MS NOW Highlights - April 11

[0:00] Donald Trump's war with Iran was successful at anything. [0:03] It was changing the national discussion at the time away from the Jeffrey Epstein files. [0:10] Now, none other than the first lady is bringing the issue back to the forefront, [0:14] with a very rare public statement this week denying that any close relationship [0:19] with the convicted child sex offender and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. [0:25] The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today. [0:32] To be clear, I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice Maxwell. [0:41] That statement not only caught many White House staffers off guard, [0:46] according to a White House official, [0:47] but President Trump told me he wasn't aware that his wife was going to make such remarks on that topic. [0:54] Though, in a new interview yesterday with the New York Times, [0:57] Trump claimed that he knew Melania wanted to speak about Epstein at some point [1:02] and, quote, thought she had a right to talk about it. [1:05] Nearly two days later, while there's still a lot of speculation, [1:08] we still do not have a clear idea why the first lady decided to make her statement now, [1:14] or why she felt that it was the time to call on Congress to hold a public hearing for Epstein survivors, [1:20] especially as her husband has repeatedly called the Epstein controversy a Democratic hoax [1:26] and asked the country to move on. [1:30] Joining us now is Stephanie Grisham, [1:31] former chief of staff and press secretary for Melania Trump during the first administration. [1:36] She's the author of I'll Take Your Questions Now, What I Saw at the Trump White House. [1:41] Stephanie, thank you so much for joining us today. [1:44] You really are the perfect guest during a time where we still don't have that much information. [1:49] As you worked very closely with the first lady for, I believe it was four years, right? [1:57] Yes. [1:58] Can you tell us about what it takes to get her to go out there and not just email out a statement, [2:06] but make an on-camera appearance like the one that we saw this week? [2:11] Absolutely. [2:11] Good morning to you guys. [2:13] Thanks for having me on. [2:14] It's funny because there were many times when we would want her to respond to something as a team [2:21] or me as her communications person would want her to respond to false allegations or rumors or whatnot. [2:29] And most of the time she would say, don't reply. [2:33] Most of the time she wanted to stay quiet. [2:35] So I was just as surprised as I think the whole country and maybe the world when she stepped out [2:42] and did this press conference of sorts a couple of days ago. [2:46] It was something she clearly wanted to do. [2:49] It was something that must have been weighing on her for a while. [2:54] I've been asked, of course, a million times, why do I think she did it? [2:57] And my two thoughts are she's trying to get ahead of something or she just saw something, you know, online or on X [3:07] and that was the last straw and she got upset and decided that the story was kind of everywhere in her mind [3:13] and she wanted to do this. [3:15] Stephanie, the Epstein investigation, the debacle, all of it is going to be a part of Donald Trump's legacy, right? [3:26] What did and didn't get released, what he did and didn't know, his relationship with Epstein. [3:32] And to your point about her thinking something might be coming or something like that, [3:40] when you worked for her, how focused was she? [3:45] Is she on herself, her own legacy and brand separate from her husband, [3:49] making sure that she has a legacy, that she has a hand in creating? [3:54] Oh, I mean, absolutely 100% that is her soul, her focus. [4:01] I would say aside from being a mom, that would be what she worried about was, again, her brand, [4:08] her reputation separate from her husband, separate from anything that the West Wing would do. [4:14] When I was in the East Wing, we never gave the West Wing a heads up on anything we were going to do. [4:19] It was, I've got to say, it was kind of an empowering thing. [4:22] It was the first time in history I think that's ever been done. [4:24] And we did not check with the West Wing. [4:26] We never told the West Wing anything. [4:28] And I see she's doing the same thing. [4:31] When she feels really strongly about something, she decides to speak out. [4:35] And that has nothing to do with how it will reflect on her husband politically or otherwise or the West Wing. [4:42] So she's always been that way, very strong, very independent. [4:47] And if somebody is saying something about her that she feels is untrue, knows to be untrue, [4:53] you better believe she'll speak out and everybody else just watch out. [4:57] It doesn't matter. [4:57] As we all know, Jackie had her conversation with the president, but so did the New York Times yesterday. [5:06] And I want to read what the president said in this interview. [5:11] Was he upset that Melania had single-handedly thrust this story that had so bedeviled him back onto front pages around the globe? [5:19] No, he said, I never get upset. [5:23] Stephanie, do you believe that for one minute? [5:28] Oh, well, I'm laughing. [5:30] Thank you for the laughter this morning. [5:32] No. [5:32] You know, when he first said he knew nothing about it, I called BS publicly. [5:36] And then, of course, now he's saying he knew about it, that there's not a chance he's not upset by all of this coverage [5:44] and that it has thrust things back out into the forefront. [5:48] And I have to say, you know, no matter her motivation, I am glad she did this. [5:53] The victims of Epstein have been so poorly treated by this administration, [5:59] specifically the Department of Justice, which I laugh when I say justice when we're talking about the Epstein files, [6:06] and then the Republican leadership in Congress, many, many Republicans in Congress. [6:12] So I'm glad she has done this. [6:14] I understand some of the survivors, you know, feel that she has put them in a bad spot. [6:19] But, you know, at least it's being talked about again. [6:21] People are being reminded of it again. [6:23] So, despite Melania Trump's motivations, not knowing what they are, I say kudos to her for doing this. [6:29] That was really a strong move. [6:32] Stephanie Grisham, thank you very much for coming to the weekend. [6:37] On Tuesday morning at 8.06 a.m. Eastern Time, in just 12 words, [6:41] Donald Trump crossed a line that cannot be ignored or walked back. [6:45] Not by him, not by his enablers, and sadly, not by any of us who had nothing to do with his outrageous words. [6:52] Posted on his own social media site, Trump threatened the destruction of a people. [6:56] A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again, end quote. [7:02] One day earlier, he warned in a news conference that the U.S. military could destroy every bridge [7:06] and every power plant in Iran if his deadline passed without a deal. [7:11] Civilian infrastructure, the kind that millions of ordinary people depend on simply to survive, [7:16] under the laws of armed conflict, targeting civilian infrastructure constitutes a war crime. [7:20] Here's the thing to understand. Genocide, which is known as the crime of crimes, [7:25] does not begin with bombs