"The state of the FBI under Kash Patel"

As Kash Patel claims and seems prepared to argue in court, that would mean that Kash Patel has the goods. He can prove it is all false and that it was printed with malice. But if that's true, then it cannot also be true that a criminal leak investigation is necessary, the kind normally reserved for the disclosure of classified state secrets of real information. Those two are in legal contradiction. And the statement, an FBI spokesperson denies that the investigation exists at all. The Atlantic said this in a statement, quote, an FBI criminal leak investigation targeting our reporter would represent an outrageous attack on the free press and the First Amendment itself. We will defend the Atlantic and its staff vigorously. We will not be intimidated by illegitimate investigations or other acts of politically motivated retaliation. We will continue to cover the FBI professionally, fairly and thoroughly. And we will continue to practice journalism in the public interest. That is where we start today with the journalist who broke this story, senior investigative reporter Carol Lennox, also joining us former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI, National Security Intelligence analyst for us, Michael Feinberg. Carol Lennox, take me through what you and Ken are reporting today. Yeah, so with my great colleague, Kendalini, and we broke a story that honestly made us both really worried for a free press reporters in the normal, everyday course of news gathering. Because... We write about this too, and we've written quite a bit about the FBI and about Kash Patel before this Atlantic story ran. What we learned was that the FBI agents in a unit in Huntsville, Alabama, where Director Kash Patel basically transferred tons and tons of agents hundreds, I think in excess of 500. FBI personnel were transferred to Huntsville. That unit began getting instructions and orders from the executive suite of Kash Patel that they were to investigate and review Sarah Fitzpatrick's interactions with social media, with contacts, with links. We don't know the status right now, Nicole, of whether or not they have compelled any internet or phone providers to turn over her turnover records, metadata and other things about her contacts with sources. But we are told that investigation's ongoing. And the agents involved have raised concern internally, obviously not to the director directly.

but have raised concerns that this is not how FBI investigations go. They are typically predicated on a likely crime. They exhaust every means possible in investigations to determine whether a criminal leak has occurred. And they also go to a reporter's information when they are very sure a crime has occurred and they need the information and have exhausted all other means. And this is not what's happening today. What, first of all, why did he transfer 500 agents to Huntsville, Alabama? You know, Kash Patel has a vision or a version of the FBI in his mind in which they are cops. And he believes that having a lot of FBI personnel in Washington is a waste of resources. And sending specialized teams out to field offices, which is what he did. And to Huntsville means fewer people in the so-called bureaucracy. I'm not so sure it accomplishes what he's saying about. putting more cops on the street, which, by the way, is not what FBI agents are. But it certainly removes more people from Washington and creates the optic that you have a smaller, slim-down headquarters and more people, quote-unquote, in the field. What crime would the agents in Huntsville, Alabama, take a single step? that violates her freedoms, that violates her privacy to even pretend to investigate? The crime of making Kash Patel look like an alcoholic or a bad employee? I mean, like, what crime even gets this out the door? So I want to be careful about this, Nicole, and I know you know what I'm going to say next. This is ongoing reporting. However, what I can say to you is it is unheard of. for any of these steps to be taken when there is not evidence of a disclosure of classified information. However, When Pam Bondi was the Attorney General, she rescinded an important media policy that had been codified and made much more specific by former Attorney General Merrick Garland. And when she repealed that policy about when you can compel, say, a Verizon or, you know, AT&T to turn over phone metadata. She repealed those provisions that required the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General's permission and authority to do that. And in her repeal, she also said that they could have leak investigations for classified information leaks, but also sensitive information leaks. Now, it's not a crime to discuss sensitive law enforcement sensitive material.

