“Director Brennan is going on the offensive”

A morning walk, some bird watching. It's another easy Sunday. United Health Group makes these ordinary days possible with partners like the University of Tennessee Health Sciences, helping communities manage their health closer to home. 54% of participants have lowered their blood pressure, meaning fewer heart attacks and more Sundays at the park. This might feel like an ordinary day. To United Health Group, it's the health care system working better for everyone. Learn more at UnitedHealthgroup.com slash commitment. Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out, we weren't alone. If someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters.

Sometimes intelligence is good and sometimes you look at James Comey and you look at Brennan and you look at Clapper and I'm supposed to believe that intelligence. I never believe that intelligence. You look at Brennan and you look at Clapper and you get some real beauties. Well, I think Brennan is a sick person. How involved was John Brennan? He was totally involved. John Brennan was one of the architects in my opinion. Hi again, everybody. It's now 5 o'clock in the East. Vice to say he has been obsessed for years now. Trump has been attacking and criticizing former director of the CIA, John Brennan, for years. Going after him seems to be one of Trump's greatest obsessions. But these are not just hollow sneers and complaints. Trump has weaponized the government. He now leads. to go after his perceived opponent. Today marks a significant development in that story. Director Brennan is today going on the offense. But first, a quick refresher. Director Brennan, following decades of public service in the CIA, served as the agency's director from 2013 to 2017 during those years under President Barack Obama. The director became a target of Donald Trump's ostensibly for his role in the intelligence assessment that stated that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the aim of helping Donald Trump win. Since then, Donald Trump has railed against John Brennan, as well as others involved in that assessment. He has revoked John Brennan's security clearance, and two investigations have been launched into the former director of the CIA. One is over allegations that Director Brennan lied to Congress in 2023 about the intelligence assessment. It was a referral from the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Trump allied Jim Jordan. The other is a case that Brennan is part of some sort of grand conspiracy that Karoline Leavitt has talked about from the podium of the White House briefing room to keep Trump out of office. Brennan has denied any wrongdoing. In both cases. Today, Director Brennan, who is an MS now senior national security and intelligence analyst, is joining us for an exclusive interview to discuss his latest move, which is to sue Donald Trump and the Justice Department. Director Brennan has asked a judge to force DOJ to preserve all of its records from that lawsuit. Quote, administration officials from the acting attorney general to the FBI director and the counselor overseeing the Brennan investigations have been publicly declaring Director Brennan a criminal, not only before securing a conviction in court, but even before a full investigation and indictment. And certain officials in the Department of Justice are engaging in demonstrably irregular prosecutorial activity in order to gin up a case that will satisfy the president's direction. Director Brennan expects that he will forcefully challenge any eventual indictment as a product of an unconstitutionally vindictive and selective prosecution. Given the government's questionable recent history with respect to its record,

Preservation and other legal obligations, however, Director Brennan has a well-founded concern that those records and communications will not be preserved until such time as the court can review them for evidence of unconstitutional vindictiveness. About Brennan's lawsuit, the New York Times writes this, quote, the request for a judicial order requiring officials to keep records about a case that has not even been filed was somewhat unusual. And yet it reflected just how abnormal Trump's revenge campaign has become in recent months. As the president's attempts to use the courts to go after his adversaries have become more aggressive, so too have the reciprocal efforts by defense lawyers who have sought to fight the inquiries at ever earlier stages of the investigative process. Firing back at Donald Trump's revenge campaign is where we begin this hour with former director of the CIA, John Brennan. Thank you for being here and having this conversation with us. Absolutely, Nicole. Thanks for having me on. What made you sort of take a different legal? strategy because the facts have always been the same. And I just want to ask you to go over the facts of the smears and the alleged investigations into you as they've been unearthed by Trump ally, John Durham, by Marco Rubio, who was a senator in charge of the Intelligence Committee when it comes to that 2016 intelligence assessment. Well, Nicole, clearly I didn't come to the decision to launch this lawsuit against the Trump administration. President Trump and the Department of Justice lightly. But as you and I have talked numerous times of the past 18 months, Donald Trump has been engaged in this campaign to punish individuals he considers his enemies. And I am being targeted by Donald Trump because I fulfilled my obligations in 2016 as director of the CIA to expose Russian interference in that presidential election of that year. And there was an intelligence community assessment that was put out by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Office of Director of National Intelligence that chronicled exactly what Vladimir Putin and the Russians were doing. Well, obviously Donald Trump didn't like that. But also, he has condemned me because I have spoken out publicly since I left office when I see that things that Donald Trump is doing are wrongheaded or that are just reflecting, I think, the incompetence as well as the corruption of his administration. So, clearly, over these last 18 months, it's not just me, it's other individuals as well. It's Jerome Powell, it's James Comey, it's others, Letitia James, who have also been targeted. And most egregiously, he's not just condemning us publicly with his rhetoric. He is leveraging the tremendous authorities of the Department of Justice in very corrupt, unethical, and I would argue, illegal ways.