or bullets. It generally begins with language, [7:30] with the slow, deliberate conditioning of otherwise decent people into accepting the unthinkable. [7:37] The idea of genocide spreads easily through the silence of a public that looks away. [7:42] The practice of a genocide ends with soldiers being ordered to carry out what was once unimaginable. [7:48] There is a very specific bridge between bluster and mass atrocity, and that is dehumanization. [7:56] Through the casual cruelty of words that are repeated until they no longer shock us. [8:00] And once that threshold is crossed, once people are no longer seen as people, [8:05] the horrors that can follow become not only possible, but entirely predictable. [8:09] This week, Donald Trump did not threaten a military target. [8:13] He did not limit his rhetoric to a regime or a government or a leadership. [8:17] He invoked the destruction of an entire civilization and entire people, [8:22] their communities, their history, their past, their present, their future. [8:26] Iran is home to more than 90 million human beings. [8:30] It is the seat of a Persian civilization nearly 3,000 years old, [8:35] of people with language, culture, art, families, children. [8:38] To speak of wiping out a civilization is not tough talk. [8:41] It's not a negotiation tactic. [8:43] It is the register of collective annihilation. [8:47] And as the historian Timothy Snyder warns, there is no such thing as only words. [8:53] Words shape reality. [8:55] Words signal what is permissible. [8:57] And under international law, words can themselves be crimes. [9:00] After World War II, the international community, haunted by the Holocaust, [9:04] tried to draw a bright legal and moral line around the worst moral behavior [9:09] of which human beings are capable. [9:11] That line being drawn is part of the Geneva Conventions. [9:14] It declared genocide not only a moral horror, [9:17] but a crime under international law codified in 1948, [9:21] ratified by the United States in 1988, [9:24] and binding still to this day. [9:28] That makes Trump's words more than inflammatory rhetoric. [9:31] It places them squarely inside a globally understood [9:33] and accepted legal framework. [9:36] Importantly, the Geneva Conventions do not only criminalize [9:39] the act of genocide itself, [9:42] they criminalize incitement to commit genocide, [9:45] conspiracy, attempts, complicity. [9:47] And that distinction matters because proving genocide after the fact [9:50] can be notoriously difficult. [9:53] Intent must be established. [9:56] But as Professor Snyder notes, in this case, [9:58] the intent is on the record, spoken aloud in public [10:00] by this nation's commander-in-chief. [10:02] The law is unambiguous. [10:04] Incitement to commit genocide is a crime. [10:08] And no one should dismiss what Trump said [10:10] as a mere negotiating posture. [10:13] A scholar of political communication, [10:15] Stephanie A. Martin, explains precisely [10:16] why that instinct is dangerous. [10:18] Quote, presidential rhetoric is more about permission [10:21] than persuasion. [10:22] Presidents don't only argue, they signal. [10:26] And through those signals, [10:27] they tell the public what kind of situation this is, [10:30] what kind of danger is at hand, [10:32] and what kind of responses are reasonable. [10:34] In that sense, [10:35] the president can function [10:36] like a human starting gun. [10:39] His words cue journalists, [10:41] legislators, party allies, [10:44] and ordinary supporters [10:45] about how to classify events [10:46] before anyone has fully processed them. [10:49] End quote. [10:50] And while some lawmakers retreat into silence [10:53] in the face of the president's words, [10:54] those who actually know what war is [10:56] are sounding the alarm. [10:58] One of the most significant rebukes this week [10:59] came from General Joseph Votel, [11:02] a four-star general, [11:03] former commander of U.S. Central Command, [11:05] and the man who oversaw [11:06] the successful military campaign [11:08] against ISIS under the first Trump administration. [11:11] During an interview, [11:12] General Votel was asked directly [11:14] if ordered as CENTCOM commander [11:16] to bomb power plants and bridges, [11:19] would he carry out that order? [11:23] If the secretary said, [11:24] I don't care, [11:25] the president wants this, [11:26] do it anyway, [11:26] what would you do? [11:27] Well, then, you know, [11:28] if that's the case, [11:30] if at that time I don't agree with it, [11:32] then my option is to step aside. [11:36] And you would do that [11:37] if you got such an order [11:39] as the president was reflecting [11:41] in these truths. [11:43] Yeah, I think that's the obligation [11:44] of any officer, [11:45] any commander, [11:46] when he can no longer, [11:47] he or she can no longer, [11:49] you know, conduct the, [11:50] you know, execute the orders [11:52] that are being passed on them [11:54] because in his or her estimation, [11:57] they're illegal, [11:57] then that is the, [11:58] that is the, [12:00] that is the, [12:00] that's what you must do. [12:02] Let that land for a moment. [12:04] A four-star general [12:05] who served this president, [12:07] who led the men and women [12:08] he is now addressing, [12:09] is telling them, [12:10] do not obey. [12:11] It's not a political statement. [12:13] It's a warning [12:13] from someone who's looked [12:14] at these orders [12:15] and knows exactly [12:16] what they would mean [12:16] on the ground. [12:18] The Michigan senator, [12:19] Alyssa Slotkin, [12:19] a former CIA analyst [12:21] was equally direct. [12:22] Hours after Trump's threat, [12:23] she returned to a message [12:25] that she had delivered before [12:26] in a viral video last year [12:28] when six military [12:29] and intelligence members [12:30] of Congress stood together [12:31] and pleaded with service members, [12:33] don't give up the ship. [12:34] On Tuesday, [12:35] she said it again, [12:36] quote, [12:36] it's moments like these [12:37] that are why we made that video. [12:39] And I hope and believe [12:40] our troops, [12:41] especially those in command, [12:42] will have the moral clarity [12:44] to push back [12:44] if they are given [12:45] clearly illegal orders, [12:47] end quote. [12:47] And she was specific [12:50] about what illegal means. [12:52] Targeting civilians en masse, [12:55] she said, [12:56] would be a clear violation [12:57] of the Geneva Conventions [12:59] and the Pentagon's own law [13:01] of war manual. [13:03] Exactly what U.S. soldiers [13:04] are trained [13:04] from their very first weeks [13:06] of service to refuse, [13:07] quote, [13:07] if they're asked to do things [13:08] that violate the law [13:09] and their training, [13:10] it puts them in very real [13:12] legal jeopardy, end quote. [13:14] Very real legal jeopardy. [13:16] To bomb a bridge, [13:17] a dam, a power plant, [13:19] a desalination facility, [13:20] already potentially war crimes [13:22] under any circumstances, [13:23] carries an entirely [13:24] different legal weight [13:26] when it follows [13:26] an explicit expression [13:28] of genocidal intent [13:29] by the commander-in-chief. [13:32] And the troops know it. [13:33] NPR reports that cracks [13:35] are forming inside the military, [13:37] driven by low morale, [13:38] ethical