It's just curious about Pam Bondi's policy that it changed the language ever so slightly. I can see a world in which Kash Patel believes or his lawyers or his counselors believe that they can argue that his movements across the country or what his security detail communicate internally is law enforcement sensitive or sensitive about his whereabouts and his safety and his security. We don't know that's what's going on, but I am really pinpointing as an analyst of this event how Pam Bondi's language about when they can begin leak investigations is different from Attorney General Merrick Garland's provisions. I mean, Michael Feinberg, I am. Always listen very carefully to what Carolyn says and doesn't say. And on the doesn't say part, I mean, they have a tool to use their extraordinary powers at the Department of Justice and the FBI to hack into basically, you know, read all of her emails and text messages and encrypted messages. in pursuit of a unflattering article about Kash Patel. I mean, that is the worst example, one of the worst examples of people acting in a way that presupposes this moment won't end. It is also part of a pattern. The New York Times reported last week, the FBI said to have investigated Times reporter after article on Kash Patel's girlfriend. Tell me what you make of this. Yeah, I mean, well, first I want to clarify, they can't actually get the contact, the content of any of her messages or phone calls or emails without getting an Article 3 independent judge to sign off on it. That's sort of the one bulwark we have left to stop them from totally overreaching. But what we're seeing here is a sea change in terms of... how the FBI views its relationship with the American public, the American media, and quite frankly, its place within the social contract. I'm aware of many stories that came out about politicians, not the FBI director, but about public figures during my tenure with the Bureau, where the people who thought they'd been mistreated demanded that an investigation be opened. And every single time, the organization refused. Because if the FBI starts doing something, anything really, that is not based on an actual threat to national security or a violation of criminal law, then it in and of itself has become lawless. It's become... a secret police force. I don't think we're there yet. The fact that the agents working on this apparently went to Carol and her colleagues actually gives me hope. But the fact that Kash Patel might have ordered these people to do it in the first place is just exhibit 12,647 that he never should have been picked for this job in the first place.

not just because he lacks the credentials and the experience, but because he lacks the temperament, the judgment, and the integrity. I want to read a little bit from Fitzpatrick's original reporting. She reported this. Hecash Kash Patel is known to drink to the point of obvious intoxication. Early in his tenure, meetings and briefings had to be rescheduled for later in the day as a result of his alcohol-fueled nights. On multiple occasions in the past year, members of his security detail had difficulty waking Kash Patel because he was seemingly intoxicated, according to information supplied to Justice Department and White House officials. A request for breaching equipment, normally used by SWAT and hostage rescue teams, to quickly gain entry into buildings, was made last year because Kash Patel had been unreachable behind locked doors, according to multiple people familiar with the request. This is what Kash Patel, Michael Feinberg, is describing as defamatory. I mean, we don't know which paragraphs, but this story written by Sarah Fitzpatrick. The way to prove that is to prove that that's false. If it's not true, what is even the sort of trumped-up Kash Patel version of a leak investigation doing? They seem to be diametrically opposed from one another. He is either going to pursue a defamation case against the journalist or... There's something so secret in this reporting that he's going to find out how she learned it. But one cancels out the, I mean, what is your sense of what even in his mind he's doing? So I've been racking my brains over that question since the story Carol wrote with Ken was reported this morning. And I've been talking to other former FBI personnel. And we're all trying to figure out what exactly is going on here. And the only explanation we can think of is that the director might be using the FBI's investigative authorities as a means of expediting his personal discovery process in his civil litigation. You pointed it out during your opening remarks to the show. If everything in this story is untrue and he has filed a lawsuit to that effect, then why does it matter who said what? What exactly is he trying to accomplish? If the information is categorically false, then nothing was actually leaked of value or that matters. So I'm generally dumbfounded as to how he thinks this is okay and what his game plan can be other than furthering his own personal interests by using Bureau resources.

