MS NOW Highlights - July 16

[0:00] Well, we got what has to be the most perfect corruption story out of the White House yet. [0:04] A longtime Donald Trump aide, the guy who has run his teleprompter since 2016, [0:08] a guy named Gabriel Perez, is believed to have made about $100,000 on the prediction market [0:14] platform Kalshi by betting on what Trump will say in his scheduled speeches, [0:20] including his State of the Union address in February. According to ABC News, which broke [0:24] the story, quote, Kalshi alerted its regulator to the suspicious activity on its mentions market, [0:29] where users can bet on whether specific words, phrases or topics are uttered during a public [0:33] speech. The White House basically confirmed the story in today's press briefing. [0:39] Obviously, I'm aware of the report. The president is, too. I spoke with him about it. He believes [0:44] it's deeply unfortunate and frankly, a disgrace. And the individual that was cited in that report [0:50] is complying with the CFTC, but has been put on paid administrative leave. So there will be a [0:56] teleprompter operator tonight, of course, but it will not be the one, unfortunately, in that story. [1:00] Well, it's pretty rich. They find this one so deeply unfortunate, frankly, a disgrace when [1:05] it's completely emblematic of the most corrupt administration ever, all the White House, [1:09] where we've seen everything from 100 grand for the teleprompter guy to billion dollar crypto [1:13] schemes to the millions going to the no-bid contract to fail at renovating the reflecting [1:17] pool. The Trump regime is rife with corruption, big and small. David Farren holds an investigative [1:23] reporter at The New York Times, who reported this week on an FBI evidence team visiting the [1:28] reflecting pool. And he joins me. Now, I was thinking of the prompter story today as somehow [1:32] in the perfectly same categories of reflecting pool, which is like small and colorful enough [1:37] to completely get your arms around. So I want to start just with the contract part of it before [1:42] you get the FBI, because you've been doing some reporting on that, like how this company got the [1:48] contract and they now apparently are going to get more money to fix the thing that it certainly [1:52] appears they screwed up in the first place? Yeah. The Trump administration gave out two [1:58] no-bid contracts to work in the reflecting pool. One was to add a water purification system. But [2:03] the bigger one, more than $14 million, was to this company, Atlantic Industrial Coatings. [2:08] President Trump originally said they were his pool guys, then later turned around and said he didn't [2:12] know them at all. This company to put this sort of waterproofing coating down on the reflecting [2:16] pool. Trump said it would last for 50 years. The Park Service thought it would last for five or six [2:21] years. It really lasted a couple of weeks or less. By the middle of June, you could already see [2:26] sections of it pulling up and floating in the pool. President Trump has said it was caused by [2:30] vandals or something like that. But it appears that just there were problems in this application, [2:35] that they'd been paid millions of dollars to do. Now we don't really know how long it's going to take [2:38] to fix it, how much they're going to be paid, if anything, or even the extent of the damage. [2:46] The president has insisted this is the work of vandals, and the tail has grown [2:51] more embroidered every time he brings it up. It was 100 yards, 150, 300. The most recent was that [2:58] the vandals' slashes were 300 yards long, and floor of the pool was cut and then pulled upward with [3:03] great force by these thugs. Now, you report, the National Park Service reported described cuts [3:11] in a different part of the pool, a strip of great caulking around the pool's edge, which is very [3:15] different. It did not mention the damage to the blue lining that covers its broad floor, [3:19] though the Interior Department said later the blue section was disturbed. It does seem Occam's razor [3:24] here is that it wasn't affixed properly and just came up, right? Isn't that a fair assessment of [3:28] the evidence so far? That's all the evidence we've seen points to that. You can see in internal [3:33] Park Service documents, after a few days, they say, look, it's starting to pull up. It's easy to pull [3:37] off. A little bit of force starts it going. There's nothing in those internal documents saying, [3:42] well, this was the work of evil vandals. Now, there have been some people charged with pulling up [3:45] pieces of the pool, but that was days later after everybody had seen that it was already peed. [3:49] Yes. So what the heck is the FBI doing out there gathering evidence, I guess, is my next question. [3:57] Probably wishing, thinking that they went to school for this, right? And saying how they can't imagine [4:03] that they're there. So they're helping the Park Police investigate what President Trump has said, [4:09] that this is a 350-foot gash in the pool and people pulled it up. So they were out there yesterday [4:15] with basically 3D scanning equipment, like you might use in a crime scene to get a 3D model of [4:20] a crime scene. But this crime scene is 2,000 feet long and 167 feet wide. So you can see them out [4:26] there taking measurements, sort of surveying the scene, like they're going to treat it like a crime [4:30] scene. The odd thing about it is the pool is still really dirty. It's full of detritus from the [4:35] fireworks show on July 4th. It's got all kinds of grime in it. So any damage to the pool is now buried [4:41] under this layer of grime. I don't