"A disgraceful insult to all of the many foot soldier of the Civil Rights movement"

There's a pill version of Ozmpic. Hello, I'm Ozempic. And I'm other GLP ones, kind of like him. Hey, did I hear there's a pill version of Ozempic? Yep, you sure did. Ask your doctor about which FDA approved uses of the OZempic pen or pill may be right for you. Call 1833 Ozemp or visit OZempic.com to view the medication guide and learn more about OZempic somaglite tablets, 9 milligrams, and OZempic somaglite injection, 2 milligrams. There's a pill. 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.

Did you see what the Supreme Court did last night? They allowed Alabama to change the rules of our election at the last minute and use a congressional map that dilutes the voting power of African Americans in our state. Let's be clear. In a state where black voters make up nearly one-third of the electorate, we deserve two seats at the table, not one. The right-wing justices of the Supreme Court are trying to take us back to the Jim Crow era to a time before black voters could participate fully in our democracy. Hi again, everybody. It's now 5 o'clock in New York. That was Terri Sewell. She's one of two black members of Alabama's congressional delegation. And the latest moves by the United States Supreme Court may soon make her the only one. Last night, the highest court in the land ruled in favor of a new congressional map for Alabama that's backed by Republicans only in the state. The new map leaves just one majority black district, making it much easier for the GOP to flip another congressional seat in its direction. A lower court had blocked that new Republican map last week, saying there was, quote, undisputed evidence of intentional racial discrimination. But Alabama Republicans pressed ahead appealing the decision to this Supreme Court in light of the highest court's recent ruling in a similar case, the Louisiana case that basically gutted the Voting Rights Act. About last night's decision, the New York Times writes this, quote, the ruling underscores how much more difficult it will be for groups and individuals to prove that legislative maps discriminate on the basis of race going forward. Just three years ago, the Supreme Court rejected a map in Alabama with a similar configuration, including only one majority black district, that it has now accepted. And Alabama State Representative Anthony Daniels said this, quote, this ruling is a disgraceful insult to all of the many foot soldiers of the civil rights movement who fought, bled, and died for voting rights and fair black representation. The three liberal justices on the Supreme Court dissented with the ruling. Sonia Sotomayor wrote a blistering rebuke. It included this, quote, in addition to being wrong on the merits, The court's decision inflicts two grave harms on the public. It debases the democratic process by upending Alabama's entire election in the name of permitting Alabama to discriminate against black Alabamians. It also corrods the rule of law by rewarding Alabama's gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders. Sonia Sotomayor adds this, quote, just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination? The court today doubles down on chaos because I choose to defend the rule of law and the right of all of Alabamaans to participate equally in democracy. I respectfully dissent. That dissent is where we begin the hour with some of our favorite experts and friends. The president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, John Visignano is here. Also joining us, NYU Law Professor, Legal analyst Melissa Murray is here, and Civil Rights Attorney and President of a Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Maya Wiley is here. John, I start with you for your reaction.

Yeah, it's a completely outrageous decision. And we are seeing a court now so untethered to the law or reality that they are so, they're comfortable going to places that we never thought they'd go. And we saw in the Calais decision and egregious decision. And yet. After that decision, we saw a three-judge panel, two of which were Trump appointed judges, make this decision that said, yeah, we understand the Calais decision that you all put forward. And yet, we still believe the Alabama map is racially discriminatory. And then it went back to the U.S. Supreme Court, at which time last night, they said, actually, what we really meant is... We don't mean any of this. We're willing to go back and forth. We're willing to change our opinion even from just three years ago. I mean, I think that we're in a completely unknown moment in time with this U.S. Supreme Court, and calling them political is valid. You know, we have John Roberts out here saying things like, we shouldn't be called political. And to me, as a U.S. citizen, it should be incumbent upon that court to prove itself to us that it is not a political actor. Unfortunately, they are telling us that we're not allowed to call it that. Let me read Eric Holder's statement. Former Attorney General Eric Holder writes this. The decision cements the John Roberts Court's lasting legacy as the greatest enemy of the right to vote since the post-Reconstruction era. The John Roberts Court has again put its thumb on the scale in favor of its ideological views and allies and decidedly against American voters and the best of our traditions. Through decision after decision, this court has completely undermined. the American people's ability to decide the direction and fate of the nation. John, you're the president of former Trinity General Eric Holder's group. That is as sort of clear, as I've heard Eric Holderby about the fate of our democracy in the hands of the John Roberts Court. What is the recourse? Look, he's very smart. And I agree with his statement in full. I think what the recourse is is to continue to engage this Supreme Court with changes. What they seem to be most fearful of, and this is why they're forcing right now southern states to use maps that are going to create an environment in which more Republicans win. Frankly, in this instance, more white Republicans have the opportunity to win. However, we need to. politically engage this process and make sure that we are able to make the changes to the court that are necessary, like ethics reform and term limits, to change this court and make it more accountable to the people. Melissa Murray, let me ask you to weigh in on. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that the Supreme Court, when facing a similar question three years ago, made one decision. Three years later, it makes another. Sonia Sotomayor describes it this way, quote, before the court are to pass, down one lies in orderly election, held under a tried and tested congressional map that protects black Alabamaans' right to vote and with which all voters, election officials, and candidates alike are familiar.

