Can Iran smell fear from Trump? GOP California dreaming — On Balance Full Show 4/20

[0:00] Friends, welcome to the program. We regret to inform you, we were right. The deal supposedly [0:06] done on Friday now seems miles away. In a moment, Kelly Meyer looks at what comes next with 48 hours [0:13] left in the ceasefire. Mark McKinnon, Jeff Mason on Trump's political choices, bitter as they are, [0:19] Dean Phillips, Joe Gafferoglio. Two days before California's gubernatorial debate, [0:24] the two leading candidates are Republicans. Will Democrats leave their hearts and their hopes [0:30] in San Francisco? First, our Why It Matters segment on this Monday. Donald Trump right now is walking [0:37] through political, military, and the geopolitical version of hell. He is trapped on all sides with [0:44] no good options. Friday's laundry list of golden deliverables Trump said Iran agreed to right now [0:51] are sitting at the bottom of the Strait of Hormuz. So far, the Iranians are paying zero price [0:56] for embarrassing the president of the United States. In fact, the White House seems to be the [1:02] one almost desperate, or at least the one who needs tomorrow's negotiation in Pakistan. And [1:08] in a sense, President Trump understands that he needs a deal. Brand new polls show 61% of Americans [1:15] say the United States should not continue military operations of any kind in Iran. That limits the [1:21] options for a president who keeps declaring victory without having won. You know, I don't like to say [1:27] this. We've won this. This war has been won. In a fairly short period of time, we'll be finished. [1:33] They will not be able to do a nuclear weapon. And we are going to finish the job, and we're going [1:37] to finish it very fast. We're getting very close. I will say the war in Iran is going along swimmingly. [1:43] We can do whatever we want. And it should be ending pretty soon. It was perfect. I mean, it's perfect. [1:55] Trump understands that he needs the war to go away. He wants a victory for his legacy. Needs and wants [2:03] are different things. Iran senses both of those things and keeps playing him. Former Ambassador John [2:08] Bolton says the president's posturing is giving the Islamic regime the upper hand. We said that Trump [2:14] is trapped on all sides with no good options. Bitter options. That's what the job of president [2:19] often is. But when walking through hell, you keep going. You don't stop. Right now, Trump has stopped [2:26] and is looking around for various shortcuts and negotiated settlements. The Wall Street Journal [2:31] reports a president who realizes the risks and can't figure out what to do about them, headlining [2:36] quote, behind Trump's public bravado on the war, he grapples with his own fears, understandably. [2:42] Like a rabid dog, Iran can smell fear. They have tasted what it's like to control the Strait of Hormuz. [2:49] They feel empowered by their own radical base to fight America. And more than ever, [2:56] Iran is convinced they need a nuke. Look at it in a different way, though. Iran's actions have proven [3:02] why Trump was right to take action and why the Iranians must be brought to their knees. More than [3:09] ever, the Iranians have made the case for this war, yet Trump is acting like more than ever, [3:16] he needs a deal. What America's military can do is absolutely incredible. There's great video of [3:23] American Special Forces bordering Iranian ships, shooting and disabling another one. That doesn't [3:29] scare the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Negotiating with Iran is like negotiating with a kamikaze pilot [3:35] as he flies towards your ship. In the last two weeks, Trump has gotten nothing that he wants. [3:43] He's gotten some momentary successes, but in the end, he is ending up with everything he does not want, [3:54] and there is a reason for that. Trump's surrogates keep saying the American people must be willing to [3:59] accept short-term economic pain for long-term stability and gain. We've made that point a [4:04] number of times on this program. But Iran must believe that Trump is willing to do the same thing, [4:10] to accept short-term pain. And right now, Iran does not believe that. We bring in Kelly Meyer now [4:17] at the White House as they prepare to send J.D. Vance to Pakistan. Good evening, Kelly. [4:21] That's right. Good evening, Leland. So everything seems to be changing by the hour here. In a 24-hour [4:28] time span, President Trump went from telling me that Iran agreed to everything to warning that he [4:33] could start dropping bombs again. And even earlier today, President Trump said there would be a deal [4:37] by tonight, only to post hours later on social media that he is not going to be rushed into making [4:43] a deal. And those daily phone calls to reporters could also be adding to the headache for the [4:48] administration of these mixed messages. And a short time ago on The John Frederick Show, [4:52] President Trump said that Iran will be negotiating. Speaker of the Iranian parliament writing on [4:58] X tonight, quote, we do not accept negotiations under the shadow of threats. And in the past two weeks, [5:04] we have prepared to reveal new cards on the battlefield, end quote. And that all comes as we're now up [5:10] against that ceasefire