really know what they're getting in these surveys. [4:46] So, okay. So let's assess here. So the same company is now going to fix this. [4:51] The bottom has turned gray, is no longer American flag blue. The FBI is out there with [4:57] some sort of 3D rendering techniques to investigate a supposed master villain who has [5:03] cut a 300-yard bottom in it. And it's still not fixed and now drained and sitting [5:09] in the summer heat dry and dirty. Yeah. Remember, the whole reason that they said [5:15] they needed to do these no-vid contracts and needed to rush this out, they couldn't look to [5:19] see if anybody else could do the job better and more cheaply, was it had to be done by July 4th. [5:23] Absolutely had to be ready for the Independence Day celebrations. And because it was done apparently [5:28] so badly, instead of being ready, it had to be fenced off, the public kept away, and now it's dry. [5:34] So it would have been better to just, you know, power wash it once and let it and then refill it [5:39] and do what they've done. It would have cost a lot less. [5:43] Is there a way that the—are we ever going to get to the bottom of how this contract came about? [5:49] Because at first I was like, oh, he is—if there's a single person in the world, I think, [5:54] who has a pool guy, it's probably Trump. But then it turned out not to be his pool guy. [5:59] So, like, I don't actually understand how these people got it. [6:03] It is baffling. We're going to get to the bottom of it, Chris. But that's really important. [6:07] President Trump came out and said on several occasions, he actually made a YouTube video [6:11] from the Resolute desk in the White House where he said, I found these people. These are my pool [6:16] guys. They fixed the pool in my golf club in Northern Virginia, and I found them, and I talked [6:19] to them. And he gave this very—the same account in several situations. None of that seems to be [6:25] true. He doesn't know these people. They don't do pools. They're not his pool guy. They're not [6:29] anyone's pool guy. So I don't know if he just made it up or someone told him this has happened. [6:33] But he was relating this as something that he had personally done, and now he says that none of that [6:38] was true. Though I think that there was somebody named David Schutzenhofer, the general manager [6:42] of Trump's golf club in Bedminster, seems to have played a role in choosing how all this happened. [6:46] How he knows these people and how he got put in charge of that, I'm still trying to figure that out. [6:51] Well, we will await that with bated breath. And I have faith, if anyone can get the bottom of this, [6:56] it is you, David Parenthold. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. [6:58] After months of radio silence from the Department of Justice amid their mishandling of the release [7:06] of the Epstein files, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse are finally, finally getting [7:12] their opportunity to meet with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and it's happening later [7:16] this hour. The meeting comes after this powerful testimony from Epstein survivor and friend of this [7:22] program, Danny Bensky. It comes on the second day of Todd Blanche's confirmation hearings. Watch. [7:28] We may look like grown adults when you see us now, but we were children. Young girls at the time of [7:36] our abuse. These are the photos of when our innocence, dreams, and lives were stolen. Please [7:41] take these faces in as you think of us as your own family, daughters, nieces, sisters. Now look at our [7:49] faces and remember the women and families of who the DOJ re-victimized. Todd Blanche has been at the helm of [7:57] the release of nude images of survivors, the outing of Jane Doe's, and the exposure of more than 100 [8:04] victims identifying information and documents describing horrific acts of abuse, including my own. [8:11] Instead of treating this release as its own violation and holding the man who led it accountable, [8:18] you have a decision on whether you place him in the highest law enforcement position in this country. [8:26] Now, this meeting that Danny and other survivors are having with Todd Blanche is only coming because [8:37] Republican Tom Tillis made it a condition for arriving at yes to confirm Todd Blanche. It's not [8:44] like Todd Blanche woke up and said, maybe I should listen to the survivors of abuse. No, this is to get [8:50] a vote, but it is happening. But important to note that Todd Blanche easily could have met with survivors [8:57] months ago or years ago at this point, two years ago when he took the job when they requested to [9:02] meet with him. Another flashpoint at Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing today was testimony about the [9:08] damage that Todd Blanche has already done to the Department of Justice because of the purge of [9:14] thousands of career employees that he is responsible for and that he's even publicly bragged about. [9:20] Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee sought to highlight how these firings should be [9:24] disqualifying for anyone seeking to leave the department. They called on former DOJ pardon [9:29] attorney Liz Oyer, someone we turned to, to understand what's happening inside the department. [9:34] Democrats today wanted her to testify about why she says she was fired by Todd Blanche [9:40] and explain the lengths he and his office went to to keep her quiet about it. Watch. [9:46] Two days after Mr. Blanche was confirmed as deputy attorney general, [9:50] he fired me from my position as the department's career pardon attorney. I declined to rubber stamp [9:57] a political favor