Down the other path lies a chaotic election held under a never-before-use congressional map that intentionally discriminates against black citizens of Alabama that Alabama adopted in unashamed defiance of a prior court order directly affirmed by this court and that will require officials to change the voter registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters in just days at Basque, a task that Alabama previously represented would take months. The majority chooses the second path and disregards both democratic values and the rule of law. Again, that's not coming from a cable news cowboy. That's coming from the Supreme Court justice that you know. No, the call is coming from inside the House, Nicole. And it's really worth mentioning here that, again, in 2023, this Supreme Court held that a very similar Alabama map that drew only one opportunity district for minority voters likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. I said in 2023 that that holding was likely not going to last very long. And I got a lot of slings and arrows from folks in the voting rights community over my pessimism. I think it's borne out here. There were signs in that decision, concurrences from Brett Kavanaugh, concurrences from Clarence Thomas that indicated that this would not be the last word. Obviously, it wasn't in a very similar case involving Louisiana and the question of whether or not the map would support two opportunity districts or one. We had this court come down in favor of Louisiana. And more importantly, this court in this particular case that was just announced yesterday has decided that it's going to second guess lower courts who are on the... ground looking at the record. We had a three-judge federal court panel say that it was very likely here. Two of those judges agreed that Alabama was intentionally discriminating and that the decision in Calais was of no moment because Calais requires a showing of intentional discrimination and they found it. And this court effectively says that they're ignoring. that evidence that the lower courts found, that the lower court did not give the state the presumption of an irrebuttable presumption of good faith. And it's basically going to allow the state of Alabama to do this to a third of its electorate. Sonia Sotomayor is exactly right. This court has looked at the facts and has decided to choose chaos. Let me read you, Melissa, the statement from Chief John Roberts that John is alluding to. He said this, quote, I think people view us as purely political actors. I'm tempted to stop there, but I'll keep going, which I don't think is an accurate understanding of what we do. Certainly those aspects are open to debate and people should talk about them, but we're not simply part of the political process, and there's a reason for that, and I'm not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate. I mean, the three liberal justices seem to be among those debating the assertion, and I wonder what you make of the defensiveness.

The Supreme Court now polls as the least popular, least trusted and held in the lowest regard in the history of Gallup asking the question of voters about the Supreme Court. And yet they seem to plunge deeper and deeper into optional. They seem to continue to opt in to the darkest political fights in the country. So, you know, one answer for the Chief Justice is show, don't tell. I mean, show us that you're not political actors. That quote from the Chief Justice was after Jody Cantor and Adam Liptack of the New York Times published that blockbuster story that showed the Chief Justice himself effectively birthing the modern shadow docket, which has allowed this administration to exercise its most excessive tendencies. That blockbuster reporting showed the Chief Justice actually being somewhat of a political. political actor using the shadow docket in unorthodox ways. The fact that he is out here on the huskings disclaiming the fact that they are political actors tells you everything you need to know. This is a court that unlike Congress doesn't have the power of the purse, unlike the president doesn't have the power of the sword. The court's legitimacy depends on the people believing that it is doing law, not politics. When the court starts to look like it is merely a midwife for the Republican Party, it is in bad straits. The chief justice knows it. The real question is, can he convince the rest of his conservative supermajority that this way? lies madness. Maya Wiley, let me show you a little bit more from Alabama Congresswoman Sewell. But here's what they need to understand. The Supreme Court does not get the final word the people of Alabama do. Now that this map is in place, it is time for us to organize, to show up, to vote like we've never voted before. Extremists can draw unfair maps, but they cannot silence our voices. Let's send a message that cannot be ignored that every voice deserves to be heard in our democracy. We've come too far to go back. The fight continues, and together we will be heard. Maya, first your thoughts on the ruling and then just speak to the political opportunity ahead of the pro-democracy side today. Well, let me just start. My thoughts on the ruling, Nicole, is that racism is alive and well in America. And I say that not lightly. I'm saying that because to the point you've already heard from John and Melissa and you yourself have made, this Supreme Court itself acknowledged that there was intentional discrimination against black voters in Alabama. And that...