deadline. President Trump now extending that until Wednesday evening, [5:15] Washington time, he says, as Vice President J.D. Vance has reportedly set to head to Pakistan [5:20] tomorrow, though it's unclear right now who will be there to meet him on the other side of the table, [5:25] Leland. Kelly Meyer, thank you very much. With us now, Mark McKinnon, creator, executive producer [5:31] of The Circus on Showtime, Jeff Mason, Bloomberg White House and Washington correspondent. Gents, [5:37] good to see both of you. Jeff, does the White House itself have a strategy here, [5:44] or does it seem to be shifting as Donald Trump is reevaluating what he thinks is possible? [5:51] Leland, President Trump is the chief strategizer, chief strategist, the chief spokesperson, [5:58] the chief of staff. He does all of these jobs, even though he has people in those jobs. [6:05] But I would say to your question, he's the one who's leading the strategy and that strategy right [6:09] now and really for the past several weeks, dating back to the very start of the war, has been to send [6:15] mixed messages and to try to keep people off guard. And that's what he's done, including in an interview [6:22] that I had with him today. Mark, from a political standpoint, President Trump being unpredictable [6:29] is seen as his greatest strength by his supporters. Yet, in terms of how he has dealt with Iran over the [6:36] past couple of weeks, he seems to be very predictable. 61 percent of Americans want this war over. [6:42] Does he have a choice? Not politically. I mean, he has to figure out a way to end this, Leland. I [6:50] mean, it's one of the things he campaigned on, no foreign conflicts. And now he's very deeply into [6:56] one. And, you know, listen, as somebody who worked for a president who, you know, went through a war [7:01] with Iraq, I have a lot of flashbacks here about the way we thought things were going to go and then [7:06] the way they actually went. You know, we had a big flush of support right after we went in, [7:11] much stronger than President Trump has in this conflict. And it went south in a very bad way. [7:18] And I'm really struck by one sort of fundamental, Leland, which is it's hard to imagine any conclusion [7:26] to this that is in any way better than it was before it started. So Democrats and anybody opposed [7:33] to the Trump administration or anybody running next year is going to say, well, listen, you know, [7:37] how is this worth it when we don't have anything that we had before this all began? And yet you [7:44] have the president's energy secretary out there now. And the reason I like Chris Rice from, you know, [7:50] I'll say Colorado, Leland, is because I said, that guy's an honest guy. And he is. And that's [7:55] a problem with this administration. He told the truth, he said, he doesn't think gas prices will go [7:59] down by next year. And of course, Trump contradicted that. But, you know, that's the problem with a [8:04] government. I can't remember like Chris Rice. He has the problem. I would dispute you that there's [8:10] there's a lot of ways I think that things could end up better than they are right now. But, Jeff, [8:14] something changed two weeks ago. The president seemed pretty confident in his path. And then all [8:19] of a sudden there was that moment of the maximalist demands that we're going to level power stations [8:26] and bridges and end the civilization. And then, OK, never mind, we're going to have a ceasefire. [8:31] And since then, the Iranians have continued to play the shell game. Do we know what changed two weeks [8:38] ago that shifted President Trump's view of this war? I couldn't tell you what shifted or what [8:46] changed. All I would say is that it's pretty classic Donald Trump to make threats like that [8:53] and then to shift again and start talking about peace. And he has said multiple times that he wants [8:58] a deal, but he doesn't want Iran to end up having a nuclear weapon. He told me today that Iran shouldn't [9:04] have a nuclear weapon, that he thinks the talks could go well and then but also said that he wasn't [9:11] planning or was unlikely that he would lift or extend the ceasefire and that fighting could resume [9:16] as soon as that ceasefire is over. So, again, mixed messages and it doesn't really take much to change [9:23] other than the politics that you were rightly referring to earlier, which is which are pretty [9:29] tough for President Trump. And going into the midterm elections, the fact that the gasoline prices [9:34] remain as high as they are and the popularity of the war remains as low as it is, is that's not a good [9:40] place for him and for his party to be politically. You know, Mark, I think about this Axios quote, [9:46] we thought we were negotiating with the right people. They had reached the cocktail of what they had agreed to [9:51] and what could be announced, the senior administration said. But what happened is the Iranian team went back [9:55] in the IRGC and those kinds of people said, oh, no, no, you don't speak for us. From a political [10:02] standpoint, the one thing that George W. Bush did in the Iraq war was he was resolute in what his course [10:11] was, almost regardless of the political implications of it. I'm thinking, for example, of the surge and other [10:17] things. Trump is now sort of myriad in in this problem and doesn't seem to be going in any one [10:24] direction. Politically, would it be better just to plot a course and damn the torpedoes, but we're going [10:32] for it rather than this constant changing optionality? That's an interesting observation, [10:39] Leila. I've talked to David Clough about this and about presidential campaigns. We both agree that, [10:45] you know, and this relates to the conflict as well, that sometimes a poorly executed consistent [10:50] strategy is better than a strategy that changes every day. And I think that's the problem you have [10:56] here is you have Trump as the chaos president and that's the way he rolls. But in a situation like [11:01] this, it now appears as if he is desperate to get any sort of a deal and he's supposed to be the [11:05] dealmaker. Iran obviously senses that. And I just feel, listen, I agree with you, Leila, that we may have [11:12] an outcome that is better than it is today. But I find it hard to figure out an outcome that's [11:17] better than it was before this all started or better than what Obama's deal was. [11:22] Eh, well, for another time, but I think that definitely exists. We will have that conversation [11:28] in a different segment. The quote I was looking for is not from David Clough, but it's from George [11:32] Patton. A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week. Just how this war [11:39] started, right? They had the intelligence. They went out, they took out the Ayatollah and others [11:43] violently executed. Things were going well. And then obviously the political ramifications took hold. [11:48] Mark McKinnon, Jeff Mason, thank you all very much. Democrats in one of America's bluest states [11:53] cannot find a candidate for governor. The potential apocalypse coming to California when we come back. [12:06] Live pictures of San Francisco on a foggy and rainy afternoon, two days before California's [12:12] gubernatorial debate. The two leading candidates in California's governor's race are Republicans. [12:19] This is a state that Kamala Harris won by 20 points. The Atlantic headlines, California's blue [12:24] Armageddon, writing one of the most liberal states in the country can't find a Democrat to lead it. [12:30] For example, just one problem for Democrats, Tom Steyer is running the most expensive campaign in [12:35] America. He's reportedly spent $130 million in his bid to be California's governor. Steyer spent [12:41] over $200 million of his fortune in 2020 to run for president, got nowhere. So $2.4 billion. He [12:48] has more to spend, although his ROI is somewhat questionable. For those keeping score, he is at 14% [12:54] in the polls. With us now, Joe Garofoli, senior political writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, [13:01] Dean Phillips, former congressman and 2024 presidential candidate. Joe, I want to start with you here, [13:07] just with where the polling is on this. It is a jungle primary. We'll explain this to our viewers [13:13] often. But it means the top two vote-getters, regardless of the political party, go on to the [13:19] general election. Right now, it is two Republicans, Steve Hilton, Chad Bianco, one and two, after Eric [13:27] Swalwell dropped out. Have we seen the polls stabilize yet, or is there more movement to come? [13:33] I think there's more movement to come, and the person who is moving is one of the least likely [13:38] Democrats, and that's former Health and Human Services Secretary Javier Becerra. He's spiked in [13:45] the recent polls. He's now running third in the jungle primary poll, as you put it. By the way, [13:52] Steyer's at 13%. You gave him an extra point. Oh, well, okay. This was the Emerson College polling, [13:58] so I think there's a couple of different things going on. 13% at $130 million. I'm doing the math [14:04] here. $10 million a point. Dean Phillips, that's not even the amount of money you spent in New [14:12] Hampshire. Well, first of all, guys, I have to say, I'm used to it, and I hope you saw I smiled. [14:21] I'm in Los Angeles right now, guys. This is a terribly consequential primary forthcoming. I'm astounded [14:27] how few people have it on their radar screens. Astounded that seven Democrats, [14:32] now it's six. Betty Yee dropped out, I think, today, seven Democrats still in the race, [14:37] which, of course, creates not an unlikely scenario in which two Republicans could ascend to the general [14:44] election. And we're going to have about 25%, maybe 30% of the electorate turnout for such a [14:50] consequential election. It's quite remarkable that, in a state with such problems, a Democratic [14:55] Party that has such an opportunity would be in this position to begin with. I have to say, [15:00] one name that is being talked about more regularly is Matt Mahan, the mayor of San Jose, a business-minded, [15:09] former teacher, done a good job as mayor, along with Daniel Lurie in San Francisco. [15:13] There is an opportunity here for Californians to elevate a next-generation governor. And then, [15:18] along with Josh Friday for lieutenant governor, a couple young, impressive next-generation Democrats [15:23] that would really move the needle whether that happens is going to be another story. [15:27] It almost sounds like an