view, is the Israelis who don't want to see this war end prematurely and end in a way that leaves the regime in power of nuclear material and or preponderance of their missiles and their drones. And so, I think he's also communicating to the Israelis like, I'm not going to, I'm not rushing to the exit here. But he looks at the polls. He sees the gas prices. I think it's clear that he wants to find a way out of here as quickly as possible.

Speaker 1:
[29:31] The New York Times published this new reporting on the state of Iranian leadership. It was a really fascinating story. And as you and I both know, I mean, it's always been fractious. It's always been divided kind of in Iran between the religious leaders, the military. I mean, there's always been a little bit of fractions. But the Times, a source told the Times that the Qur'an I told might be leader in name, but he's not supreme the way his father was. They said he's subservient to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards because he owes his position and he owes the survival of the system to them. And I thought this was important because as we're looking at negotiations and what we're hearing from the Iranians and what I think everybody out there is hoping this comes to an end, it just, I wonder how big a deal that is, given it seems kind of even more fractured than it was 10 years ago.

Speaker 17:
[30:20] It's a huge deal. You remember well during the Obama administration, as we were negotiating the Iran deal, how important it is when you're sitting across the table that your interlocutor on the other side has the authority, has the accountability and is speaking for the government. In the case of the Iran deal that President Obama and John Kerry negotiated, the Supreme Leader at the time, Hominid, made it clear to everybody in what was, you're right, a fractured government that this mattered to him and everybody needed to get on board. And so John Kerry had the ability to negotiate in good faith. That's not happening right now because the government is even more fractured than it was before. And the IRGC is in more, much more in power than they were before. And they're not at the table. It's not them being represented by the Iranian government. So you saw this once the ceasefire got announced. Just a couple of days after that, the IRGC fired at two ships in the Gulf, making it clear that they didn't agree with the ceasefire and that they weren't a party to the negotiation. So it's going to make it very, very tough to come up with an agreement that you can be sure on our side of the table that everybody on the Iranian side is going to get behind and actually enforce.

Speaker 1:
[31:32] There's so much to read between the lines. I'm so grateful you could be here as always, John Kirby. Thank you so much again. Thank you, Jen. Coming up, Fox News is out with some brutal new polling on Donald Trump's presidency, very brutal. And there's one number in particular that must be driving him absolutely nuts. Senator Amy Klobuchar is standing by. She joins me next. If you have tried to erase Greg Bovino from your memory, I definitely do not blame you. Hard same. It has been nearly three months since that angry little man oversaw brutal immigration crackdowns in multiple American cities. The former border patrol commander was ousted after masked federal agents killed two citizens, of course, in Minneapolis. But he's still showing up on right-wing media, giving his two cents on immigration and deportations.

Speaker 6:
[32:34] Let's make it so hard for them to live, to work, to recreate, to do anything in the United States that they have no choice but to self-deport. And that's what we were doing in some of those large cities. That immigration problem is definitely complex. It's massive. My estimate is 100 million illegal aliens here in the United States.

Speaker 1:
[32:58] It turns out he's still an angry little man, but that is also an embarrassingly bad estimate. I mean, there are 342 million people living in the United States, and Greg Bovino thinks almost a third of them are undocumented immigrants. There we go. Not even Trump makes up numbers like that. Yet, I guess. But even without the aggressive clown show from Bovino and his former boss, Cristino, nationwide ICE arrests per day are only slightly down from where they were during Operation Metro Surge. And as the New York Times puts it, the Trump administration is actually ramping up new strategies to take apart immigrants' lives piece by piece until they decide to leave the country altogether. The administration may have slightly shifted from its shock-and-awe deportation tactics, but the goals haven't changed, and Americans seem to recognize that. Which may explain why even in the latest Fox News poll, 54 percent, a majority of people, disapprove of Trump's job performance when it comes to immigration. And yet, Republicans in the Senate last night voted to send up to $140 billion to ICE and Border Patrol. That money is on top of the $140 billion those agencies got in Trump's big ugly bill. So, there, that's their strategy, I guess. Joining me now is Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. She's now, of course, a candidate for governor of Minnesota. It's great to see you. Okay, Senator, could you—it's great to see you.

Speaker 18:
[34:17] I was listening as you reminded us about Greg Bonvino. I was just in the green room waiting to go in here in Minnesota, and I noticed that it's a tradition we sign when we go on the show, and he had signed this big thing on the wall, and I thought, buddy, you are gone, and you're not coming back to my state. And there he was. You're not coming back.

Speaker 1:
[34:37] Evidence that he was here. There he was. Last signature, Greg Bonvino, says the woman who will be the next governor. Okay. Can you just give us a sense? I've been trying to do this throughout the show, because sometimes you throw these numbers out and it's like, what do they even mean? Give us a sense of the scope of the amount of money that Republicans are looking to give to ICE and Border Patrol and how that is already on top of the enormous amount of funding they already have access to.