to use those authorities to launch these investigations against individuals. Now, there are two grand jury investigations underway in the Southern District of Florida where I have been subpoenaed. I have complied completely with the requests from the government, despite the speciousness of these investigations and the lack of any evidence indicating any wrongdoing on my part. But I have come to leave and talk with my lawyers that we can't trust the Department of Justice to carry out its duties in a manner that it has done over the past centuries in terms of a presumption of regularity, that the courts will give the Department of Justice in U.S. government the presumption that it is carrying out its obligations responsibly and with integrity. But it has not. In terms of forum shopping and judge shopping and, you know, having individuals and professional prosecutors who have resigned rather than pursue investigations that have no basis, in fact. So if they're doing this, I also am concerned, and my lawyers are very concerned, that any type of records that might, in fact, expose what they are doing are not being kept. They have, you know, openly, you know, decried or have condemned the obligations to fulfill their obligations under the Presidential Records Act. They are using different apps to conceal their messaging, like signal apps. Things are automatically deleted. And this is in contravention of long-held requirements that the government is supposed to keep these records. So again, it looks as though with the appointment of... Joe de Genova and continued investigations and, you know, the effort underway in Florida that there could be an indictment of me, despite whatever speciousness undercurrents it. And so we don't want to wait until that point. And so this is a lawsuit that basically compels, is asking the court to compel the government to preserve all those records. that they have within the Department of Justice, White House, other agencies that relate at all to the investigations into me so that if in fact there is some effort here to circumvent the law and to abuse the authorities of the Justice Department, it will be available to the court if in fact there is going to be this indictment. Don't you already have a smoking gun in the things Donald Trump has said about you? I mean, tell me what the records would prove, and is it that your lawyers will argue that should you be indicted, it's all a vindictive prosecution? Yes. Well, as well know, in the Southern District of Florida, a very competent, respected professional prosecutor. either stepped aside or was pushed aside because she was not willing to go forward with an indictment or any type of effort to try to obtain an indictment from a grand jury. And they said, reportedly, she said, there's no evidence there to support such indictment. And we also see that this has been shopped around and the complaint makes clear, you know, in different districts, whether it be in Virginia or in Pennsylvania. And it's clearly that there is not an appetite on the part of those Department of Justice employees who continue.