is the thing that we have to remember when we're talking about the ideology of the majority of this court. And I'm going to call it ideology. It's ideological. And that ideology is playing out politically. But it is outrageous that we are sitting here in America today about to celebrate our 250th anniversary. an anniversary where black people did not have the right to vote or even be seen as citizens or as human beings in the beginning of this country. And we are sitting here today with the Supreme Court telling us outright, out loud, that racism is permissible. Race discrimination is okay. And they will not only look the other way, they'll look the other way and pretend like they're not. And that is outrageous. In terms of the politics of it, I was one of the leaders with so many others. We had 5,000 people show up in Montgomery, Alabama, six days after the Calais ruling. That's barely any time at all to organize anything, and yet the outpouring, the buses, the people who were showing up both from the local groups organizing within Alabama. That included, by the way, Terri Sewell was there, a daughter of Selma. reminding us that we have power. And not only that, we have power and that's why they're taking it. I mean, let's be honest, the black population and Alabama grew by 80,000 people between 2010 and 2020 when they did this gerrymandering to take away the political voice. of a third of the population of the state of Alabama. And we were watching the same thing happen in other states. This is happening because we have power and because we are growing. And that's why it is critical that we recognize that power, it's going to be a long haul. I don't think any of us are pretending that it's not. But all they have done is put the winds in the sails of those of us who are continuing to be foot soldiers in a fight that says, this is our country too. We have a voice too. And you may want to take control. Every American, because there were white voters too in this population and protest in Montgomery, said, we understand it's about all of us. Multiracial democracy is what is at stake. And it doesn't work for anyone. You can just remember that white men in this country could not vote for the first several decades of this country if they didn't own land. It has always been about expanding power and participation, not letting a few politicians take it. And that's something we all have to fight for. Melissa Marie, thank you for starting us off this hour. Maya and John stick around a little bit longer. Also ahead for us this hour. The reviews are in for Donald Trump's pick to be the country's director of national intelligence. And for Trump, it's a disaster. How the choice of loyalist Bill Pulte puts our democracy and the rule of law and our national security at risk all at the same time and pushes the weaponization of the federal government to alarming new heights, even for Trump. Deadland White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Happening right now, the House of Representatives has approved a war powers resolution for the very first time since the war in Iran began. Functionally, it's a check on Donald Trump's war with Iran. The vote was 215 in favor with 207 against four Republicans voted with the Democrats for it. It is the fourth attempt by the House to rein in Donald Trump's military conduct. The Senate passed an earlier version last month. and is expected to take up the resolution in the coming days. We are back with John and Maya. John, if you could just pick up where Maya left off about what the sort of back to the drawing board political organizing looks like in terms of making sure that Democrats are successful in the upcoming elections. Yeah, look, I think it's two things. One, we do, like Maya said, need to register voters and everyone, black voters, voters of color at large, white voters need to be engaged in this process. We need to vote like they have never seen before. And I say that because we've seen elections in the past where different electorates have come out. We know that in this country, not 100% of people vote. And so you really need to engage a larger group of people, and we need to be that group of people. So as we're growing this. community, we're growing this pie, I think of places like Memphis, where Memphis hasn't seen a competitive congressional election in probably 30 years. And yet, what we are currently looking at, given their extraordinary jurymander of Memphis, is going to be a huge outburst from the community of new voters, registered voters, and what they are counting on are two things. One, they're counting on people feeling completely unable to do their constitutional duty and vote and affect change. And two, they're counting on the same people that voted last time voting again. And I can say that with certainty. The way they drew the maps in Texas, for example, they drew these new maps in Texas that are so wed to the 2024 numbers and distant from what the future looks like in that state. So we need to ensure that we are that future. And then I will also add, secondarily, that we need states to be prepared for more Republican malfeasance. We can't allow states. across the north, states with Democratic trifectas to sit back on their laurels. We need states to be ready to redraw their maps if they are called upon to do so, given what Republicans are doing in the South. Maya, there is obviously our own country's history, but there's the autocratic playbook that's being run all around the world. And in Hungary, where they threw Viktor Orban out after 16 years, it was by doing what John's talking about. It was by fundamentally changing the electorate. The turnout model was unprecedented. And after 16 years, Viktor Orban was unceremoniously dumped. issues of the economy and corruption were top of mind. I wonder how you lay, or if you could lay anything over from what happened in Hungary, over what you see shaping up in America.