unease, [13:39] and a growing number [13:40] of service members [13:40] choosing to retire early, [13:42] declining to re-enlist [13:43] or walking away [13:44] from their contracts [13:45] regardless of the consequences. [13:47] The GI Rights Hotline, [13:50] which is a 24-hour service [13:51] that informs troops [13:52] of their discharge options, [13:54] has seen call volume [13:55] more than double [13:56] since the Iran war began. [13:58] The majority of callers [13:59] are asking about [14:00] conscientious objecting. [14:02] Steve Wolford [14:03] has been answering [14:03] that hotline [14:04] for more than 25 years. [14:06] He took calls [14:06] through Iraq, [14:07] through Afghanistan, [14:09] but this, he tells NPR, [14:10] feels different. [14:12] Quote, [14:12] we've had a lot of calls [14:13] from people [14:14] who don't identify [14:14] as nonviolent or pacifists. [14:17] They identify [14:17] as everyday service members [14:19] who are willing [14:19] to defend the country [14:20] but feel very unsettled [14:21] and suspicious [14:22] about the ways [14:23] the military is being used now. [14:25] End quote. [14:26] NPR reports [14:27] that nearly all of these callers [14:29] mention the same thing. [14:31] The bombing of a girl's school [14:32] in Iran on the first day [14:33] of the war. [14:34] A preliminary U.S. assessment [14:35] determined that American forces [14:37] were at fault. [14:39] According to Mike Preissner, [14:40] who also helps run that hotline, [14:42] quote, [14:42] when Iran hit, [14:43] I think it was kind of [14:44] like a detonator [14:44] for all of those things [14:45] that had been building. [14:46] People with really [14:47] accomplished careers, [14:48] people in very elite jobs, [14:50] special forces, [14:51] top gun fighter pilots, [14:52] physicians, surgeons, [14:53] our highest ranking [14:54] conscientious objector client [14:56] right now is a major [14:57] in the military. [14:58] End quote. [15:00] Here's the thing to remember. [15:02] None of us [15:03] are passive observers in this. [15:05] We all have agency. [15:07] What matters is what we do now. [15:10] What we say, [15:11] what we reject, [15:12] what we allow to stand. [15:14] For soldiers, [15:15] it may mean refusing [15:16] an illegal order [15:17] or walking away [15:18] before that order [15:18] is ever given. [15:19] For the rest of us, [15:20] it means saying out loud [15:21] what this is. [15:22] It means rejecting it expressly [15:24] wherever you stand [15:25] on the political spectrum. [15:27] It means making that rejection [15:28] felt at the ballot box, [15:29] in the streets, [15:30] and in every space [15:31] where silence [15:32] might otherwise [15:32] be mistaken for consent. [15:35] My next guest, [15:36] the historian Timothy Snyder, [15:37] has spent his career [15:38] studying how democracies die [15:40] and how ordinary people [15:41] become complicit in atrocity. [15:43] He puts this moment [15:44] with moral clarity. [15:46] He puts it in the moral clarity [15:47] that it demands [15:48] by saying, quote, [15:49] the president, [15:50] by saying such things, [15:51] has already changed [15:52] the world for the worse [15:53] and made acts [15:54] of mass violence [15:54] more likely. [15:56] These words [15:56] are America's words. [15:58] Until and unless [15:59] Americans reject them, [16:00] neither the evil [16:01] nor the good [16:02] in our history [16:02] determines who we are. [16:04] It is what we do now. [16:05] If we do not say [16:06] something ourselves [16:07] about this horror, [16:08] we allow ourselves [16:10] to be changed. [16:12] The president speaks genocide. [16:14] And so we, too, [16:15] must speak, [16:16] not only about crimes, [16:18] but about their [16:19] legal punishment, [16:20] end quote. [16:22] Let's bring in [16:22] retired Army Major General [16:24] Dana Patard. [16:25] He served as [16:26] former Deputy Commanding General [16:27] of the Third Army in Kuwait [16:29] and commander in Iraq's [16:30] Fighting ISIS. [16:31] And his new book is titled [16:33] Hunting the Caliphate. [16:34] And Nancy Yousef, [16:35] staff writer with The Atlantic, [16:36] covering national security [16:38] in the Defense Department [16:38] and former Middle East [16:40] and foreign correspondent. [16:41] So welcome to you both. [16:43] Glad to have your voices here. [16:44] So, General, [16:45] First, CENTCOM says [16:46] it has started [16:47] setting groundwork [16:48] to clear mines [16:49] from the Strait of Hormuz. [16:50] Talk about the risks [16:51] involved doing that, [16:53] not just to U.S. troops, [16:54] but also to stability [16:55] in that region. [16:59] Well, hi, Alex. [17:00] And what an honor [17:01] to be on with Nancy Yousef, [17:03] who I've known for decades [17:04] in the Middle East. [17:06] There are risks, [17:07] but it really is a good sign [17:09] that the U.S.S. Frank E. Peterson [17:12] and U.S.S. Michael Murthy, [17:13] which are guided missile destroyers, [17:17] have been allowed [17:19] to go through the Strait of Hormuz, [17:21] looking for mines, [17:23] looking for other things there. [17:26] That is a good thing. [17:27] The Iranians could have fired [17:29] upon those warships [17:30] and completely kabashed [17:31] this whole negotiations, [17:33] but they did not. [17:34] But there are risks. [17:36] There are risks to Iran [17:38] overplaying their hand, [17:40] overplaying their hand [17:41] of the Strait of Hormuz. [17:42] The U.S. now has more time [17:44] to bring in more assets, [17:46] more munitions, [17:47] more resources. [17:49] So if the negotiations go south, [17:52] that the Strait of Hormuz [17:53] can be seized, [17:54] which would not be [17:55] in our best interest, [17:58] but would absolutely [17:59] take that away from Iran. [18:01] Nancy, you have written [18:03] Trump made a deal [18:05] that gave him nothing he wanted, [18:07] adding the war ended, [18:08] at least for now, [18:09] with Tehran controlling [18:11] the Strait of Hormuz [18:11] in a way that can be [18:12] more powerful to Iran [18:14] than a nuclear weapon. [18:16] So is Trump today [18:18] seeking a deal [18:19] to govern the Strait [18:20] going forward, [18:21] or is he seeking a deal [18:22] that limits Iran's [18:23] overall ambitions? [18:25] Are we clear [18:26] on Trump's objectives, [18:28] despite him saying, [18:29] you know, [18:29] in that press clip [18:30] that we played, [18:32] it's 99% all about [18:34] ending their nuclear ambitions? [18:37] Well, the reason [18:37] I wrote that is, [18:38] and thank you [18:39] for having me on [18:40] and great to be on [18:40] with you, General. [18:41] The reason I wrote that is, [18:43] you know, [18:44] one of the reasons [18:45] that Iran was trying [18:46] to acquire a nuclear weapon [18:47] was to have leverage [18:48] and to use it [18:50] as a form of deterrence. [18:51] But by taking control [18:52] of the Strait, [18:53] they found another form [18:54] of deterrence [18:55] and leverage [18:56] because they now [18:58] have something [18:58] that the international [18:59] community really values, [19:00] something they didn't have [19:02] before the war started. [19:03] And they are now [19:04] exercising that leverage. [19:05] The war started [19:06] as one about [19:07] Iran's nuclear program. [19:09] And here we are, [19:10] the Strait