Yeah, I mean, Carol, this is the part. I mean, your reporting always leaves me gobsmacked, but this one is, you know, both of these things can't be true. The article cannot be defamatory and the product of a leak. Well, one thing for us all to keep in mind, I'm happy to gobsmack you on a weekly basis. I am. I'm sorry the content is disturbing at times for the work that we do. Walking this fine line, I would say that we all have to keep in mind, and I know you and Mike do, that... FBI agents who speak to me and who speak to Ken sources in law enforcement writ large view Kash Patel either up close or from a small distance and some interaction as a person who is quite obsessed with keeping his job, has been in trouble with Donald Trump, the president, a time or two, has worried about whether or not he would be able to keep his job. We reported at MS Now First that in November, Trump was considering getting rid of him. And that paranoia and worry and the desire to keep his job may also have some role here. And FBI agents tell us that it does, that they suspect that the search for leakers is a search for job protection. I mean... Michael Feinberg, before we met and benefited from your expertise on the air, we talked and you'd written extensively about the use of polygraphs, right, which is sort of along the same lines of extreme measures to suss out anyone that might be, I guess, disloyal to him or saying anything about him. Yeah, I personally have a number of friends more than I can count on two hands who had to go through polygraphs because they were senior executives anytime an unflattering story about Kash Patel or back then Dan Bongino made its way into the press. And... You know, I want to highlight something Carol just said about how the workforce views Kash Patel. It is difficult to fully articulate the depth of contempt every single special agent I know has for him.

And that's probably what fueled the early leaks that have so embarrassed him very in the sort of salad days of his tenure. But every time he goes high and right like he did today, he just reinforces that stereotype and turns even more people against him. This is why you need people of a certain temperament with a certain rhetoric, a certain level of maturity in the most senior government positions. And if you're the sort of FBI director who's not going to open an investigation when cabinet members talk about war plans over signal to the Atlantic monthly by accident, But you are going to open a leak investigation against the Atlantic Monthly because they allege you drink too much. I would humbly suggest that your priorities are a little out of order. It's such an interesting point. And I guess the only thing I would add is a consumer of all this journalism is that if you are an FBI director who doesn't want the country to know that in a moment of crisis, you ran around looking for a jacket that fits and put clothespins on the back to make it fit snugly, maybe focus on doing your job. Carol Enig, extraordinary reporting, adding to our understanding of all of this. Thank you, Michael Feinberg. Thank you for your candor and your wisdom and for starting us off today. When we come back, Donald Trump attempts to spin the war. Those attempts are being met with chaos and a whole lot of contradictory statements, really like within an hour of one another. We'll try to unwind for you with the last 12 hours of contradictory statements about the war in Iran mean and where they've left us has become on the air today. Plus, more and more Americans, including Republicans and self-described evangelicals, are rejecting Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth's religious rhetoric. and instead siding with Pope Leo. We'll show you that reporting. And later in the broadcast, you promise Americans we'd be living in a golden age in his inaugural address, but Americans are resoundingly saying Donald Trump has not brought them anywhere close to that. We'll have all those stories and much more when Dublin White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

It has been another headspinning day of erratic messaging from the White House and Donald Trump over the war in Iran. Yesterday, Donald Trump's Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, confidently claim that the ceasefire, quote, certainly holds. Today, Trump is threatening Iran with the possibility of more bombing. Also yesterday, Pete Hegseth touted Donald Trump's so-called Project Freedom. That was an effort to guide stranded vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, which remains closed. Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave a big long press briefing. Looked like he thought he was, I don't know, behind the podium. Went on forever. He said all sorts of stuff. Among the things he said, he declared with authority that Project Freedom is the, quote, next stage with Iran because the war itself is actually over. He said that. Like 90 minutes later, Trump undercut both those men. Donald Trump announced an abrupt end to Project Freedom one day after it started in like two hours after Marco Rubio touted it. We'll deal with what that means or says about them in another segment. But at this hour, Iran is saying that it's looking at a U.S. proposal to end the war. That's after an Iranian official dismissed a reported proposal as a, quote, list of American wishes. I want to bring in our national security reporter, David Brod, also joining us, military analyst, Lieutenant General Mark Hurtling. He served as a commanding general, the U.S. Army in Europe. Also joining us, political analysts, host of the bulwark podcast. Tim Miller's here. David, why don't you tell us what is actually happening right now as far as your reporting can suss that out? I've been trying to get more information from administration officials, but I don't know. I will be honest. Your description of this sort of head spinning last 24 hours is correct. Just today, the president, as usual, had events and there was an event actually with the mothers of military members, and there he announced that this wasn't a war. He called it a skirmish. This was after earlier in the day saying he was going to bomb Iran if it didn't agree to these terms. And then he separately announced, this is just in the last few hours, that Iran had agreed to no longer have a nuclear weapon. What's strange about all this is just on that, you know, A, it is not a skirmish. 14 Americans are dead. Hundreds have been wounded and 50,000 are risking their lives right now. So it's extraordinary to have a president say that. On this nuclear weapons thing, Iran has promised for years to give up a nuclear weapon. The former Supreme Leader issued a fatwa against the creation of nuclear weapons. So it's not new that they've promised us. And then most importantly, it doesn't mean anything. For years, U.S. and Israeli officials have not trusted these public promises, but the president keeps focusing on. getting Iran to promise things. And it's just not clear that Iran is agreeing to any of the terms that the president claims. I mean, let me ask you about the first thing you said, trying to figure out what's going on.