endorsement. It doesn't often get you. Joe, help us understand what's... [15:30] I'm happy to endorse. I'm happy to. Happy to endorse Matt Mahan. I think he'd be the right person for [15:35] California. All right. Fair enough. Joe, help us understand how a Democratic Party that is a machine [15:41] in California that has controlled that state with such an iron grip is apparently so out of control right [15:48] now of their own people. Yeah. Well, I think there's a couple of things going on here, [15:53] Leo. And Matt Mahan, people may be talking about it, but he's at 5% in the polls. [16:00] First of all, I think very few people, there's still maybe a third of the electorate is undecided. [16:08] And there are twice as many Democrats as there are Republicans in California. So, [16:12] if this... If one Republican or if one Democrat gets into the top two, they will likely win just for [16:19] the mere fact that... The numbers. And the fact that the president is loathed by two-thirds of the [16:26] voters here. And Steve Hilton, who's the leading vote-getter here, has just been endorsed by President [16:32] Trump. So, he had a short-term win, but a long-term pain on that one. But I think a lot of the energy of [16:39] the race was sucked out by Proposition 50, which was the gerrymandered map that was approved by [16:45] California voters last November. So much energy went into that. And there was a good turnout. And [16:51] since then, people are kind of like, you know, exhausted by politics, exhausted by... And none of [16:56] these... None of these Democrats are really lighting the world on fire. Then nobody has... [17:00] No, it's a great point. There's not a lot of excitement about anybody. There's also [17:05] negative excitement about a woman named Katie Porter, who was in Congress [17:08] and was known for some of her, shall we say, more unfortunate, undignified behavior. Here's a [17:17] little bit of it. Dean, how much do we look at this primary as a referendum by California on [17:27] the Democratic progressive utopia? 16 years of Democratic rule, everything in California should be [17:34] running the way Democrats want it to be running. Can we look at it that way? [17:39] Well, it wasn't long ago, Leland, in which in the United States, the political parties had a lot more [17:46] sway. The old Democratic Party probably never would have had seven candidates in the race [17:51] at this point. You know, what I find interesting, though, about California right now, unlike my home state [17:56] of Minnesota, Minneapolis, New York City, so many other urban bastions around the country, [18:01] it just does not seem to have that dynamic of the far left versus the more moderate Democrats [18:07] that we're seeing in so many other places. What's really astounding, and I alluded to this earlier, [18:11] is just how it seems barely on the radar screen, people starting to talk about it a little bit. [18:17] But considering the consequences, it's really remarkable how, in this day and age, with politics [18:22] being a form of entertainment and anchertainment, that it really has not risen, at least amongst the [18:27] people I'm talking to, and that's a pretty wide swath. So it's going to be quite a remarkable [18:32] outcome. And can I say one more thing, Leland? I think it's also remarkable that the leading, [18:37] the leader in the polls right now, Steve Hilton, became a U.S. citizen in 2021. You know, [18:43] was an aide to the former prime minister. We had Arnold Schwarzenegger out there. Yeah, [18:48] think about it this way. I look at the Democratic primary right now in California as the far left [18:52] versus the farther left. Thinking about what Tom Steyer said about ice. Dean Phillips, Joe, [18:56] thank you very much. Well, you will be paying attention to the debate on Wednesday night. Race for [19:02] the California governor begins Wednesday night, 9, 8 central on News Nation. Chris Steyerwalt and I [19:07] will be live in San Francisco. The debate kicks off at 10 p.m. Eastern. Special coverage all night. [19:16] As Philip said, California is going to tell us a lot about the direction of America. When we come [19:21] back, unfortunately for America, Donald Trump is no longer in control of the narrative when it comes [19:27] to Iran. President Trump and his team are deciding right now if the vice president and the negotiating [19:41] team head to Pakistan. Trump today threatened more bombings of Iranian ships like this one over the [19:47] weekend. Trump somehow needs to regain control of the situation because right now the Iranians think [19:52] they are in the driver's seat. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard has already taken control [19:56] of the strait. Now they are playing coy about whether they will show up for negotiations in Pakistan, [20:03] which Iran is, well, America dealing with. Who really are we dealing with, writes The Economist. [20:10] A power struggle is underway in the Islamic Republican, quoting The Economist, [20:14] which is without a president and absolute supreme leader for the second time in its 47-year history. [20:19] One observer likens the situation to a jungle of power. In the jungle, strongest man wins. [20:25] And in Iran, that looks like Ahmed Vadi, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The Institute for [20:30] the Study of War reports Vadi is now in control of negotiations. He's a thug of the highest order, [20:37] tied to the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 Americans, led the Quds [20:43] forces who killed and maimed thousands of U.S. servicemen in Iraq. Many hold him responsible for the [20:47] slaughter of tens of thousands of young Iranian protesters in January. These body bags are one [20:53] of the biggest reasons President Trump finally drew a line in the sand. So if this is the new face of [20:58] the Iranian regime, very difficult to trust anything that comes out of these negotiations. [21:03] Brigadier General John Teichert, former assistant deputy undersecretary of the Air Force, Kirsten [21:08] Fontenrose, senior fellow with the Atlantic Council, former senior director for the Gulf on the National [21:13] Security Council. Kirsten, good to see you. What do we make in the best possible light, [21:18] if we're giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, that we go on from Monday where [21:23] President Trump says the Iranians have agreed to all these things and then their actions are [21:28] 180 degrees opposite? This is their standard playbook. This is exactly, yes, this is their sweet spot. [21:34] They love this. They like to come to the table. They can continue to try to smuggle weapons to their [21:39] proxies that still exist. They can keep us with Israel kind of on a leash. You know, [21:46] they buy themselves time to reconstitute their command and control. So this is where they really [21:52] like it. Now, since President Trump is certainly looking for a deal, he's not looking to restart [21:57] strikes. And we have the blockade in place that is putting an economic squeeze that is meaningful on [22:02] the Iranians. I do think that coming to these talks, you're playing this game. How much are we giving [22:08] Iran of their sweet spot? How much do they love being here versus how much are we getting back for [22:12] this? We could get another extension, a one-week extension, perhaps, of that ceasefire out of [22:17] this while they continue to talk about what is this going to look like. I don't expect this team to [22:23] get into the details on nuclear issues. I think they're going to say, [22:27] we want no enrichment on this or we want 10 years for this. [22:30] Is there a deal that you see right now that is different than whatever was on the table before [22:35] the war? Have the Iranians somehow changed their position and become more flexible? [22:39] They already did, just in agreeing to meet face-to-face. This is the first time with any [22:43] U.S. administration they've even agreed to that. And so now that they're talking also about... [22:47] Isn't that a win for them, though? It's a win for us in that we don't have [22:51] intermediaries who are dragging out the timeline and interpreting what Iran is saying. [22:56] Okay. For instance, [22:56] when Vice President Vance went, he saw them face-to-face. He got the real sense of their [23:01] intransigence. So they couldn't play him the way they were planning on it. And we are seeing that [23:06] they're talking about considering options like 10 years of non-enrichment followed by 10 years of [23:11] low enrichment in exchange for the blockade coming off. Okay. So Seth Moulton, obviously not a fan of [23:18] the president's congressman from Massachusetts running for Senate, probably wants to run for president. [23:25] He basically says that the U.S. has no good options. General, you agree with that? [23:29] I am a little concerned that we seem a little eager to find a satisfactory deal to get out of this [23:37] conflict. But I don't think that we have no options. And I think if the president takes a look at [23:42] military strategy and starts thinking about how can we use our military, not just to achieve military [23:48] objectives, but to focus on the things that the regime really cares about, which is regime survival [23:53] and regime financing. And I think if those are on the table to follow on a failed ceasefire, [23:59] then I think we can regain the upper hand as long as we do not look too eager to end the war. [24:03] You know, Kirsten, though, that brings up or [24:06] pretends that there is a deal out there that the Iranians would make, that they would live up to, [24:11] that the United States should also take. I've lived in the Middle East for four years. I'm not [24:17] convinced that that deal even exists. I think there is a deal that could exist. [24:21] That the Iranians would make and live up to and that we should take. [24:25] The live up to is the tough part because it requires verification, and that's much harder [24:28] than it sounds on paper. But if they would agree, for instance, to no enrichment for a time, [24:33] for a long time period, and enrichment that had oversight and inspections and was only for medical [24:38] grade for a certain period, and all it means is we have to pull off the blockade, or all it means is [24:43] we have to unfreeze some of their assets, assuming we have something in place where we can oversee it, [24:48] an escrow of sorts, and some sort of verification that they're not spending it on weapons. That's a win. [24:53] You know, that is a deal. We all talked about when Obama did that, [24:56] when Biden