of Hormuz [19:10] is at the forefront [19:11] of the talks. [19:13] And so I think [19:14] what the U.S. [19:14] is hoping to achieve [19:16] is some way [19:17] to address [19:18] the nuclear program [19:19] and to find a way [19:21] to reopen the Strait. [19:23] What the Iranians [19:24] are seeking, though, [19:24] is sanctions relief [19:25] and some sort [19:27] of economic compensation [19:28] for the damage [19:29] that has happened [19:30] to them, [19:31] the question becomes [19:32] what will they accept? [19:33] Will they accept [19:34] something that involves [19:35] losing the Strait [19:36] but perhaps gaining [19:37] economic sanctions? [19:38] And if they do, [19:39] that would say something [19:40] because those sanctions [19:41] were put in place [19:42] because of their [19:43] nuclear program. [19:44] Or conversely, [19:45] will the United States [19:46] agree to some sort [19:47] of economic benefit [19:48] to the Iranians [19:49] by way of the Strait of Hormuz? [19:51] And that's why [19:52] I think Iran feels [19:54] that it has the upper hand [19:56] because it gained [19:56] this leverage [19:57] during the war. [19:59] Having said that, [20:00] I think seeing the level [20:01] of delegates [20:02] that are there, [20:02] the time that they're [20:03] spending talking [20:04] suggests that both sides [20:06] are really trying [20:07] to reach a deal. [20:08] And so there's, [20:09] in that sense, [20:09] there's reason [20:09] to be optimistic. [20:11] When you look, though, [20:12] at the lineup of, [20:13] let's say, negotiators, [20:14] you've got Vice President Vance [20:15] who's not done this kind [20:17] of a diplomatic dance before. [20:19] Who's walking in [20:21] with the advantage [20:21] in that regard? [20:24] Well, you'll remember [20:26] Iran asked for J.D. Vance, [20:28] and I think the reason [20:28] they asked for him [20:29] is threefold. [20:30] One, he had opposed this war [20:32] and is known [20:33] to oppose the war. [20:34] And so I think they know [20:35] that knowledge [20:36] could work to their advantage. [20:38] He is a potential [20:39] presidential candidate. [20:40] And so I think [20:41] that their thinking [20:42] is that if he were [20:43] to run for office, [20:44] having this kind of deal [20:46] struck might work [20:47] for him politically. [20:48] And if he were [20:49] to be elected as president, [20:50] he has more incentive [20:51] to keep the terms [20:53] of this deal, [20:54] having been the one [20:55] to negotiate it. [20:56] So I think Iran [20:58] is trying to set the terms [20:59] and has done so [21:00] in some ways [21:01] by allowing [21:03] or being allowed [21:05] to name [21:06] who the negotiators [21:07] are, [21:08] at least one of them. [21:09] And so that is a tell [21:10] for us a little bit [21:11] in terms of Iran's leverage [21:14] and the U.S. willingness [21:15] to engage [21:15] on that leverage. [21:17] So, General, [21:17] in a statement to MSNOW, [21:19] the White House [21:19] has confirmed [21:20] that the delegation [21:21] includes experts [21:22] and officials [21:22] from the NSC, [21:24] State Department, [21:25] Pentagon. [21:26] What does that suggest [21:27] to you? [21:29] Well, what it suggests [21:30] is we're serious about it. [21:32] In fact, [21:33] having Vice President Vance [21:35] lead the delegation [21:36] is a big deal. [21:37] He's the highest ranking [21:38] U.S. official [21:39] to meet with [21:40] Iranian officials [21:42] in over 47 years. [21:44] That is something [21:44] in itself. [21:46] The fact that [21:46] the discussion [21:47] will also be [21:48] on nuclear weapons [21:50] as well as [21:51] or nuclear capability [21:52] as well as [21:53] the military capability [21:55] of Iran. [21:57] The U.S. still [21:58] has the option [21:59] of going after [22:01] the IRGC [22:02] and continuing [22:02] this war, [22:03] which Iran [22:04] does not want. [22:05] Once again, [22:06] Iran should not [22:06] overplay their hand [22:08] with the Strait of Hormuz. [22:09] That can be [22:10] taken away also. [22:13] General, [22:13] the Wall Street Journal [22:14] quotes U.S. officials [22:15] saying Iran [22:16] still has thousands [22:17] of missiles, [22:19] adding while [22:19] Defense Secretary [22:20] Hegseth [22:20] and others say [22:21] more than half [22:22] of Iran's missile [22:23] launchers have been [22:24] destroyed, [22:25] damaged, [22:25] or trapped underground. [22:26] Many of those [22:27] can be repaired [22:28] or dug out [22:29] from underground [22:30] complexes. [22:31] How do you view [22:32] the rhetoric [22:33] versus the reality? [22:36] Well, [22:37] I think the whole [22:38] chest-beating [22:39] on the part [22:39] of Secretary [22:41] Hegseth [22:42] has not been helpful. [22:44] The military [22:45] portion of this, [22:46] at least tactically, [22:48] has been done well. [22:50] However, [22:50] we have not [22:51] completely destroyed [22:52] Iran's capabilities, [22:54] military capabilities. [22:56] They still have [22:57] ballistic missiles. [22:58] They still have [22:59] the Shahid drones, [22:59] which have caused [23:00] problems. [23:01] They still have [23:01] some level [23:02] of nuclear capability. [23:03] And they also have [23:04] the underwater drones, [23:06] which can cause [23:07] problems for shipping [23:09] in the Strait of Hormuz. [23:10] So there's still [23:11] a lot to do militarily [23:12] if we want to. [23:15] Nancy, [23:15] speaking of militarily, [23:17] Israel's war in Lebanon [23:18] has not stopped [23:19] while America and Iran [23:20] are trying to negotiate [23:21] a ceasefire. [23:21] And Lebanon says [23:23] talks with Israel [23:24] are scheduled [23:25] for Tuesday [23:25] in Washington. [23:26] Are you, [23:27] Nancy, [23:27] learning any new [23:28] details about this [23:29] meeting? [23:30] And will Israel's [23:30] ongoing attacks [23:31] in Lebanon [23:32] add a wrinkle [23:33] potentially to U.S. [23:34] talks? [23:36] Well, [23:36] they already have [23:37] in that the Iranians [23:39] have been unwilling [23:39] to open the Strait of Hormuz [23:41] because of those strikes, [23:42] saying that that [23:43] secession of hot [23:45] hostilities [23:46] was part of the deal [23:47] and the U.S. [23:49] saying it was not. [23:50] And so we've already [23:50] seen that fissure. [23:52] We've seen 10 killed [23:53] today in Lebanon [23:56] through these strikes. [23:57] And I think Israel's [23:58] signaling its displeasure [23:59] with the timing [24:00] of these talks [24:03] in that it believes [24:04] that Iran continues [24:05] to pose a threat [24:05] to Israel [24:07] and that it must [24:07] continue to combat it, [24:08] in this case, [24:09] through their proxies [24:10] in Lebanon, [24:11] Hezbollah. [24:12] We know that Hezbollah [24:13] opposes these talks, [24:15] but that the Lebanese [24:16] people and the Lebanese [24:17] government is stuck [24:18] between this war [24:21] between Israel [24:22] and Hezbollah [24:23] that controls [24:24] huge swaths [24:25] of their country, [24:25] but has let it [24:27] be vulnerable [24:28] to attacks from Israel. [24:30] And so Israel has said [24:31] that they will enter talks, [24:32] but that they're not [24:33] going to stop the fighting. [24:35] We know that Lebanon [24:36] wants to see [24:37] an end of these hostilities, [24:39] which