ostensibly a journalist covering the war would think that Marco Rubio or Pete Hegseth were, actually, Pete Hegseth is a different example. Let's stick with Marco Rubio, a credible source. I mean, certainly both the turnout and the length of the press conference would suggest that the press was there consuming information they thought was credible. Within 90 minutes, Trump undercut and turn Marco Rubio into a liar or a fool. What is like when you say you're trying to find out what's going on, who do you even call? various people, but the honest thing is, you know, this is an incredibly centralized administration, and I think this is not reporting that I've confirmed. It seems like it's the president himself. He is making all these decisions on his own. He's not necessarily consulting his aides. He's just making these announcements. So it's amazing. We went from this very, and it was a very ambitious effort to use force to have the U.S. Navy and airplanes open up the Strait of Hormuz yesterday. Project Freedom. It worked. I mean, there was a clash Iranians fired on American ships. And in the first strange steps, the administration played down the importance of that attack. And it was a very serious thing that threatened the lives of Americans. And then Marco Rubio comes out and tries to spin it somehow. And then hours later, you have the president calling off that big naval operation. And in a way, that was the best chance to take away Iran's leverage. If the U.S. could open up the strait. That puts an Iran in a very difficult position. It brings down oil prices. That's a clear strategy. But the president, seeming on his own, abandons it hours later. I mean, General Hartling, the president abandons it hours later. in like a swamp of other posts with memes and ridiculous stuff in the same, you know, 48 hours he's posting pictures of himself near naked in a blue AI-generated image of himself in the reflecting pool. Like what is going on? And what do the men and women of the military think it's going on? Well, we have seen Nicole, the president in different press conferences, oval office visits, reading from documents within his oval office with people standing around him as backdrop. And some of that information, most of that information is scattershot. He goes off on different subjects. He rifts on things. But when you're talking about... giving direction as the commander in chief to the nation's military, it really is a Rubik's cube of ideas that I would suggest the military personnel, the leaders of the military are trying to figure out as it's also being transcribed through Secretary Pete Hegseth. So you've got an individual as the commander in chief who is changing his mind on

a daily basis and sometimes an hourly basis after his key national security figures, both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, are saying different things. And I'm sure other national security officials are as confused as both of they are. The CIA director, ODNI, Commerce has also been a little bit scattershot in their messaging of this. But again, I'm going back as your military analyst to say, Hey, this is putting people who take this seriously. The commanders of CENTCOM, the warships in the Gulf, the air wing commanders, the special operations, they're not sure what comes next. Is it a true operation? And has the operation been halted because of various congressional demands? Is it a project? And truthfully, I've never heard of something that's a military operation being called a project before. That doesn't fit in. And why is it being called that? Is it to avoid scrutiny by the Congress of the United States or is it to confuse the American people? Hell, we're confusing guys like David Road. You can imagine what the typical civilian at home watching TV. are reading the newspaper trying to figure out the track of these different substances or are trying to think in terms of are we at war? Are we not at war? Is there a movement through the strait? Is the oil being lifted? Oil embargo being lifted? Are merchant ships flowing again? It is a hodgepodge of actions. And it's not the way to conduct operations when you're putting American sons and daughters. and their family members in harm's way when they're thinking about their sons and daughters in harm's way. Tim Miller. Marco Rubio has two jobs. He is the country's Secretary of State. He's also Donald Trump's National Security Advisor. Marco Rubio would like to be set apart from the clown show. He would like to be taken seriously. And all things are relative. Maybe some people view him as a part. I don't know. But Marco Rubio is the loser of the day. Marco Rubio stood before at least five, six dozen journalists for an on-camera briefing yesterday. He seemed to enjoy it. He stayed a long time. He, like, picked up energy as the question. You know, you saw him go into reporters, you know, more quickly and more comfortably. A lot of pointing. He acted, and again, I don't know what's in his mind. He acted like he had. authority to say the things he said, and it did not take Donald Trump 90 minutes to render him a jackass, to go back on what he was sent out there to say, to contradict him, and to make a fool of him. Now, no dog in the fight in terms of who takes over MAGA. But what is Marco Rubio's calculation today if Trump asks him to go do it again tomorrow?