Well, I certainly think we have lots to learn about how tyranny has played out and how regular ordinary citizens and activists and advocates have worked together to ensure that they take their country back. And Hungary is one of those stories. Corruption is part of it because as we understand what this is about, it's about taking power from people. It's for the people to decide. The way our system's supposed to work is supposed to vie for our votes, not try to silence our voice. And that's what we're seeing. But I actually think it's important to look at Brazil. We have been looking at the ways in which the fight for democracy has been happening across the globe and the important lessons to learn. But it is really important to understand that Brazil, like the United States, had race playing out as a way to wedge. people and try to steal power. And that's what we're seeing in the United States, and we have to be frank about it. You know, it isn't just about black people. It's also about Latinos. It's also about Native Americans, but it's also about people who are white. Because to your point about corruption, the way corruption thrives is by dividing us and convincing us not to look at the corruption. But the corruption is the power and racism is being used as the wedge and the ability to try to say we're going to lie about our elections and claim that it's undocumented immigrants stealing them. But then we're going to also lie about and not care about racism, say racism is no longer a reality in this country. And then we're going to try to pretend like political partisanship is okay. to take away power from people of color because their numbers are doing, so building so greatly. And so all we're saying is this is a multiracial democracy for a reason. We've been proud of the progress we've made in this country for a reason. And when we look at the fight against tyranny in places like Brazil, also, to an also important degree, the way in which division is driven in places like Hungary, it's important for us as a country to say, do we believe that we all have a place here, or are we going to allow the corrupt and those who want to hold on to power that we're just lending them, take it permanently, tell them no, they can't, because we're going to stick together as a country that's going to work together to make sure we the people decide who leads us and that we have a fair shake. and making decisions about who those people are. There's a lot of news to cover. Money. The economic fallout from the war. Is it temporary? Power. Is this White House for sale? Politics. What is your message to the country right now? Money power politics with Stephanie Rule. Weekdays at 9 a.m. Eastern on MS. Now. I mean, this is the conversation, right, in this country over the next five months. We'll continue to have it with your help. Maya Wiley, John Bisignano. Thank you very much for spending time with us today. When we come back, the corruption and weaponization of the government is hitting disturbing new levels today, and voters are taking note of it. It's not just the attack dog Donald Trump luck to be the country's director of national intelligence, what a recent fate of very alarming hires tells us about Donald Trump's next moves. That's our next story.

When the history of the second Trump term is written, this will be the week that Donald Trump came out of a closet in terms of his hiring metrics. Expertise is optional, and he doesn't care if we all know that, but loyalty is absolutely mandatory. The result is as intended by Donald Trump, the complete and brazen politicization and weaponization of agencies. that we're never supposed to be political or weaponized. They're supposed to adhere to norms and the rule of law strictly and national intelligence, national security, not loyalty to one guy, especially not when that guy is Donald Trump. On the controversial installation of Trump attack dog Bill Pulte, as the director of national intelligence, former principal deputy DNI, Sue Gordon, said this today in the bulwark. Quote, that's what politicization fundamentally is. You are putting someone in charge who wants to support the president by going and finding the things that he wants to be true. You've now just corrupted the whole discipline. On the same day, this guy, Bill Pulte, was put into a job for which he has zero qualifications. Here's what the Washington Post reported on what is happening at the Pentagon with one of Donald Trump's foot soldiers from January 6. Quote, a convicted January 6th rioter who later said that he regretted his participation in the U.S. Capitol attack has been hired by the Trump administration to work inside a Pentagon office. that manages highly classified military operations. That's according to four people who are familiar with that matter. The appointment has, quote, raised alarms internally among staff who question how anyone convicted in the assault on American democracy could be trusted for such a sensitive role in the United States government. And at the Justice Department, Reuters today reports this. Quote, Kurt Olson, a White House official who aided President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election, has joined as a senior attorney reporting to a prosecutor seeking to build a wide-ranging criminal case. Against the president's foes. Kurt Olson joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida on Monday. That's according to a Justice Department spokesperson who confirmed that news. That is the office where the wild and far-fetched grand conspiracy case is being built. I want to bring in former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI and national security and intelligence analyst Michael Feinberg. Also joining us former deputy national security advisor to President Obama, now the co-host of Pod Save the World, contributor Ben Rhodes. Michael Feinberg, at this point, the error is in not connecting the dots. And I guess my question for you is to pull the thread forward. What do you see as possible?