have been [24:39] so devastating [24:40] over the past few days. [24:42] And so I think [24:43] there'll be a real effort [24:44] to reach at least [24:44] a temporary ceasefire. [24:46] But in the meantime, [24:47] I think we should [24:48] pay attention [24:49] to what Israel's saying [24:50] because they are [24:50] a factor in this. [24:51] Remember, [24:52] Iran is in Pakistan, [24:54] the U.S. is in Pakistan, [24:56] Israel's a key player, [24:57] and they're not in Pakistan. [24:58] And so that sort of divide [25:01] between the United States [25:02] and Israel going forward [25:03] could be a factor. [25:05] But I think General Pratard [25:07] is so right to say [25:08] that while Iran [25:10] might see that split [25:11] as something [25:12] that they can take advantage of [25:13] and the strait [25:14] is something [25:14] they can take advantage of, [25:15] they risk overplaying their hand. [25:18] And so these next few days, [25:20] how they manage these talks [25:22] and what they try to negotiate, [25:23] I think will tell us a lot [25:25] about how much [25:27] they want to reach a deal [25:29] and how much they're going [25:30] to try to push [25:31] on that leverage [25:32] that they have [25:33] with the strait [25:33] and with these potential divisions [25:35] between the United States [25:36] and Israel [25:36] about the ways ahead. [25:38] OK, tenuous times [25:39] to be certain. [25:40] We'll be watching carefully. [25:41] Nancy Youssef [25:42] and General Dana Patard, [25:43] thank you so much. [25:44] President Trump's [25:47] escalating threats [25:48] against Iran, [25:48] including his infamous threat [25:50] to end Iran's civilization, [25:52] has sparked a backlash [25:54] among some of the biggest stars [25:55] in MAGA world. [25:58] Now it's time to say no, [25:59] absolutely not, [26:00] and say directly [26:01] to the president, no. [26:02] The president, [26:03] all right, 3D, [26:04] she asked, [26:04] just shut up. [26:06] F***ing shut up [26:07] about that s***. [26:09] You don't threaten [26:10] to wipe out [26:11] an entire civilization. [26:12] He's out of control [26:14] and people within [26:15] the administration [26:16] need to step up, [26:18] take responsibility, [26:20] and rein this in. [26:21] It's insanity. [26:22] It's calling for the murder [26:22] of an entire civilization [26:24] of men, women, children, [26:27] of innocent civilians. [26:29] How do we 25th Amendment [26:30] is that? [26:33] Well, unsurprisingly, [26:35] Trump did not take [26:36] too kindly to those remarks. [26:37] He lashed out [26:38] at right-wing media figures [26:39] Tucker Carlson, [26:40] Megyn Kelly, [26:41] Candace Owens, [26:41] and Alex Jones [26:42] over their criticisms [26:43] of the war. [26:44] Trump said they have, [26:45] low IQs, [26:46] and are, [26:47] stupid people. [26:49] Tucker Carlson responded [26:50] to Trump's attacks, [26:51] telling Newsmax, [26:52] quote, [26:52] I've always liked Trump [26:54] and still feel sorry for him [26:55] as I do all slaves. [26:57] He's hemmed in [26:58] by other forces. [26:59] He can't make [27:00] his own decisions. [27:01] It is awful to watch. [27:03] Carlson also trolled Trump [27:05] by selling merchandise [27:06] on his site, [27:07] referencing Trump's [27:08] low IQ attacks. [27:10] What's interesting here [27:12] is that there are [27:13] a lot of people out there [27:14] who somehow convinced [27:15] themselves that Donald Trump [27:17] was going to be more [27:18] dovish than Kamala Harris. [27:20] And they should maybe [27:22] engage in some [27:23] self-reflection [27:24] on those predictions, [27:26] those prognostications, [27:28] because the only way [27:29] you could believe [27:30] that things would have [27:31] ended up worse [27:33] under Harris [27:34] than under Trump [27:35] as regards to our, [27:36] you know, [27:37] military adventurism [27:38] around the world [27:39] is if you had, like, [27:40] ignored every single thing [27:41] Donald Trump said [27:42] or did in the last decade. [27:43] But that's just my opinion. [27:45] Well, I will say this, though. [27:46] He did say he was not [27:47] going to start any new war. [27:48] So he did lie to the people. [27:49] So I think the question is [27:50] whether or not people [27:51] believed him. [27:52] And I think... [27:53] But he said everything [27:54] about everything. [27:54] Correct. [27:55] So it's like, [27:55] why did they choose [27:57] that thing to believe? [27:58] He was the central tenet [27:59] of 2015 propelling [28:02] his candidacy [28:03] through the Republican primary. [28:04] It was this [28:05] and then it was trade. [28:07] And that's why [28:08] I do think [28:08] that this fight [28:09] is significant [28:10] for the slight attrition. [28:12] I don't think [28:13] we're all the way there yet [28:14] in a full-scale [28:15] Republican revolt [28:16] over the war. [28:17] We have the Pew poll [28:18] that we can flash [28:19] and talk about. [28:20] What I found interesting [28:21] was that Republican voters [28:23] in this recent Pew poll, [28:25] over all of the 12 [28:28] foreign policy areas [28:29] that were surveyed [28:30] were above 60%. [28:31] And actually, [28:33] Iran wasn't even [28:34] the worst issue. [28:35] The worst issue [28:36] was actually Ukraine [28:37] and Russia [28:38] and then NATO. [28:40] And overall, [28:41] while it has dropped [28:42] from earlier years, [28:44] still there's like [28:45] a relative amount [28:45] of confidence [28:46] and it's really [28:47] among the younger [28:47] Republican voters [28:49] who are showing [28:50] disapprovement. [28:50] And that's the area [28:51] of risk. [28:52] It's young men [28:52] who he depended on [28:53] who a lot of people [28:54] believe pushed [28:55] him over the edge [28:55] in certain states. [28:57] And it's also [28:58] the sort of [28:59] maybe center-right folks, [29:02] independents [29:03] and moderate conservatives [29:04] who, you know, [29:06] bought into [29:07] or believed a lot of that [29:08] or were particularly [29:09] interested in some [29:10] of the economic messaging [29:11] of this administration [29:12] and maybe just [29:13] didn't think so deeply [29:14] about some of [29:15] the other messaging [29:16] or how that messaging [29:17] would torpedo [29:17] his economic messaging, [29:19] frankly, [29:19] because we're, [29:20] of course, [29:20] seeing how all these [29:20] things are interconnected. [29:22] We're living it [29:22] at our gas pumps [29:23] every single day. [29:24] But it's that exact group [29:26] that I think a lot [29:28] of these folks [29:28] are now speaking to. [29:30] And that's where [29:31] his vulnerability is. [29:32] I thought it was [29:32] interesting that the [29:33] president also called [29:34] these folks out by name, [29:35] but he hasn't gone after [29:37] like the Theo Vons, [29:39] Andrew Scholz, [29:40] these guys who have been [29:41] criticizing him heavily [29:42] but still have a ton [29:44] of credibility [29:44] with this younger group. [29:46] I mean, [29:46] that his own son, [29:47] like Barron, [29:48] represents. [29:48] And I know that Barron [29:49] listens to some of this stuff. [29:51] And so I just found it [29:52] interesting who he's [29:53] willing to go full attack on [29:54] and those who he seems [29:57] to be taking a little bit [29:58] more