Well, he'll do it. Trump asks him to bark, he's going to woof. That's the deal. And it's humiliating. It's humiliating, but I think he's enjoying it. People can take from that what they want. But I agree with you. Nobody believes him. Yeah, I think that because it's such a clown show around him, I think that people in his circle think him credible. And I know that that seems crazy to us. You know, if you're a journalist that is looking at this or just a viewer and you're like, the guy went out there and said that we're... you know, pushing forward on Project Freedom and then two hours later we stopped, like he has no juice. That's obviously the objective thing. But I think that a lot of people who are either supporters of the war, supporters of Trump are looking around at the other people in the administration and being like, okay, well, Trump might have pulled the rug out from under this guy, but at least he's borderline competent. And that's why you're getting a lot of a buzz for Marco now being the heir apparent. And I just... I'm a single person. I'm just a pundit. So, you know, mark this down for whatever you want. But I'm against the conventional wisdom on this entirely because this is, I think not only was this humiliating for Marco in how Trump is treating him. But this is also Marco Rubio's war, as much as anybody besides Trump. And he has taken ownership of it. He has put himself out there publicly. And the popularity of this war is low right now. And let me tell you, I suspect the popularity is going to be a lot lower on 4th of July when people are having to. buy fewer hot dogs or go on fewer road trips because of the cost of everything and how much it's going up when we're not going to have a very, a solution to the war that's easy to sell as General Hurtling could be able to tell you better than me. So that he's making a bet that, you know, being the competent Mr. Fixit for Trump is going to pay off for him. I'm glad he's enjoying himself now because I don't really see it working out for him in the future, but we'll see. It's such a hallmark of, of what Trump does to men, largely men, but some women, that you can't be more humiliated for them than they are for themselves. So, like, I didn't, like, like, like, you're right. What will he do if he asks him to do it again tomorrow? I'll do it tomorrow. Because, like, if he's not humiliated, we can't expect anything different to happen. David, I want to thank you not just for your reporting, but for fielding questions, for letting me put you on the spot about how you cover this story. I really appreciate you. Thank you so much. Jamal Hurtling and Tim stick around a little bit longer. We'll all be back on the other side of a very short break. Iran will also not be able to acquire the enriched uranium that could be used for a bomb. As soon as this deal is implemented, Iran will remove two-thirds of its centrifuges. And finally, Iran has powerful incentives to keep its commitments.