happening to, at least 470 targets in counting. Quote, in his second term, Trump has turned a campaign pledge to punish political opponents into a guiding principle of governance. A tally by Reuters reveals the scale. At least 470 people, organizations, and institutions have been targeted for retribution since Trump took office, an average of more than one a day. Some were singled out for punishment, others swept up in broader purges of perceived enemies. The count excludes foreign individuals, institutions. and governments as well as federal employees dismissed as part of force reductions. 470 people potentially going through what you're going through. Can you just give voice to what it's been like over the last 18 months for you? Well, you know, the autocratic's playbook. says you really need to just try to undermine and remove any individuals who are causing you problems. Whether it be in the media, we've seen this happen in the media as well, in the intelligence community and law enforcement, the FBI and other places. And so for the last 18 months, clearly there has been this increasing drumbeat that has focused not just on me, but on others, my former colleagues as well. again, with subpoenas and interviews and other types of things that are, you know, they're using. Again, it's the abuse of these tremendously powerful authorities of the Department of Justice, where I think every American citizen should be relying on the Department of Justice to protect them, to protect their civil rights, their privileges of being an American citizen. I have always thought the Department of Justice is one of those pillars. And what is happening to that pillar of justice, it's being eroded and corroded by the corruption that is clearly taking place. And so, yes, I have been in the crosshairs of Donald Trump, you know, as President Obama says, you know, lives rent-free or sweet-free in his head. And so he continues to throw up my name and James Comey's name and Jim Clapper's name and others because he just wants to continue this drumbeat of that we were, you know, corrupt, we were, you know, abusing our authorities. Well, in fact, it's the opposite. And that's why I'm going on the offensive here. I told my lawyers, I don't want to sit on our hands because if he gets away with me, he's going to continue to do this against others. other individuals, professionals who have given their lives and have sacrificed so much of this country believing that a president, an administration, is going to do the right thing as opposed to the wrong and corrupt thing. That's why, you know, enough is enough. And that's why today's lawsuit, I think, sends a clear signal that I'm willing to fight this on behalf of my reputation and what I did, but also on behalf of so many others who are either currently in those crosshairs or will be soon. Let me read a little bit more from the lawsuit. And then I want to come back to what you think your original...

Sin is in Trump's eyes. But let me read from the lawsuit first. Justice Department officials have engaged in a variety of inappropriate activities in their attempt to build a prosecutable case on the hollow foundation of these criminal referrals. Among those activities have been the following. issuing pronouncements that events a preconceived belief in Director Brennan's guilt, making statements that disclose matters relating to open grand jury investigations, an apparent violation of federal rule of criminal procedure, reportedly removing or sidelining career prosecutors who have balked at using the criminal process to promote the president's retribution agenda. engaging in apparent forum shopping by moving the investigations from federal district to federal district in an effort to find a sufficiently pliant U.S. attorney and engaging in a parent judge shopping. They've done all those things and they've been reported and they've done them in full view. What would be most beneficial to find the back end of in terms of what the record shows? Is it that it was directed by Todd Blanche? Is it that it was knowingly false and in absence of evidence proving any crimes? What are you hoping that the records bear out? Well, I think the Department of Justice for decades and even centuries has followed the rule of law. And they do things based on not, you know, partisanship or political interests, whatever. They're supposed to be pursuing the law objectively in an apolitical, nonpartisan manner. And clearly, if, in fact, the Trump administration and Donald Trump and his loyalists are carrying out the Department of Justice responsibilities, again, in this... illegal manner and doing it for partisan purposes, that needs to be exposed. It needs to be exposed so that these investigations can be, you know, pushed aside, but also to prevent it in the future from happening. Because, again, what is happening behind closed doors as we see all of the abuses and the corrupt actions on the part of this administration? It is hard to believe that the Department of Justice now is going to be fully exploited, you know, and leveraged by the Trump administration as a way to go after political enemies. So I believe that if these documents are preserved and all the records are preserved, and if it does go, in fact, to an indictment or a trial in the discovery process, this will come out. It will come out exactly just how... unethical, illegal, and inappropriate these actions were. Because, again, based on everything that we see, as, you know, this case has bounced back and forth to different jurisdictions because there's nothing there. And I am confident that, again, my role as CIA director in 2016 when we expose the Russian interference on behalf of Donald Trump, we're trying to advance his prospects of getting elected, was exactly the right thing to do. And that assessment has been validated numerous times, including by, you know, bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that was changed.