did that, dollar for dollar, they're going to use it for terror. But [24:59] this other point, General, I think it's pretty interesting. Ahmed Vaadi is the guy who took control, [25:04] right? Now, he's a couple of rungs down, but he is certainly as brutal as the regime that was in place. [25:11] Until we get the regime fighting with each other, isn't this who we're dealing with, the worst of the worst? [25:17] Well, I think, number one, he's the one that controls the weapons, and number two, they are [25:22] the vanguard of the regime. And so I think we've got to assume that the worst of the worst is the [25:27] power player. So why didn't Israel already take these guys out in six weeks? [25:29] Well, I think, number one, he should be the next target on the list when we restart this conflict. [25:34] And I think he was a few rungs down and rose up through the ranks. But I do think that now [25:38] he is the one with the control of the levers of power within Iran. Whoever shows up in Pakistan, [25:44] it doesn't really matter. He's the one that needs to agree to a deal. Or otherwise, [25:48] he needs to be the one that faces the consequences of no deal. [25:50] And, Kirsten, are you at the point where you think the Iranians believe [25:55] that Trump has the political will to restart this war? [25:58] No, I don't think they believe that yet. I really think they're pressing him on that. [26:02] We have really messaged that we want to deal really badly, that we're willing to send the [26:07] vice president, who they understand is against this war. [26:10] The only people who follow our politics more than our Americans are the Iranian regime. [26:15] I mean, they follow it very closely. And they will continue to try to press us up to that envelope. [26:20] So you're seeing them say, we don't know if we're going to come to these negotiations. [26:23] If they think that he really will restart strikes, if they don't show up, then they'll show up. [26:28] Right? And you're right. It might be Vahedi. It could be the... [26:30] Well, and even to them, they show up, they buy more time, right, General? [26:34] Exactly. [26:34] Well, I really hope that the president doesn't walk into a ceasefire extension plan [26:39] without some real framework of a deal. [26:41] Well, how about without the Iranians actually having committed good deeds, not just good words? [26:47] No, that's exactly right. I think before we start walking down that path of an extension, [26:52] they need to do things that are permanent and irreversible and verifiable. [26:57] And then maybe we can start easing off. But I think the [27:00] real message that they understand is power, strength and consistency. [27:04] And they haven't yet seen that from us in the strategic realm. [27:07] Yeah, they seem to have been caught off guard by the first set of the war starting. [27:11] Now they're back to their old ways, is what you're saying. [27:14] They are to a certain extent, but we're seeing pressure we hadn't seen before from places like China. [27:18] You know, China is going to face its own energy crisis in early June. [27:21] And whereas they are saying, we need to ceasefire, we need the straits open, [27:25] they're also putting pressure on the Iranians a bit too, because this is going to be existential [27:29] for them. In early June, they have to decide whether to fire up their factories or maintain [27:33] their ships that are patrolling their own coastline. So Iran's not only getting it from [27:38] us this time, we're bringing in some international pressure. [27:40] We hope... [27:41] Yeah, I've never... [27:42] You have to trust the Chinese though. What's worse, [27:44] trusting the Iranians or the Chinese, General? [27:45] Well, I'm a little concerned that we have given them a sanctuary of economics for six weeks. [27:50] The blockade started reversing that. But I think if we renew strikes, [27:54] the strikes need to be on energy-related targets, [27:58] because that's how the regime funds themselves. And that starts making an impact. [28:01] They fund themselves. That's how they stay in power. You attack their funding, [28:05] you actually attack the ability of the regime to hold itself together. All right, General Kirsten, [28:11] thank you both very much. 251 years ago tonight, Paul Revere would have been the hottest cable news [28:18] guest you could have ever had. He started his ride on the night of April 18, 1775. He had one [28:24] urgent warning that the British are coming. 251 years later, people are still reenacting the nearly 16-mile [28:32] ride. They now, though, do it in broad daylight and with a police escort. The AP writes when the [28:38] silversmith and express rider was dispatched to Lexington to warn revolutionary leaders Samuel Adams [28:43] and John Hancock that the British were coming to arrest them. He then headed to Concord to warn [28:48] about raids on military stockpiles. Revere, like many successful businessmen of the time, [28:54] led the Patriot cause. It got us thinking if you could imagine a cable news interview with him. We asked AI [28:59] to sort of create what that would look like today. So with a few minutes from Mr. Revere, [29:04] there may be a couple of questions for him. The British are pushed back to Boston. What are you going to do with [29:08] them? What makes you