Nothing good to allude to a children's book that has been on my mind frequently as news likes this breaks. This is a terrible, horrible, very bad, no good idea. There is a lot of controversy within the intelligence community about whether the role of the director of national intelligence and its associated office should exist in the first place. But one thing that everybody agrees on, that they agree on. so much that it is part of the foundational statute applying um establishing the office is that the director needs to have extensive experience in the work of intelligence, in the work of national security. It's one of the few presidential appointed jobs where that is spelled out as a bare baseline that needs to be met. There is nothing in Bill Pulte's background whatsoever. that remotely ties to the world of intelligence and national security. It is difficult for me to think of anyone, even within this rogues gallery of an administration we currently have, who would be more unqualified for the job for which they were selected. And the danger is real. This is somebody who managed to politicize an office that functionally oversees mortgages. What he could do with all of the nation's secrets could be deleterious because you can really convince the public, or rather, you can mislead the public by only selectively leaking parts of a classified story. We see this very much in the way the Republicans have been selectively releasing documents relating to the investigations of Donald Trump by Jack Smith. If you only choose the most controversial pieces of paper and provide zero context or background, you're going to fundamentally mislead the public. Ben Rhodes, let me read you what the Atlantic Shane Harris writes about what Trump wants from Bill Pulte. Quote, the president has shown no sign that he wants a DNI who can coordinate the work of the 18 intelligence agencies and harness the power of a multi-billion dollar global espionage network to provide senior government leaders the best up-to-the-minute information about threats to U.S. national security. Now. What Trump has made very clear is that he wants a DNI who will selectively declassify government documents that help fuel conspiracy theories, use the authorities of the state to enact political retribution against his enemies, and try to persuade Americans that Venezuela and maybe the Democratic Party are rigging elections by fiddling with voting machines. From that perspective, Bill Pulte is even better suited for the job than the woman he is replacing.

Yeah, I mean, this is not subtle. It's clear as a day. The man has two functions that are summarized there, political retribution and conspiracy theories most likely around election interference. And then just to put a fine point on both of those, this is a man that could comb through mortgage records to come up with charges to level at people like Letitia James in New York. that were so ridiculous that they were essentially laughed out of court. Again, what could he do with... the vast amount of information that is available in the U.S. intelligence community, right? I mean, of course that's what he's there to do. And then secondly, we know Tulsi Gabbard was down in Fulton County when the FBI was seeking to seize ballots to validate most likely some conspiracy theory about the 2020 election. Well, clearly, if there's a midterm election result that Donald Trump doesn't like, do we really think he's not going to claim that there was some... foreign interference. If that seems hyperbolic, that's exactly what he did after the 2020 election when he concocted this insane theory that Venezuela meddled. And so do we really think Bill Pulte is not going to give Donald Trump what he wants, if he wants to try to disrupt the most fundamental aspect of our democracy and election? So that's all he's there to do. And that also means, by the way, Nobody's minding the store. There are very real threats. There are very real needs in the intelligence community. Bill Pulte's not going to pay attention any of that. The fact that he's actually going to continue to be in charge of the federal housing authority tells you everything you know about the seriousness of this. It's not about managing the intelligence community. It's about those two things. And I think the one last thing I'd say, Nicole, that's ominous about this is it's a reminder that the Trump administration's just going to get weirder and more extreme the longer it goes. that happened the first time around, where at the end, it was only the Rokes Gallery loyalists who were left, minding the store. Well, this time, it's getting even weird, and we're not even two years into this. So we should get ready for more Bill Pulties and more prominent positions as this goes on. I want to show you something weird, and I'm a little conflicted about sharing this at all, but it's sort of in the category of how bad is he? He's so bad that Thom Tillis and Scott Bessent were debating whether they wanted to punch him or kick his ass. Let me show this to you. Did you actually tell Bill Pulte you were going to punch him in the face? No, sir. I actually said it was going to kick his ass. Good. Okay. Good. I share the emotion. This guy is hated by Republicans, including and up to the other Republican sycophants in the Trump cabinet, Michael Feinberg. I say that not in the interest of anyone's personality. It's obviously sort of a cold of personalities. But to point out that he's an outlier, not just among Republicans like Thom Tillis, but in this cabinet of Trump sycophants, he's someone that Scott Bessent describes as, quote, I said I was going to kick his ass.