of the time by Marco Rubio. And I've spoken out very publicly against Donald Trump. And so, again, it's clear that they're not going to let go of this. And again, I'm not going to wait until they have their loyalists firmly ensconced in places that's going to actually bring these very, very inappropriate investigations to some type of actual criminal charges. What is the original tripwire that you think enrages Donald Trump? Because to your point, Marco Rubio found with the Intelligence Committee assessed to be accurate that Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. And I think Vladimir Putin himself says he preferred he wanted Donald Trump. What is still at issue in the original intelligence assessment? Even John Ratcliffe, I think since he got in there, went and, I don't know, kicked over some chairs and underneath. found that the original intelligence assessment was not inaccurate. Durham found that it was an accurately or justifiably predicated investigation and said to Mr. Horowitz, the DOJIG. What is the illusion of a violation that you committed in terms of the actual intelligence assessment that Donald Trump is still mad about? Well, obviously, he's very thin-skinned and he's fixated on the past. And he takes great umbrage at the assessment that said that the Russians were trying to help him. We didn't say that it was because of Russian help that he was elected. And he was elected as President of the United States in 2016. He took office there. But I think this is all part of his rhetoric in terms of the Russia hoax, Russia hoax, and the deep state. And so he uses this. And he uses myself and other senior officials from that Obama administration. as examples that to try to feed, I think, the MAGA base on this. But, you know, with all the challenges we face the country, with all the problems that we have domestically and internationally, you would think he'd be spending his time and you would think that the departments and agencies of the executive branch will be focusing on what we need to do to help the American people and to address the threats and challenges that we face on a daily basis. But again, Donald Trump fixates on the past to the detriment, again, of the welfare and the well-being of the American people. Well, we will follow this here, and we appreciate you taking the time to talk to us about the decision. I'm sure from knowing you, from covering events with you, from covering these last 18 months with you, I'm sure this wasn't taken lightly. So thank you for taking time to talk to us about it today. Thanks so much, Nicole. When we come back, much more on Director Brennan's decision, as he just explained to us, to go on the offense and file this lawsuit against Donald Trump and the Justice Department, and why it may very well be a smart strategy to take Trump and his administration to court, where facts and evidence and truth are all that really matter there. And also, as the Democrats look to take back control of Congress in November, what is behind the anti-incumbency movement? We're seeing in primaries all across our country. Our political panel weighs in on what Democratic voters say they want from their candidates and who's best to stand up to Donald Trump. Deadlin White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters. Yo, it's Jay Uso from WWE, and I'm Jimmy Uso. Chumba Casina and WWE are hype for the biggest event of the summer. Summer Sland. I know, I can't wait. There's nothing better to do while we're waiting than playing Chumba Casino. Sign up today, and you could win a VIP experience. With Chumba Casino and with WW4 SummerSlam. So what are you waiting for? Play Chumbo Casino and enter for your chance to win. Let's Chumble. Only available in permitted states, no purchase necessary, see terms and conditions for details. VGW Group, would be prohibited by law at 21 plus, sponsored by Chumpa Casino. A Better Help Add. Have you ever had so many tabs open that your computer starts slowing down? Life can feel like that too. BetterHelp's 26th State of Stigma Report found that 74% of Americans believe society still discourages asking for help. Therapy can help you sort through what's taking up space and quietly affecting you. With BetterHelp, connect with a licensed therapist online and switch any time. Maybe it's time to close a few tabs. Visit betterhelp.com.