of a like wait [29:59] and see approach with. [30:00] Some of it may be that [30:01] like in the case [30:02] of Megyn Kelly, [30:03] you know, [30:04] in the same week [30:04] that she said [30:05] what we just saw her say [30:06] there, [30:07] you know, [30:07] criticizing the president, [30:08] she also said that [30:09] she basically would [30:09] never ever vote [30:10] for a Democrat [30:11] and she would vote [30:12] for a Republican [30:12] even if they used [30:13] a nuclear weapon. [30:15] And so, [30:15] you know, [30:16] to be honest with you, [30:16] if you say things [30:17] like that, [30:19] then the candidates [30:20] have like no need [30:21] to follow through [30:22] on any of the promises [30:22] they make to you [30:23] because they know [30:24] you're just going [30:24] to be a chump [30:25] and vote for them anyway. [30:25] So it's kind of like [30:26] that mindset, [30:27] if I'm Trump, [30:28] I'm listening to people [30:29] like that say that [30:30] and I'm like, [30:30] I can reel you back in [30:31] whenever I want. [30:33] But Tucker, [30:33] he knows he can't [30:34] reel back in. [30:35] Yeah. [30:35] He hasn't been able to [30:36] and Tucker has been [30:37] standing really firm. [30:38] But Joe Rogan [30:39] isn't really MAGA right. [30:41] He was a convert. [30:43] The difference between [30:44] a Theo Vaughn [30:45] and a Joe Rogan [30:45] who are, [30:46] you know, [30:46] they converted, [30:47] so to speak, [30:48] and they were part [30:49] of the male wave, [30:50] the younger wave. [30:51] But then they're not [30:52] permanent sticking [30:53] with him forever. [30:54] And so in this midterm election, [30:56] you can't lose [30:57] those right-leaning [30:58] independents [30:59] and those younger men. [31:00] So the point [31:00] that I want to make, [31:01] though, about, [31:03] you were talking about [31:04] like young men [31:05] who think that, [31:06] who thought that [31:06] he was going to deliver [31:07] on all of these promises. [31:09] I think we should [31:09] have a different standard [31:11] for like random voters, [31:13] marginal voters [31:14] who are not so engaged [31:16] with politics, right, [31:17] who it's not their job [31:19] to follow the news. [31:20] It's not their job [31:20] to pay attention [31:21] to policy positions. [31:22] They're just trying [31:23] to put food on the table. [31:24] I get it. [31:25] But if you are [31:26] Megyn Kelly, [31:26] if you are Tucker Carlson, [31:28] if you are any of these people [31:29] whose job it is [31:30] to be a professional pundit [31:32] and you didn't see [31:33] a version of this coming, [31:35] I'm sorry. [31:35] I do not feel bad for you. [31:37] Like, no, [31:38] the wool was not [31:39] pulled over your eyes. [31:41] This was fairly obvious. [31:42] I go back to the point [31:43] which is, [31:44] and I'm genuinely [31:44] trying to understand this, [31:45] is it that they believe [31:47] Donald Trump [31:48] or that he showed them [31:49] something that should [31:51] have made them [31:52] not believe Donald Trump? [31:53] It's a slight nuance, [31:54] but like Donald Trump said, [31:55] not starting any new wars. [31:57] We've spent a lot of wars. [31:58] I don't want to go [31:59] to any more wars. [32:00] So even if you looked [32:01] at Donald Trump [32:01] for the past nine years [32:03] before that moment [32:04] and said, [32:05] I now believe Donald Trump [32:07] because I don't want [32:08] to start new wars, [32:09] he lied to you. [32:11] And I think that's [32:11] where they are coming from. [32:12] They feel betrayed [32:13] that he lied to them [32:14] about this issue. [32:15] I think your point is valid, [32:16] which is anybody [32:16] who's been following Donald Trump [32:18] could have at least said [32:19] he lies about everything. [32:20] So this is not going to be new. [32:23] He's saying this, [32:24] and I remember this [32:25] because a lot of people, [32:27] a lot of Muslim Americans [32:28] in Michigan wanted Donald Trump [32:30] just because they did not [32:31] let Kamala Harris [32:32] and the positions [32:32] the Biden administration [32:33] took about Gaza. [32:34] Donald Trump found [32:35] a handful of Muslim leaders, [32:37] took them on stage [32:38] in Michigan, [32:39] and got them to stand [32:40] on stage with him [32:41] as he promised [32:42] no new wars. [32:43] And a lot of Muslim Americans [32:44] fell for that. [32:45] Now, that doesn't mean [32:46] that they bought into [32:47] everything Donald Trump said, [32:48] but on that one issue, [32:49] they were willing to go [32:50] along with it [32:51] simply because of the fact [32:52] that he offered them that lie. [32:54] And, you know, [32:56] that's the hard part in this, [32:57] is like they feel [32:58] that he was lied to [32:59] just as many as Megan Kelly [33:01] and Tucker Carlson [33:02] and perhaps others. [33:02] I think also... [33:03] But I think anyone [33:03] who follows Donald Trump [33:04] knows that he's been lying [33:05] since he came down this staircase. [33:06] It does remind me, though, [33:07] of 2016, [33:08] the blow-up vote [33:10] where people who didn't [33:12] want to vote for Hillary [33:13] and they're like, [33:13] we'll just take the chance, [33:15] we'll go with Trump. [33:15] And then so tired [33:17] of the Kamala Harris-Biden [33:19] status quo [33:19] that those Muslim American voters [33:21] were willing to risk it [33:23] and vote for Trump [33:23] who had been promising no wars [33:25] and didn't start a war [33:26] his first term. [33:28] Last thing I'll say [33:29] is just that I think [33:30] the other question [33:31] under this whole umbrella [33:32] is whether you believe [33:34] what they're even saying now [33:36] is a deeply held [33:37] and real conviction. [33:39] I think perhaps [33:40] for Marjorie Taylor Greene [33:41] who gave up her job, [33:42] who was certainly [33:43] very fearful [33:43] about what was going to happen [33:44] to her kids [33:45] and threats to her family, [33:46] but I think there's [33:47] a real open question [33:48] if anything Megan Kelly [33:49] is saying on her show [33:50] about any of this right now [33:51] is a deeply held conviction [33:52] or a reaction to something [33:53] she's just seeing [33:54] in her audience [33:55] or the way that she thinks [33:56] the wind is blowing. [33:57] I don't know. [34:00] In October of 2002, [34:01] the United States Congress [34:02] granted President George W. Bush [34:04] pushed the authority [34:05] to use military force [34:06] against Iraq. [34:08] Bush and his administration's [34:09] main justification [34:10] for that request [34:11] was based on intelligence [34:12] indicating that Saddam Hussein [34:14] had weapons of mass destruction. [34:16] Four months later, [34:17] the secretary of state, [34:18] Colin Powell, [34:19] presented that intelligence [34:20] to the international community [34:21] at the United Nations. [34:23] The next month, [34:24] the United States [34:25] along with Britain, [34:25] Australia and Poland [34:26] launched shock and awe, [34:29] the start of the invasion of Iraq. [34:31] Now, as we now know, [34:32] the intelligence that led [34:33] to that war was entirely wrong. [34:36] In 2005, [34:37] a bipartisan presidential commission [34:38] concluded that, quote, [34:40] the intelligence community [34:41] was