think you can take on the most powerful navy and army and empire in the world? [29:13] The Patriot movement and the Sons of Liberty have been going on for decades. It's never worked. [29:18] Why should anybody risk their life going forward? Many of your fellow Bostonians are loyal to the [29:23] Crown. Are you a traitor, Mr. Revere? Or are they? And who will lead our news nation? Revere's notice [29:30] allowed the Minutemen and Patriots to prepare for the battles of Lexington and Concord. You can see him [29:35] reenacted now. After intimidating and forcing the British to retreat back to Boston, the Patriots [29:40] and the Minutemen won the battles. The British suffered 300 casualties. The American colonists, [29:45] 90. They're reenacted every year on those same battlefields at Lexington and Concord. So do we [29:52] have men now like Revere, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, my personal favorite, Patrick Henry? [29:59] They vehemently disagreed, but they came together for the cause of liberty. We as a nation now head into [30:05] America's 250th birthday. We once again need men to risk their lives, their fortune and their sacred [30:11] honor and the cause now of coming together. First wrote about this in War Notes, your chance for an [30:17] inside look at the show every day. It is free at warnotes.com to subscribe. I'll see you on social [30:22] media at Leland Vittert. When we come back, Virginia votes tomorrow and it could give Democrats the last [30:29] laugh on President Trump's plan to stack the deck for this year's midterms. Tomorrow, [30:45] Virginia Democrats tee up a vote that could blow up President Trump's midterm hopes right as he is [30:51] scrambling to hold the House and the Senate. If voters approve a new congressional map, [30:55] Republicans could lose the redistricting war that they started and hand the Democrats [31:00] the last laugh. You might remember it began in Texas where President Trump and Republicans decided to [31:05] stack the midterm deck by redrawing congressional districts in between censuses. So basically creating [31:12] five additionally solid red house seats. Well, now those districts that rely mostly on Latino votes [31:20] are now moving away from Republicans. That's joke number one. Democrats have also responded. [31:25] California added five blue seats in response. Utah created an additional blue district. And tomorrow, [31:31] Virginia votes and could add four more blue seats. This is how the math could eventually work out. [31:39] News Nation political contributor, Princeton University political scientist Lauren Wright, [31:42] Director of Data Science for Decision Desk HQ, Scott Tranter. I want to start here in studio, [31:49] Scott, with you. How is this going to end up in Virginia tomorrow? [31:51] It's going to end up close. It looked pretty good for the Democrats passing the amendment, [31:55] but over the weekend, the Republicans picked up on the absentee early vote and we're going to wait [31:59] till tomorrow. It looks like it's going to pass, but it could take a few hours to decide. [32:03] Okay, so if it passes, it goes from the current districts here, which is a number of red. [32:07] Yeah. Decent amount of red. A lot less red. [32:09] All the way to now basically it's a blue state with one red district. Lauren, [32:15] in the end, I think the losers in all of this are the American people, right? Because basically what [32:20] this does is it creates far more incentives for partisanship and far less incentive for compromise. [32:27] I mean, this is not okay. You don't get to pick your voters and both parties do it. And that's [32:32] why these moralistic arguments about, you know, most recently they've been from Democrats who then [32:38] completely about faced in California that, you know, Trump is trying to cheat and redistrict and [32:45] then they did the exact same thing. So the reminder for people at home is both parties do this. [32:50] It's extremely bad for democracy, but there's no ethical winner in all of this. It's hardball. [32:56] They're going seat for seat. And right now, Virginia is trending blue. So they very well [33:02] might get what they want. Their only hope, Republicans that is, is that it's a low turnout, [33:07] special election. It's highly educated, informed partisans voting against each other [33:13] and they eek out a win somehow. Scott might know better than I do. [33:16] Yeah. Virginia, you think about the area of Northern Virginia now that is so angry about [33:21] Donald Trump. They, they love it. So now this is, if it all sort of goes out in the wash, [33:27] Republicans pick up six, nine, 10, 12, 13, Democrats end up with 10. So net Republican three. [33:38] Net Republican three. And depending on how some of those Texas seats go, [33:41] it could be a little worse, but basically this is a fight for stalemate. All this J.R. Manning's fight [33:46] for stalemate because I think the house is going to come down to about 10 or 15 seats either way. [33:50] And it's really going to come down to what the economy looks like in six months. [33:54] Okay. So president Trump was asked about this whole thing, about going and trying to redraw these [34:00] in both, in both senses, Republican and Democrat. Take a listen. [34:03] On Texas, how many more seats do you want