As we all know, Donald Trump is no stranger to being sued a lot by lots of different people. So in that respect, the lawsuit today from former director of the CIA, John Brennan, who's also an MS now senior national security and intelligence analyst, is just the latest. But a tally in the New York Times finds that the Trump administration has now been sued more than 750 times. Hundreds of those suits remain active, and 176 reached a final decision. Of those 176, the Trump administration only won seven. 99 were dismissed. Two had a mixed outcome. And in 68 instances, the plaintiffs, the people other than Trump, won. I want to bring in former top DOJ official and general counsel for the FBI, our legal analyst, Andrew Weissman. Also back with us, Puck News, senior political columnist, National Affairs analyst, John Heilman is back. Andrew Weissman, your thoughts on Director Brennan's decision to sue Donald Trump and DOJ. Well, I'm going to react first as a lawyer because there's a lot of human things to say about this. But as a lawyer, I think there are two important reasons why I think this is smart. One is the Department of Justice has taken the position in contrast to I think any other administration, Republican or Democratic, that they are not required to adhere to laws that require them to hold on to exculpatory documents. Their view is under the Presidential Records Act. They are not required to hold documents. And so that gives a lot of reason for John Bennett and his legal team to say, wait a second, we need you to hold on to documents that could be exculpatory, that could prove vindictive and selective prosecution because they feel like the department is above the law. Second, John alluded to this, which is that this case has been. It seems to me, shocked to Florida to be before Judge Cannon, a judge who I think the administration uses extremely favorable to them. And this is a way for John to have a neutral and detached judge in D.C. where he has filed this lawsuit. So he has a way to counteract the forum shopping. by the Department of Justice. So he has a, you know, a much more favorable, in that sense, I don't mean biased. I mean a judge who is not going to be biased rather than being in front of sort of a hand-picked forum that the government has shopped its investigation to. So for the both of there's reasons, I think it's a very smart move. Andrew, let me ask you about the first thing you said. I mean, what is the difference between what you just described and not hanging on to evidence and destroying evidence?

So there is none. I mean, this is, you know, somebody who was in the department for 20 plus years. Also, I was a defense lawyer for 10 years. There are things that you have to do. And one is that you have to retain and not only retain, you have to find exculpatory evidence. And then you have an obligation to turn that over. to the defendant. This is the dual role that a prosecutor is supposed to have. They're not supposed to just be out of public blood. They're supposed to do justice. And that means that you have to give documents that are favorable to the defense, either to their guilt or to their sentencing or both. And so John Brennan's case is one that is reacting to that, saying, look, I see. that the department has said it is not required to adhere to the Presidential Records Act. I see that the department is saying that you can use signal and other apps, John alluded to this, where there may be no way. Those are not authorized means of communication and those may not be preserved. And so all of that is a way of undermining a criminal defendant. rights. And that is just not how the rule of justice is supposed to play in this administration. And you made the point, Nicole, which I think really bears repeating, that it's not like John Brennan is sort of chasing ghosts. And there's this, you know, specter, which is so unlikely to happen. Mr. Abrago Garcia has won his case because a federal judge found. that his case was brought vindictively and selectively by this Department of Justice. And as you correctly pointed out, the federal judge specifically named repeatedly Todd Blanche, who was about to have his confirmation hearing, to head the Department of Justice. So John has every reason to be thinking about vindictive and selective prosecution and to want to make sure. that he has all of the evidence to support emotion and that he has a judge who is going to be fair and impartial in making these decisions. Halman, since I started this show, we have focused. I don't know, maybe even to our own detriment. More than anything else, more than any other story on Trump's attempts to destroy the rule of law. Whenever a Times or Post story, it broke on the Mueller probe, we wiped the teleprompter, we read it, we tried to understand it. I've covered Sessions Rosenstein, at O'Callaghan, Bill Barr. There was a guy named Whitaker there for a few weeks or a few months in between Mueller, Smith. I mean, I... I guess what I'm trying to ask you is the body of evidence around Trump's efforts to destroy the rule of law is so vast that I think the other sort of lens that you have to look at this through is for Trump, mission accomplished. I mean, they are now persecuting and prosecuting the innocent public servants who protected U.S. national security, and they didn't prevent Trump from getting elected president. He won.