Yeah, look, we are in unparalleled time in American history right now. There's been a lot of talk about the deprofessionalization of the government and the loss of state capacity from the perspective of the civil service. But I think what gets lost in that conversation is the number of people in very senior positions who are just bluntly... Like, completely and utterly unqualified, intellectually, in terms of credentials, from the point of view of independence and integrity, from the point of view of just raw intelligence, they're not suited for their jobs. I mean, we have a secretary of Homeland Security whose main claim to fame when he's run for office has been how many cage fights he's been in. The trend is getting worse. There was a time for most of American history where we were willing to recognize that some people were smart and capable and others less so. And we generally prioritized getting the former group into positions of power. I don't know what went wrong. Maybe some sort of... backlash against technocracy or, you know, a populist upswell, obviously. But for the good of our national security and just our standard of living, we might want to start thinking more about traditional leadership qualities again, rather than one's enthusiasm for UFC or going after political opponents. In a world that is upside down and backwards, I should also let you know that on the other side of a break, I need to break it to anyone who was relieved that the $1.8 billion slush fund is, was dead, that Trump today called it, quote, a beautiful thing. We'll explain on the other side of a short break. Don't go anywhere.

There's a lot of news to cover. Money. The economic fallout from the war. Is it temporary? Power. Is this White House for sale? Politics. What is your message to the country right now? Money power politics with Stephanie Rule. Weekdays at 9 a.m. Easter on MS. Now. Is the $1.8 billion dollar DOJ fund dead or is it on hold? It's, I'd have to ask the lawyers, I don't know. I know one thing, the weaponization. Are you talking about the weaponization fund? Yeah, what's your decision? The weaponization fund, as far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing. It was something I was, I didn't make it, but I was, I heard that. I thought that was the greatest thing because people like you have abused our people so badly. They didn't make it. I only make arches and ballrooms. But I loved it. It was a beautiful thing. That's what the president said. Here's what Todd Blam said literally 24 hours ago, Ben. What your plans were for the fund after June 12th. So thank you. So look, we're not moving forward with the fund. You're right that there's a date that in the case in the East District of Virginia in June, but we are not moving forward with the fund, period. The reasons for the fund is something that President Trump talked about for a long time, which is the fact that there were a lot of people in this country who had their government weaponized against them. The reasons for the fund, I think, were. remain as important as they were before, but we are not moving forward with the fund. Not moving forward ever. I feel like they need a meeting, Ben Rhodes, because Trump's like, I don't know, it was a beautiful thing. What is the point really of covering anything these guys say? Marco Rubio is testifying about the war in Iran. Trump's tweeting totally different things. Todd Blanche is saying we're not moving forward ever. Trump's saying it's a beautiful thing. I don't know. I don't know what you're talking about. Where are we in terms of how we should cover anything they say? I'd look at what they do and not what they say. I mean, on Iran, that is certainly the case because I don't know how many times they've either told us or, you know, leaked to somebody that the war was over or the end was imminent. They want a media that is compliant. They have a friendly media that will repeat anything that they say. And what they say is most often not the truth, or at least not the whole truth. And look, like on this fund, the other thing I'd say about this is Trump. always comes back at these things. You know, they say they're not doing it, and then they try to find some other way to do it. He's interested in a couple of things that intersect with this fund. He's interested in giving himself immunity from any further scrutiny by the federal government. That's why that still exists, that idea that the IRS can never look at his or his family's taxes again, and he wants to find a way to enrich himself or his cronies.