Before getting sanctions relief, Iran has to take significant concrete steps, like removing centrifuges and getting rid of its stockpout. If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. That was former President Barack Obama back in 2015 on the actual Iran deal that was made by former President Obama and his administration. We're back with General Hartling and Tim. General Hartling, some of what I think is going on is Trump thinks that all of this is easy and quick. And I wonder what you make of the sad lesson for our allies and the whole world about all that he's destroyed and how far back he has put us from that moment. Well, not only the president, Nicole, but to continue what Tim was saying during the last segment, it's also the Secretary of State. When Marco Rubio says the kinds of things and he's undercut by the president, you're talking about him potentially going to allied conferences or partner nations. They know that he's not in the know because he's been undercut so many times and embarrassed. But when you're talking about the kinds of things, even today, the memorandum that allegedly is going to bring about a peace conference between Iran and the United States is a one-page document. And neither side feels like it does what they want it to do when you go back and forth. The JCPOA, the last document that President Obama was just talking about in that clip you paid, was 159 pages long with intricate details. And it took months to get the thing put together with a whole lot of very intelligent and smart people who had one mind in what their objectives were. And President Trump tore it up. We're gonna see probably a whole lot of money being given to Iran, which President Trump condemned President Obama for. We're gonna see not the kind of nuclear deal that was in the JCPOA. We're gonna see a whole lot of ancillary, second and third order effects in terms of depletion of US munitions and a long time in the region for 50,000 soldiers and a whole bunch of destroyers and cruises and aircraft carriers. So our allies around the world are basically saying to themselves, and I'll try and be succinct, what the hell are they doing? I mean, if we can't make sense of it and he is our president, I can't imagine what the Dutch or the Germans or the French are thinking behind closed doors. It's the kind of diplomacy that just doesn't work. And it isn't normal on the world stage. So that's what I think our allies are thinking and it's dangerous.

Yeah, I mean, Tim, I guess we could just stop to it. It isn't normal. And what becomes excruciating is trying to cover it as normal that America's Secretary of State, who also now for many months, it obviously isn't a temporary arrangement that Marco Rubio is also the National Security Advisor goes out before the cameras. It wasn't like an interview he gave to the Atlantic and he didn't have time to back brief Trump. If Trump is still doing anything, he's watching television. I'm sure he either watched it or knew what Marco Rubio was saying. And if he isn't watching it, then he is like on his hands and knees actually like making the gold pieces or the steps of his new ballroom because it's not clear that he does anything else. But the notion that Marco Rubio could be taken seriously after doing a press conference like that, and then it literally isn't two hours before Trump contradicts him. Like what is, who meets with him? Like with whom do you have any clout? And I think this is why a lot of our allies are... Looking at different ways that they can work with China now. You saw a Canada-China deal just recently over, you know, something that they wouldn't have done before with regards to automobiles, electric automobiles going to Canada because they wouldn't have wanted to anger us. And now they're just like, we can't trust these guys. And moreover, not only because we can't trust these guys, but as General Hartley is saying, we don't know who to deal with. Even if we did get a deal with them, how could we trust it would stick? You know, and he mentioned there's a lot of time, as a former Republican, I'll say I'm guilty of this. sometimes there's like mockery of bureaucrats and experts. And sometimes the Democrats, you know, have too many meetings. I do think that that's a fair critique. But on a serious document, like a deal, a nuclear deal with Iran, I had friends that were working on that deal. Like they were legitimate experts. They spent a lot of time. Like, going over the details and the particulars. And I think that they really believed this madman theory of politics, that Trump could just act crazy because he is crazy and they could bully people and maybe bribe people and send in an Outerboro real estate deal to sign a deal with them and that it would be okay. And they thought that that would work. And I think that we're seeing tragically in disaster for our economy and the whole world economy that that doesn't work. This is indeed what we are living through. Lieutenant General Mark Hurtling, thank you so much for joining us today. Tim sticks around a little bit longer. One place you send Marco Rubio to the Vatican. Hope Leo, though, has responded to Donald Trump's repeated smear against him that he supports nuclear weapons. We'll show you that clap back and how the public views each man and their credibility on this issue.