Speaker 18:
[35:02] Right. So I look at the $70 billion that they designated through Homeland Security. And as you know, they already put a whole bunch of money into ICE in the big, beautiful betrayal of a bill. And it is now, ICE is now bigger than the Marines, it's bigger than the FBI. As you know, there aren't any rules in place. There were not in the past when they were here in Minnesota, and the new secretary said he's putting rules in place. But one of the things we want to do is get those cemented into law. But let's look at that $70 billion. Democrats were more than happy to fund TSA and to fund FEMA and to fund Coast Guard and cybersecurity. But the dispute was about this. $70 billion more in dice, that could literally pay for 200,000 local law enforcement people. People who do have rules, people who you need to solve burglaries and keep your city safe and keep your town safe. Or you could decide these are value judgments. It would bend down, it would take two years off premiums under health care plans that people sorely need help with. It would build millions of new homes. It would be six years of free and reduced lunch for kids. You can just keep going. One year of vision and dental and hearing for every single senior on Medicare. So these are value judgments and we clearly are in different places. And when you talked about that poll on President Trump, the American people just don't agree with what they're doing. They want security at the border, but they didn't want this.

Speaker 1:
[36:42] You just put it in exactly stark terms. I think people can understand. Everybody understands and knows it's a huge amount of money, but what else could be used for? Let me ask you about something else. Because new Homeland Security Secretary Mark-Wayne Mullen claims that DHS is taking a quieter approach to immigration and deportations, following, of course, the terror that was invoked all across your state of Minnesota. But what is your understanding? There are still a lot of things they're doing. But what is your understanding of how the Trump administration is handling its mass deportation project at this point? What's the real story?

Speaker 18:
[37:18] Well, we know there are still stories across the country. There are still people in my state who are scared. Many of them, they are in their homes. They had permits. They have the right to work. But they don't know what's going to happen next because of the horror of what happened. So that's still happening. Of course, a number of our small businesses were hurt and all of those repercussions are taking place. So our goal, of course, is to come roaring back economically and to make sure people know that Minnesota is a great place to work, a great place to go to school. But at the same time, all we wanted to do here was to put some reforms into law. Things that were really straightforward, like you can't have bounties, that you have to have adequate training, that you have to have a warrant if you're going to ram through the door of someone's home, like the Hmong elder in Minnesota in freezing temperatures and they dragged him out in his underwear. So we wanted to put in the masks and all of it, just put those into place so it matched what every other police department in the country has to abide by. They wouldn't do that and that's why this debate is going on. But I also want your viewers to understand, this is also about the values of a budget and what you want to spend money on. And so that's why we were outvoting till 3 a.m. last night trying to talk some sense into what we believe we should be spending that money on. And of course, it ends up with a party line vote and this will continue on with the House.

Speaker 1:
[38:51] I mean, we're here talking about this. It's so important to talk about it. You're running for governor. You're meeting with people all across the state all the time. I talked about the Fox News poll. You've referenced it too. One of the numbers that is in there that I thought was interesting, it's the first time, Democrats are actually head of Republicans on economic issues, and it's the first time that has happened in a Fox News poll since 2010. There are a lot of reasons for this. How do you think, as you're talking to voters across your state and as you see other races, Democrats sustain that momentum going, leading up to the midterms just six months from now?

Speaker 18:
[39:25] Well, as you know, it's not just the polls. It's not just people that were called on the phone or answered some questions online. It's how they're voting. Supreme Court race next door, right, in Wisconsin, 10-point victory. What you saw in the Virginia governor's race, mayor's races from Omaha to Miami, legislative races in the state of Texas. Time and time again, people are saying, I've had it. So I think the way that you sustain this is by making clear what we want to do and putting forward our plans. And the first thing is, this president said he bring costs down on day one. Well, he hasn't. It's gone the opposite. And we want to make sure people can afford houses, that people are able to pay the rent, that people are going to be able to afford health care and that they're going to be able to get child care. The second thing are these tariffs. They are wreaking havoc on our economy. And yet he continues to persist. The Supreme Court threw those tariffs out in a very clear decision involving conservative justices and liberal justices. But now he's still at it again. And for things like my farmers, who've said this is a perfect storm of ugly, this is really hitting them and small businesses. And the third and final thing that you talked about earlier is this war. It is the gas prices, the diesel prices, the fact that 30% of pneumonia that you need for fertilizer and 50% of urea that you need for fertilizer goes through the Straits of Hormuz for the rest of the world. Our farmers can't afford this already. So all of these things are mounting up. And when I heard today on your show, I thought it was terrifying as they're saying things, he's saying things like, well, this war lasted so long, this war lasted so long. He needs to come to Congress and we need to have a real debate about this war. And as you know, the Republicans keep going lockstep with a few exceptions with him. But this isn't going on. This isn't a one day strike. And nearly every day is another billion dollars.

Speaker 1:
[41:22] Senator Amy Klobuchar, thank you as always. We will be right back. That does it for me tonight. You can catch the show Tuesday through Friday at 9 p.m. Eastern on MS Now. And don't forget to follow the show on Blue Sky, Instagram, and TikTok.