the Republicans to draw for house? And then what if [34:11] California, New York, Illinois and other blue states? Yeah, well, that's okay too, but five, [34:15] I think we get five and there could be some other states. We're going to get another three or four [34:20] or five in addition. Texas would be the biggest one. Okay. So Lauren, does this continue now [34:28] past the midterms for 2028 and then again for 2030? I think we have a foreseeable future of these types [34:35] of things. And again, just like you said, it's not good for voters. It's not good for Americans, but [34:40] we are in such a closely fought partisan era that every seat really does count. And you better bet [34:47] both parties are going to do this. Nobody is above it, not Republicans, not Democrats. [34:52] Okay. So Scott, we put up this map of what it looks like in Texas. We could also put up [34:57] California as well. You just see the tiny little blue dots that exist. If we look at this from the [35:03] perspective of what this means, this is California, your home state. If we look at it from the sense of [35:09] what does this mean for voters, it effectively makes all of these districts just about the [35:16] primary, right? Pretty much. California is a little bit different because it's a jungle primary [35:21] and we're going to have a fun time looking at the gubernatorial, but yeah, it makes the primary [35:24] more important. And I think- Certainly Texas and Virginia. Exactly. These things are decided in [35:28] the spring by less voters than say in a general election when you get, you know, in some states, [35:32] both parties voting on it. Okay. So then if we go to Virginia, effectively what it does, [35:36] Lauren, you said it's bad for democracy, but basically what it does is it encourages the [35:40] extremes, right? So it gives a lot more power to the primary. So suddenly it's not a question of [35:46] who or which candidate, I should say, is able to win a swing, swing district. It's which candidate [35:51] can turn out the most devotees of their party's most extreme positions. [35:56] Exactly. And it could turn out to be a careful what you wish for situation because then your [36:00] opponent's going to say, oh, thanks. You just isolated everyone that disagrees with us in one [36:06] area and then we'll turn around and do the same next time. And there's also really interesting trends [36:11] with population shifts. I mean, keep in mind that California is hemorrhaging residents. They're going [36:18] to places like Texas. They're going to places like Tennessee. And so sometimes parties do this with [36:24] their short-term interests in mind. But there's these long-term demographic changes that are not [36:29] going to be to the advantage of blue states like California for much longer. [36:33] And the most, go ahead, two things to leave you with to piggyback on what Lauren said. Look, [36:38] we're about to get a Supreme Court case on the Voting Rights Act. Many observers think that it's going to [36:42] loosen up these rules. There's about a dozen governorships that are going to be contested this fall. [36:47] It might flip. This is not the last time we're going to be talking about redistricting. So the Dems may get [36:51] some. The Republicans may get some. But look at a lot more of those states probably in 2028 and beyond. [36:58] And the intellectual honesty of this is completely gone, right? Because when it was happening in [37:01] Texas, it was a threat to democracy and the whole world was ending according to Democrats. [37:06] Yeah, the tyranny of the minority is almost what this is becoming. [37:09] Everyone's got a soundbite for this, but all I know is we're going to better save them up because [37:13] this is going to be every cycle for a little while. Well, until it basically just becomes a red versus [37:18] blue election every four years. Fun fact for you, the last time we saw this much [37:22] mid-decade redistricting was the 1880s, 1890s after the Civil War. And it took about 20 years to resolve. [37:29] See, this is why we have the nerds here. Excellent. Lauren Wright, Scott Tranter, [37:32] the nerds of nerds. Thank you. We'll be watching for the results tomorrow night. One thing for tomorrow [37:37] when we come back. Off go the humans and then off goes the robot. So they ran a half marathon [38:01] in China with a humanoid robot competing against humans for the 13-mile race. There were more than [38:09] 100 robots, and you can see they ran alongside the humans. The robot named Flash won in 50 minutes [38:16] and 26 seconds, smashing the human world record by roughly six and a half minutes. It wasn't all smooth. [38:25] Some of the robots face-planted, bumped into barriers. One had to be taken out on a stretcher. [38:29] Is there a robot ambulance? I don't know whether to laugh or to be terrified. I'm kind of terrified. [38:35] As long as they're just running and they're not shooting guns, I'm fine with it. The guns aren't [38:40] far away, though. I've seen the videos of that, and that is terrifying. But I guess I take them [38:45] beating them in a race other than that. I wonder if they're okay in the robot ambulance, hopefully. [38:50] You go to the shop or the hospital, I don't know. There we go. We'll have to see. Good to see you, Leland. [38:54] See you tomorrow.