In the spirit of that which is not normal, Donald Trump is locked in a verbal war of aggression with the Pope. And Pope Leo has responded to the latest absurdity from Donald Trump. Donald Trump claiming repeatedly now, That the Pope wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. The Pope said this, quote, If anyone wants to criticize me for proclaiming the gospel, let them do so with the truth. The church has spoken out against all nuclear weapons for years. There's no doubt about that. I simply hope to be listened to because of the value of God's word. Those comments come as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is himself a Catholic, is expected to meet with Pope Leo tomorrow. There are new polls out because Trump is, as I said, in a verbal war with the Pope that show American Catholics are at odds with Trump on this one. According to Washington Post, Ipsos poll, 61% of U.S. Catholics approve of Pope Leo. Tim is still here. There's some more in these polling. Reaction to Donald Trump posting a picture depicting himself as Jesus. 87% of respondents had a negative view of that. 9%, which is probably like, The Mar-a-Lago Winners Club or something liked it. Pete Hegseth said, saying publicly praying to God for overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy, end quote. 27% have a positive view of that, 69% negative. Your thoughts about this war with the Vatican? I think it's pretty telling that they're sending Marco Rubio there, especially up to the back and forth. JD Vance was there not so long ago. And to me, it says that they're looking at these numbers and they know that they have problems with Catholics and with people of faith and that they think that maybe Marco would be better suited than JD, given his demeanor, to try to smooth things over. And I think that it's... a pretty rare sign from this White House, at least in Trump 2.0, of them like kind of demonstrating that they realize they've created a political problem for themselves. Chris Terpur Hale writes a good substack about the Vatican, and I was reading this the other day. There's another... theory that's out there, potential reporting, as that Marco could be going there about Trump's potential engagement in Cuba next, because we know that Trump has an eye on Cuba, and I don't know, maybe there's some thinking that he could diffuse Pope Leo over that. Given what we've seen from Pope Leo, I find that very hard to believe, but I think both Cuba and their political problems is what's driving this. The other interesting thing is that Pope Leo doesn't back down. He's afraid of not one thing from them. And you've got a study in the Republicans cowering for the 10 years we've been covering them. This is not, you know, they're not dealing with Lindsey Graham here in Pope Leo. He's made of something totally different.

Yeah, absolutely. And he doesn't have to be responsive to opinion polls. You know, Pope Leo is also not saying anything differently than he would have said before. You know, he's been very consistent in his kind of posture within the Catholic Church. And, you know, I think I said this last time this came up with you, Nicole. It's like, this is another mess of their own making. And it's not as if the Catholic Church didn't have disagreements with the Biden administration over abortion or other issues. But you just didn't see Joe Biden going on to a social media feed to call them names, right? And I think that they've created this problem for themselves. And Pope Leo is certainly not, does not. seem like he's demonstrating, you know, any push, any malleability on this. And for good reason. And I think it's a good lesson to others about the way that you can stand up to these guys bullying. Yeah. Can you imagine the news cycle of Joe Biden, like, tweeted, you know, the Pope is soft on, I don't know. Women's issues. Crazy. Tim Miller, thank you for joining us today. Up next for us. That reporter we told you about the top of the hour who is reportedly under investigation after her reporting on Kash Patel. Well, she's not stopping. She just dropped another story about Kash Patel. We'll tell you about it next.

At the top of the hour, we reported on a story about how the FBI opened a criminal leak investigation into the very Atlantic magazine reporter, Sarah Fitzpatrick, who had reported on the erratic and alarming behavior of Director Kash Patel. We also said that since the Atlantic published the story, the Atlantic magazine said in defending its journalists that they only received additional corroboration. And more people began talking to the Atlantic and Sarah Fitzpatrick. about what's happening with Kash Patel at the FBI. So now the Atlantic, Sarah Fitzpatrick, is out with some brand new reporting. It's dropped just since we've been on the air, and it is based on that new reporting what those people are telling her. Eight people, including current and former FBI and DOJ employees, tell the Atlantic this, quote, Kash Patel has given out bottles of his personalized whiskey to FBI staff as well as civilians. He encounters in his duties. You can see the bottle right here. On your screen, the Atlantic adds that, quote, Kash Patel has distributed his self-branded bottles while on official business, including during at least one FBI event. He and his team have transported the whiskey using a DOJ plane, including when he went to Milan during the Olympics in February. A spokesperson for the FBI says that giving gifts like this is routine within the FBI. Several current and former employees tell the Atlantic that the director of the country's top law enforcement agency handing out personally branded bourbon is unheard of. After the break, Americans are still waiting for Trump's promised, quote, golden age. A very short break. Deadline White House continues after that.

On the under $3 menu at McDonald's, a McChicken is $2. Because when you're craving a McChicken, you deserve a McChicken. And now, that McChicken is just $2. Limit time only. Prices and participation may vary. Prices may be higher for delivery.