What are we living through? What are we watching? What are we covering? Well, I think, you know, God, there's so many answers. There's so many ways to kind of come at that question, Nicole, and we've come at it from all of them over the course of these past 10 years or so, or however long it's been. I mean, we're living through hell in a lot of respects. And I was thinking about this. We were talking on the show last time I was on, I forget when that was maybe Monday. And I made this point where I said, you know, that I had seen Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan talking about how. Their presumption now is that what the White House says is not true and that you then would try to see to work back from that. That's a huge change from even in an adversarial press relationship with the White House that's always existed. It was supposed to exist. You know, for most of my career, you operated from the presumption on a daily basis that the White House was due. It was making some good faith effort to tell you the truth. But you would look for holes in that and try to find places where they might be prevaricating or might be lying or might be misleading or might be omitting, right? So that's a huge change. And I think, you know, when I think about Andrew and John Brennan, people who throughout from administration to administration have operated on the presumption that the Justice Department would be acting in good faith. Sometimes there would be some, a bad case would get brought. Sometimes there would be a politicization would sneak in. Mistakes were made. Sometimes back, I think back to the era when John Mitchell ran the Justice Department, there was political corruption and there was abuse. But the baseline was if the Justice Department is pursuing a case, it's pursuing it from the right place, from the bizarre people trying to do justice. And they weren't always right, but they were trying that. And then you would look for holes in that. You would look for places where there were exceptions. And now I think, to your point about what has been established over the course of the last. 10, of course, the last two different Trump terms, I won't include Joe Biden in here, but the first four years to a lesser degree, but now, particularly in Trump 2.0, we are now in a place where I think the presumption has to be that when the Justice Department brings prosecution, it's suspect. That's the starting point, is that it's suspect. And then we occasionally see a case sometimes where we say, okay, well, that's an exception to the fact to the illegitimacy of what they're doing. And that, it gets to your final. The baseline of your question, right? Which is, has Trump already won? Politically... Clearly, he's already won in the sense that he won himself a second term one and has managed to wreak enormous havoc and done grave damage to this institution, the Justice Department, the FBI, all of those associated institutions. But I don't think that those institutions have been destroyed. They've not been knocked down to the studs. There are still some good people there. And when we get past this hell, there will be an enormous job in front of the country.

and in front of the people of goodwill, conservative, liberal, both, to rebuild it on the basis of whatever is left. But unfortunately, there's a lot left, a lot less left than one would have hoped or one might have prayed for just a few months ago. Yeah, yeah, no, it is stunning. Andrew Reisman, thank you for joining us today on this. Tom Homan sticks around for politics when we come back, how Donald Trump's deep political unpopularity has given Democrats a real chance to take back control of Congress. We'll look at the rapidly changing state of play in the battle for the U.S. Senate after a short break. You know what's worse than a long wait? Flipping through old magazines in a waiting room. Instead, I power up Chumpa Casino. Slots, Blackjack, Solitaire, Roulette, Mingo, and More. Boredom doesn't stand a chance. Take a few virtual laps with me. Let's Chamba. Play now at chumbacasino.com. No purchase necessary. VGW Group void were prohibited by law. CTNCs, 21 Plus, sponsored by Chumba Casino. A Better Help Add. Have you ever had so many tabs open that your computer starts slowing down? Life can feel like that too. BetterHelp's 26th State of Stigma Report found that 74% of Americans believe society still discourages asking for help. Therapy can help you sort through what's taking up space and quietly affecting you. With BetterHelp, connect with a licensed therapist online and switch any time. Maybe it's time to close a few tabs. Visit betterhelp.com. You better eat your Wheaties today because there's a lot of news to cover. Money. Time for the business. All eyes on the new Fed chair. The economic fallout from the war is a temporary power. The president is now a major crypto industry operator. Is this White House for sale? Politics. Is there an energy to respond to this aggressive gerrymandering? It has never been more important to be informed and engaged. Money power politics with Stephanie Rule. Weekdays at 9 a.m. Eastern on MS now.

So this time last year, the prospect of Democrats flipping control of the U.S. Senate was... Farcical, silly, unimaginable. But the sheer volume of corruption and the toxicity of Donald Trump's presidency and a complete capitulation of Senate Republicans to do anything in the face of all of that have made them look so weak that a window has been open for Democrats to succeed in doing what seemed, as we said, unimaginable, prevail, take control in a very challenging year with a very challenging Senate map. So to take control the Senate, Democrats have to flip four seats. Their best chances to flip seats are North Carolina, Maine, Alaska, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio. All but Maine are states that Donald Trump won. Democrats also have to hold on to seats that they currently hold in Michigan and Georgia, states also won by Donald Trump in 24. New polling released in the New York Times today highlights the very real opportunity Democrats have to... flip the chamber, thanks to a strong crop of candidates, and a Republican party, again, doing nothing, simply allowing themselves to be dragged down by the searing unpopularity and bracing corruption of Donald Trump and voters' very pessimistic view of their personal economic status. I want to bring in senior contributing editor, Michelle Norris. Heilman is still here. Michelle, it's amazing to be reminded again by the voters, by the people of just how dynamic and volatile their political alignments are, not necessarily on the fringes, but certainly in the sprawling middle among independents and swing voters.