dead wrong [34:42] in almost all of its pre-war judgments [34:44] about Iraq's weapons [34:46] of mass destruction. [34:47] This was a major intelligence failure, [34:50] end quote. [34:51] A major intelligence failure [34:52] that got us into an eight-year war. [34:55] Now, in the case [34:56] of the current war in Iran, [34:58] the inverse is true. [35:00] The intelligence [35:00] has proven to be correct. [35:02] President Trump just chose [35:04] to disregard it. [35:05] The genesis of this [35:06] was May 8, 2018, [35:09] when Trump withdrew [35:09] the United States [35:10] from the historic [35:11] Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, [35:13] that's the JCPOA, [35:15] which we will know better [35:16] as the Iran nuclear deal. [35:18] That decision was made [35:19] in spite of the intelligence [35:21] from the United Nations [35:22] and Trump's own administration, [35:24] certifying that Iran [35:25] was abiding [35:26] by the terms of the deal [35:27] and that the deal [35:28] was working to prevent Iran [35:30] from obtaining a nuclear weapon. [35:32] As a result of that withdrawal [35:34] and subsequent reinstallation [35:35] of harsh economic sanctions, [35:37] Iran started enriching uranium [35:39] again past the level [35:41] needed for civilian use. [35:43] And by 2023, [35:44] U.N. inspectors found [35:45] that Iran was getting closer [35:46] to obtaining weapons-grade uranium, [35:49] which is exactly [35:50] what the intelligence community [35:51] said would happen [35:53] if we pulled out [35:54] of the Iran nuclear deal. [35:55] And it's been the exact same story [35:57] with this current war. [35:59] As Shane Harris writes [36:00] in The Atlantic, [36:01] quote, [36:01] the intelligence community [36:02] was accurate and consistent [36:04] in its pre-war judgments [36:05] about Iran's capabilities [36:07] and intentions [36:08] to attack the United States [36:09] and its allies. [36:10] Contrary to what President Trump [36:12] has said to justify his decision, [36:14] the intelligence showed [36:15] that the Iranian regime [36:16] was not preparing [36:17] to use a nuclear weapon. [36:19] It did not have ballistic missiles [36:21] capable of reaching [36:22] the United States. [36:23] And in response [36:23] to a U.S. military attack, [36:25] Iran was likely to strike [36:27] at neighboring countries [36:28] in the Persian Gulf [36:29] and try to close [36:30] the Strait of Hormuz, [36:31] precipitating a global [36:32] economic crisis. [36:34] All of this was known [36:35] before the war [36:36] and presented [36:37] to President Trump. [36:39] This was an intelligence success, [36:42] end quote. [36:44] This was an intelligence success. [36:46] The failure lies [36:47] with President Trump, [36:48] Harris adds, [36:49] quote, [36:49] some of Trump's allies [36:50] have criticized him [36:51] for not making a public case [36:52] for the war [36:53] as the Bush administration did. [36:55] But if he had accurately [36:56] presented the intelligence, [36:57] the facts would have argued [36:59] against attacking Iran. [37:01] Perhaps that's why [37:02] the President ignored [37:03] and later misrepresented [37:05] what his advisors told him, [37:07] end quote. [37:08] One of those advisors, [37:09] his own National Counter-Terrorism Center [37:11] Director, Joe Kent, [37:13] a former Green Beret [37:14] and a MAGA loyalist, [37:16] recently resigned over the war, [37:18] writing on social media that, [37:19] quote, [37:19] Iran posed no imminent threat [37:21] to our nation, end quote. [37:23] And it's not just that. [37:24] Look at one of Trump's stated goals. [37:26] Regime change. [37:28] About a week before [37:29] the start of the strikes, [37:30] a classified report [37:31] from the U.S. National Intelligence Council [37:33] warned that the Iranian regime [37:35] was unlikely to be toppled [37:37] even by an extensive assault [37:39] like the one we saw play out [37:40] prior to the current ceasefire. [37:42] That's according to a report [37:43] of the Washington Post. [37:45] So unless you count [37:45] replacing one Ayatollah Khamenei [37:48] with a younger, [37:49] more hardline Ayatollah Khamenei [37:51] as regime change, [37:53] once again, [37:54] the intelligence was right. [37:57] As Harris concludes, [37:58] quote, [37:58] two decades ago, [37:59] a president embraced information [38:00] that turned out to be wrong [38:02] and disaster followed. [38:03] Today, [38:03] a president disregards assessments [38:05] that prove to be right [38:06] and the predictable comes to pass. [38:08] There's a failure of intelligence [38:10] there, too, [38:11] just not the kind [38:12] we're used to seeing, [38:13] end quote. [38:13] Joining me now to discuss, [38:15] this is John Brennan. [38:15] He's a former director [38:16] of the CIA [38:17] under President Obama. [38:18] He led the agency [38:19] from 2013 to 2017. [38:20] He's also a senior [38:21] national security advisor [38:22] and intelligence analyst [38:24] for MSNOW. [38:26] Director Brennan, [38:26] thank you for being with us. [38:28] I just can't get past this point. [38:30] This is not a failure [38:31] of intelligence. [38:33] This administration [38:33] had information [38:35] that has played out completely [38:36] as we're seeing it. [38:38] How did we get to this? [38:40] Well, that's a good question, Ali. [38:41] As you pointed out, [38:42] the intelligence community failed [38:43] in the run-up [38:44] to the invasion of Iraq. [38:46] But the intelligence community [38:47] processes were overhauled [38:49] and they learned a lot of [38:50] very painful lessons as a result. [38:52] But looking at this war, [38:54] this very needless war, [38:55] every intelligence professional [38:57] who had worked on the region [38:59] or on nuclear matters [39:00] or whatever, [39:01] I think came to the same conclusion. [39:03] First of all, [39:03] Iran did not have [39:04] a nuclear weapon. [39:05] It was not close to, [39:06] in fact, [39:06] developing a nuclear weapon. [39:08] Yes, it had highly enriched uranium, [39:10] which was a concern. [39:11] But in terms of the impact [39:13] of an air campaign on Iran, [39:15] I think there was unanimity [39:16] in terms of this was not going [39:18] to bring about a regime change. [39:21] But this is, you know, [39:22] consistent with Donald Trump's past. [39:24] He has long been dismissive [39:26] of intelligence community products. [39:29] He has long disparaged [39:30] the intelligence community professionals. [39:32] I think it's all part [39:32] of his narcissism and megalomania [39:35] that he believes [39:36] he's the most brilliant person [39:37] in the room [39:37] and he goes on his gut instinct [39:39] as opposed to what [39:40] the intelligence community [39:41] and what the facts [39:42] really are quite evident [39:44] in terms of what would happen [39:46] with this disastrous pursuit [39:48] of this war campaign. [39:50] So, Director Brennan, [39:51] I think it's important [39:53] for our viewers to understand [39:54] that this information [39:55] about what we knew about Iran, [39:57] some of it's classified, [39:58] but a lot of it [39:59] was fully, fully out there. [40:01] I want to play for you [40:01] an exchange that took place [40:03] between John Ossoff [40:04] and the Director [40:05] of National Intelligence, [40:06] Telsey