which is what the fund was set up to do. He couldn't get the direct money, so then he wanted to be able to distribute it or have his government distributed it. And they'll keep trying to find other ways to do that. And so just because they're saying one day that they're not going to do that doesn't mean that they won't try to find some other way to do that. The other people, though, that we should talk about, Nicole, are Senate Republicans, because the reality is none of this could happen if they actually decided to use their votes. as representatives of the people that sent them to Washington to stop, definitively stop Trump from doing all of these things. And so is it good that Thom Tillis is asking questions that elicit answers that, you know, make fun of Bill Pulte? Sure. But if Senate Republicans don't want him there, they could say, we're not going to fund the intelligence community if he's there. He can't be there. I think Americans are trapped in this paralysis that somehow there's no way to stop this, when in fact, there's all kinds of ways to stop this. It's just the Republicans, no matter what they say on background, or no matter how they perform in hearings, have not yet found the spine to actually assert their constitutional responsibilities. Right. Like the agency is granted to them in the Constitution. They could decide to act with agency like before we get on the air in the next 12 minutes. They choose every single day anew to do nothing. The paralysis is something they opt into. I want to read one more headline to you, Michael Feinberg. In the Washington Post, they report that the Pentagon has hired convicted January 6 rioter for a sensitive counterterrorism job. Irizari is assigned to the office's irregular warfare and counterterrorism section. People familiar with the matter say. The team comprises about 40 people. Its portfolio includes operations such as embassy security, personnel recovery, and hostage rescue. Two people characterize the work as among the most delicate that the Pentagon performs. All positions, they said, require a top secret security clearance. I guess I'm old enough to remember when you couldn't get it. security clearance if you smoke pot in college. Yeah, I mean, it used to be the case. And as far as I know on paper, at least it is still the case, that one cannot get a security clearance with a serious criminal conviction on their record, particularly one that involves an insurrection. In fact, one of the basic questions you get asked at your vetting interviewer, during your polygraph, or on your SF86, which is sort of your entry form, is... Have you ever been a member of a group that advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government? There was only one time in history where a group of rioters broke into a government building, assaulted federal employees, destroyed federal property, and attempted to halt the peaceful transition of power from one administration to another. And that was obviously on January 6th.

I don't think it is a stretch to call those people domestic terrorists. If the jackboot fits, they should wear it. And to have somebody who is a domestic terrorist now involved in matters to stop international terrorism has a nice alliteration, a nice symmetry, but it is insane. This is not somebody who should be allowed near classified material. sensitive information, or quite frankly, real patriots and real public servants. It is every day more insane than the one before. Thank you both for helping us slow down and digest these headlines. Michael Feinberg, Ben Rhodes. Thank you. Quick break for us. We'll be right back. With NBA Finals in the air, my guest on this week's episode of The Best People podcast is the legendary sports broadcaster Bob Costas. He's called so many historic and memorable moments in sports history. But in this conversation, he told us the story of listening to the moment baseball icon, Hank Aaron, broke Bay Bruce's home run record, and how announcer Vin Scully gave voice to the weight of that moment. Listen. A black man is receiving a standing ovation in the deep south. We're breaking the record. You know, this is age. You get old. You start, you know, you start weeping at like the state fair. Breaking the record of an all-time baseball idol. In two sentences, he captured the whole story, the whole sociological story in the moment. You know, somebody today would have said, ah, why bring race into it? Because that was the central part of the story. It's a wonderful conversation. To listen to the whole thing, just scan the QR code on your screen or download wherever you get your podcast. Be sure to let me know what you think of it on Instagram or Blue Sky. We want to thank you for letting us into your homes tonight. We are grateful. Listen to your favorite MS Now shows anytime as a podcast. Enjoying new episodes of Morning Joe, Deadline White House, and the Rachel Maddo Show. Every small D-democratic muscle that we have is flexing. Plus the last word with Lawrence O'Donnell, the beat with Ari Melburgh, the weeknight, and more. On the go, wherever you get your podcasts. For ad-free listening to all of your favorite shows, subscribe to MS Now Premium on Apple Podcasts.