It's interesting to see this swing, what appears to be a swing to the left. But I think one of the things that is striking me is that labels don't mean the same thing that they used to. And for a long time to be called a left ring radical was something that you would have to wear as a millstone around your neck. You'd have a lot of explaining to do. You'd have to maybe swing to the center to show that that label didn't apply to you. You know, when you talk about the sheer level of toxicity and corruption that we're facing in this administration, right now people are looking for candidates who are willing to put their gloves on and fight. And if you are seen as someone who was left wing, that doesn't carry the same kind of weight that it did perhaps in the past. If you're seen as someone who's even radical, as long as you're willing to take the fight to this bunch that's in control in Washington, D.C., that is appealing to people. And the other thing about democratic socialism, because that's apparently, you know, this we're really talking about, particularly with the... the results that we see coming out of Colorado, for a long time, people worry that that ideology was more important than governance or than competency, you know, among those candidates. And I think with candidates like Zohran Mamdani and what he's doing in New York and, you know, looking at what some of these candidates have to offer in terms of not just their rhetoric, but their background and what they're willing to do, the idea that that this kind of, this brand of a democratic candidate, a democratic socialist candidate could perhaps go hand in hand with effective governance and the idea that they're willing to make a case that's based on affordability at a moment when you're seeing downward mobility across the board, rising gas prices, falling wages. You know, some of the things that just a few months ago. certainly for years ago, but maybe just a few months ago, seem like they may have been, you know, checks in the negative column, suddenly make these candidates very appealing. And then you add to that youth and the youthful bigger that they're bringing to their candidacies, it is an attractive package. And you're seeing it, you saw it in New York, you saw it in Philadelphia, you see it now in Colorado and with, you know, the mayor of Washington, D.C. This now represents a trend.

It also is a script for Fox News to sort of sing off of and reinvigorate their attacks on the radical politics of the Democratic Party. How do you see these candidates and the broader Democratic Party navigating that? Well, if history is any guide, Nicole, I'd be concerned about it if I were a Democrat, about how well Democrats are navigate that challenge. It's certainly going to come. Republicans have tried to turn Democrats who are the furthest thing in the world from socialist or radical or left into people who people think are socialist or radical or left for a long time. You know, I would say to Michelle's point, you know, there is no question that the... that the left and that progressives and the DSA. are on the march in certain places. In urban environments, all of them, including last night in Denver, that's the case. I think in the six states, the six statewide races, Nicole, that you mentioned at the times had their polling on in Senate races, I don't think any of those candidates, any of the people who we've seen who have won these Democratic primaries, the three Zohran Mamdani candidates, this is not taking anything away from them. But to one degree or another, all three of those candidates and the candidate last night. in Denver would be unsuitable statewide candidates in any of the states that we just mentioned. Their views are considerably to the left of the mainstream voter in Ohio or in Alaska or in Texas. And so this is an important trend in the Democratic Party for sure. And I would think it's a trend that, but it's not yet a national thing. And it's certainly a thing that's not yet washing across. purple states in the country. The other thing I'd say is that if you look at a lot of these races, and particularly this Denver case, the incumbent that got beat that last, the other last night, Diana DeGette, Dijette, 15-term incumbent. And I would bet that all three of us can remember a day. When a 15-term incumbent, when that would spell in a lot of voters' minds, experience, expertise, constituent service. knowing how Washington works, being able to provide for her district in a good way. I think increasingly what you see in these various races is that a 15-term incumbent spell is the absolute antithesis of change. And for a lot of young voters, it is not a qualification or an asset. It's a demerit. And that youth and inexperience are seen as... positives, and almost not even so much. I mean, there's ideology as part of this, but that is, I think, driving a lot of this in deep blue districts. Yeah. Like, it's so messed up. How can someone without any part in that make it worse? I want to press both of you on that. No one's going anywhere. We have to fit in a short break. We'll all be right back.