Gabbard, [40:07] in Congress before this. [40:09] So the assessment [40:12] of the intelligence community [40:13] is that Iran's [40:14] nuclear enrichment program [40:16] was obliterated [40:17] by last summer's airstrikes. [40:18] Yes. [40:19] And the opening statement [40:20] you submitted to the committee [40:21] last night also stated, [40:22] quote, [40:23] there has been no effort [40:24] since then [40:25] to try to rebuild [40:26] their enrichment capability, [40:28] end quote, correct? [40:29] That's right. [40:29] And that's the assessment [40:30] of the intelligence community. [40:32] Yes. [40:33] The White House stated [40:34] on March 1st of this year [40:35] that this war was launched [40:37] and was, quote, [40:39] a military campaign [40:40] to eliminate [40:41] the imminent nuclear threat [40:42] posed by the Iranian regime, [40:44] end quote. [40:46] That's a statement [40:46] from the White House. [40:48] Quote, [40:48] the imminent nuclear threat [40:49] posed by the Iranian regime. [40:52] Was it the assessment [40:53] of the intelligence community [40:54] that there was [40:55] an imminent nuclear threat [40:56] posed by the Iranian regime? [41:00] The intelligence community [41:01] assessed that Iran [41:02] maintained the intention [41:04] to rebuild [41:05] and to continue to grow [41:06] their nuclear enrichment capability. [41:08] Was it the assessment [41:09] of the intelligence community [41:10] that there was a, quote, [41:11] imminent nuclear threat [41:13] posed by the Iranian regime? [41:14] Yes or no? [41:15] Senator, [41:15] the only person [41:16] who can determine [41:17] what is and is not [41:19] an imminent threat [41:19] is the president. [41:20] False. [41:23] Director Brennan, [41:24] I want to ask you [41:24] about that last sentence. [41:25] So Tulsi Gabbard [41:26] was pretty clear [41:27] that Iran didn't pose [41:29] an imminent nuclear threat. [41:31] And when asked [41:32] by John Ossoff, [41:33] she said the only person [41:33] who can determine [41:35] what is or isn't [41:36] an imminent threat [41:37] is the president. [41:38] I would have thought [41:38] the president can decide [41:39] what he wants to do about it [41:40] and what the American [41:41] military will do about it, [41:43] but is the determination [41:43] of that not left [41:44] to our intelligence agencies? [41:46] Yes. [41:47] Tulsi Gabbard's statement [41:48] was absurd. [41:49] It is the intelligence [41:51] community's responsibility, [41:53] obligation to identify [41:54] threats to U.S. [41:56] national security. [41:57] And certainly in this case, [41:58] in terms of Iran's [41:59] nuclear enrichment program, [42:02] it was the assessment [42:03] of the U.S. [42:03] intelligence community [42:04] for many years [42:05] that Iran was not able, [42:07] at this point, [42:08] be able to fabricate [42:09] a nuclear warhead [42:10] and then marry it [42:11] with some type of delivery [42:12] system for a weapon. [42:13] And so their lies [42:14] are obvious. [42:15] Their own assessments [42:16] really undercut [42:18] their rationale, [42:20] their explanations, [42:21] their foolish efforts [42:23] to try to provide [42:25] some type of rationale [42:27] or basis for this war. [42:28] But clearly, [42:30] it was the intelligence [42:30] community's continued [42:31] assessment that Iran [42:32] didn't pose [42:33] an imminent threat. [42:34] There was no reason, [42:35] no casus validi [42:36] in terms of going to war, [42:37] but they continued [42:38] to just allow Donald Trump, [42:40] who has such ignorance [42:42] of the region [42:43] and, I think, [42:44] tremendous incompetence [42:45] as well as failure [42:46] to understand [42:47] what the intelligence [42:48] is providing. [42:50] He makes the decision [42:51] single-handedly, [42:52] and according to the [42:53] recent reporting [42:53] that's out there [42:54] as they went around [42:55] the White House [42:55] situation room, [42:56] nobody was willing [42:57] to say, [42:58] Mr. President, [42:58] this is a bad idea. [42:59] We should not do this. [43:00] So Donald Trump said [43:02] early in this campaign, [43:04] he was asked by a reporter [43:05] that, you know, [43:06] people are getting frustrated [43:06] by the high price of gas, [43:08] and he said, [43:08] well, they'll be really happy [43:09] that someone can't [43:11] throw a nuclear-armed missile [43:12] at us. [43:13] I'm paraphrasing here. [43:14] As you pointed out, [43:16] there's two parts to this. [43:17] There has to be [43:18] a nuclear warhead [43:19] and there has to be [43:19] a delivery system [43:20] capable of reaching [43:21] the United States [43:22] for there to be a threat [43:23] that Iran could throw, [43:24] as Donald Trump says, [43:25] a nuclear-armed missile [43:26] at the United States. [43:27] Both of those things [43:28] currently are false. [43:29] It doesn't mean that Iran [43:30] wouldn't like to have it [43:31] or isn't working towards it, [43:32] but we have determined [43:34] that that's not actually a thing. [43:36] That's right. [43:36] And Donald Trump's statements [43:37] were asinine [43:38] and intentionally, [43:39] I think, [43:40] misrepresenting the facts. [43:41] As we well know, [43:42] he is just a consistent liar [43:44] on these issues. [43:45] And to use these lies [43:46] as the basis [43:47] to go to war [43:48] that led to the devastation [43:50] of so many people, [43:51] and look at what's happening [43:52] inside of Iran and Lebanon, [43:53] U.S. service members [43:54] being killed, [43:55] the fact that he's able [43:56] to do that [43:56] and members of his party [43:58] and his MAGA base [43:59] continue to explain [44:01] and apologize for him [44:02] or rationalize [44:03] what he's doing [44:04] is just so, [44:06] so troubling [44:06] and worrisome [44:07] that this person [44:08] who clearly is unhinged [44:09] and who I think [44:10] the 25th Amendment [44:11] was written [44:12] with Donald Trump's in mind [44:14] because allowing someone [44:15] like this [44:16] to continue to be [44:16] the commander-in-chief [44:17] and to control [44:18] the tremendous capabilities [44:20] of the U.S. military, [44:21] including our nuclear weapons [44:22] capability, [44:23] which he seemed [44:24] to allude to [44:25] when he said [44:25] he was going to [44:26] just eliminate [44:27] an entire civilization, [44:29] again, [44:29] we really are [44:30] in very, [44:31] very troubling times. [44:32] And I'm very glad [44:33] that, [44:33] at least according to reporting, [44:35] Vice President Vance [44:36] has brought some [44:36] government professionals [44:38] and experts with him [44:39] to these discussions [44:40] in Islamabad. [44:42] And so we've gotten rid [44:43] of the private equity guys [44:44] and the real estate developers [44:45] engaged in these negotiations. [44:47] We need experts [44:47] to be involved in this. [44:49] Yeah, sadly, [44:50] the private equity guys [44:51] and the real estate negotiators [44:51] are in Islamabad. [44:53] They're hanging out, [44:53] but let's hope [44:54] they're not leading [44:54] the negotiations. [44:55] Director, [44:56] good to see you as always. [44:57] John Brennan, [44:57] the former director [44:58] of the CIA [44:58] and MSNOW, [44:59] senior national security [45:00] and intelligence analyst. [45:01] We'll be right back.