How do House Republicans make the case that you're fighting for affordability when you go back to your districts? Affordability, what are you talking about? I'm going to go to tomorrow. I'm going to, well, over the fourth. I'm going to give me a couple big lobster tails. I'm going to get me some nice rib-eyes. I'm going to sit in my backyard with my family, my neighbors. And we're going to be enjoying the fourth, celebrating 250 years, the birthday. We're going to be celebrating the greatest president, my lifetime, Donald J. Trump, maybe watch some fireworks. You think the 60% of Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck can afford lobster tails and rib-eyes and all of that? Maybe not. Maybe the 60% of America don't work as hard as I do. We're back with Michelle and John. So that was a congressman named Troy Nels. He's worked. I don't know if he was kidding or not. I don't know if he's auditioning for a. bit somewhere, but he's worked 91 days this year. Michelle, that Trump has and his Niagara Republican Party have basically made a mockery of their own voters, very real economic distress seems to be the other half of the story about the political opportunity for Democrats in these statewide Senate races. Well, it's also a sign of autocracy, you know, where you make up your own reality and you just, you know, pretend that the problems aren't there. It's one of the reasons why Donald Trump speaks all the time in superlatives. You know, when you speak in superlatives all the time, you can't possibly be right half the time. But this deciding that affordability isn't an issue is a dangerous game for them. And I think it's... probably does help create a clearer path for Republicans in the states that are seen as the real battlegrounds. Republican candidates still have a bit of an edge, but this is a pace where Democrats really could try to narrow that margin. It strikes me that he's talking about the 250th anniversary. For most people, they think about this, yes, as a 250th anniversary, but they also just think about it as July 4th weekend. And that's something you celebrate every year, and it's an important marker. because you do certain things every year. And because you do them every year, you have a sense of how much things cost, how much those hamburgers cost, how much those funds cost, how much it costs when you take your family to the little strip mall carnival that you're going to. And I guarantee that all those things cost more than they did last year. And so why they can talk about affordability, not necessarily being an issue, it is very much an issue for their voters in particular, and that may come back and invite them.

We ran out of time, Halman, before we had a chance to talk about the bear, the new season. We have to do that before the week. It wraps up. Michelle, Norris, John Howellman. Thank you both for joining me today on these stories. A quick break for us. We'll be right back. One of the things that makes this week's guest on The Best People podcast such an important and vital voice in these times is that he always injects the historical echoes into our day-to-day coverage. Take a listen to what he told me. Think about what happened with that happened with Doge and what they unleashed. All of those government workers, particularly black women, who, in a blink of an eye, lost their middle class footing. And this guy is a trillionaire. But, you know, what's interesting about the end of the 19th century in this moment, you had the gilded age, oligarch seizing power. You had imperial imagination of the country. Our greatest export isn't just simply baseball. At the moment in which Jim Crow was being solidified in the South, America was exporting its racial logics to Haiti, to Cuba. It's this convergence of these historical dynamics that we're experiencing in our current moment. And I guess, you know, like you said, you've got to widen the aperture. The evidence is clear. Just look. But, you know, we're shattering mirrors, as I say in the book. Ours is a time of shattered mirrors. We don't want to see it. And God never holds back and puts before us all of the inconvenient truths that others look away from. Listen to the entire conversation. Just scan the QR code on your screen to listen to the rest of the conversation or download it wherever you get your podcast. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes tonight. We are grateful. Who helps America go farther? Fly higher. Dream even bigger. People do. Since 1879, our people have been more than a source of energy. They've been a source of progress. Today, that same progress is helping deliver record U.S. energy production, fueling the workers, the makers, the boundary pushers, and risk takers who spark the breakthroughs that move America forward. Learn more about what our people do at chevron.com slash USA250.