for a friend of the president and it cost me my job. Mr. Blanche's office had asked [10:03] me to recommend restoring the gun ownership rights of a convicted domestic abuser. I raised concerns about [10:11] public safety, but Mr. Blanche's staff pressured me to go along anyway. I did not. But because this [10:19] particular domestic abuser had a personal relationship with the president, Mr. Blanche's staff asked me to [10:26] set aside my concerns. When I wouldn't, Mr. Blanche fired me within hours. He then took extraordinary [10:33] measures to silence me. He sent U.S. Marshals to my home in an effort to prevent me from speaking with [10:40] members of Congress. Seems like a pretty clear and obvious sequence of events. Decline to do a favor for [10:50] Donald Trump's friend. Lose your job at the hand of Todd Blanche. But in Todd Blanche's confirmation [10:57] hearing yesterday, he tried to assert that Liz Oyer is firing and nothing to do with her declining [11:02] his request to restore gun rights to Donald Trump's friend, the actor Mel Gibson, and said that he in [11:08] fact tried to give her a heads up that U.S. Marshals were heading to her house. Here's Liz Oyer rebuking [11:14] those claims from Todd Blanche about her firing and warning the Senate and the public that putting [11:19] Todd Blanche in charge of the Department of Justice is a threat to the country. I was shocked to hear [11:28] Mr. Blanche's testimony about this yesterday. What he said about my firing is provably false. His claim [11:36] that it had nothing to do with the concerns I raised is contradicted by documents and evidence. His claim [11:42] that he tried to call me before sending marshals to my home is flat out false. His claim that it is [11:49] normal for DOJ to use armed law enforcement officers to deliver mail to the homes of its former employees [11:57] is preposterous. The casual lies that Mr. Blanche tells even while sitting in this chair testifying to [12:08] this committee are emblematic of a much larger problem. To the American public, it looks like Mr. Blanche is [12:16] running DOJ as Donald Trump's personal law firm. Americans across the political spectrum [12:22] rely on DOJ to keep us safe and free. Mr. Blanche has shown that he is willing to put all of that at risk [12:30] to serve a political agenda. I beg the members of this committee to think about what this is costing our [12:37] country. Please do not degrade our justice system further by promoting Mr. Blanche. The destruction Todd Blanche [12:47] has already wrought at the Department of Justice, which he is seeking to lead, is where we start [12:52] today. Former Department of Justice partner attorney Liz Oyer joins us. She is now the host of the [12:58] podcast, Is This Really Legal? And with me for the hour, senior political analyst, host of the Runaway [13:03] Country podcast, author of the sub-sec, How the Hell with Alex Wagner. Alex Wagner joins us. Liz, [13:10] your testimony was extraordinary and courageous. Just take me through the experience. [13:15] I was really nervous to go up there and testify, Nicole, because I don't know what the Justice [13:22] Department is capable of under Todd Blanche's leadership. They've put me through the ringer [13:27] once in connection with my firing. When I spoke out about my firing, they sent armed law enforcement [13:33] officers to my home. Mr. Blanche has demonstrated that he has a very casual relationship with the truth. [13:40] He lies when convenient to get what he wants. And so I have this fear of what shoe might drop next, [13:47] what he might try to do to me next. It seems like he coordinated with some of the Republican members [13:54] of the panel to try to attack my credibility in the hearing. And that was really the focus of all [14:00] the questions I got today, which was surprising. I didn't get any questions from the Republican members [14:06] of the committee about Mr. Blanche. I got a lot of questions about myself in an effort, I think, [14:13] to suggest that I'm not a credible witness because they really don't have any response on the facts. [14:20] They don't have any way to dispute any of the things that I testified about. So, you know, Mr. Blanche, [14:27] I think just proved himself in the hearing to be somebody that he really desperately wants this job [14:34] and he will say what is necessary to get it. And I felt like it was my duty to go up there on the hill [14:40] today and share my own experience and tell the truth. I felt like that was my duty to my fellow [14:47] citizens, to the many people in this country who care about the Justice Department and care about our [14:52] future. And, you know, it wasn't a pleasant experience. It was very stressful. I'm very tired, [14:57] but I'm glad I did it. I felt like it was the right thing to do. [15:02] Are you more afraid now than before you testified against Todd Blanche? [15:08] Yes. He's, you know, at this point, the one of the most powerful people in the country, [15:13] and he stands to get potentially even more powerful if he's confirmed. And I'm well aware that I've sort of [15:21] pitted myself against as an opponent of this incredibly powerful man who has proven that he [15:28] is vindictive and lies. And, you know, I just don't know what he's capable of. And it is genuinely very [15:38] scary. But I'm more scared of what his leadership will do to our justice system. We all rely on a [15:47] justice system that is fair and impartial to protect our civil rights, to keep us safe. [15:53] And Mr. Blanche is a real threat to that. So the risk of testifying against him, in my mind, [15:59] you know, it was a no brainer. It was worth taking. Liz, do you ever wonder how you ended up fighting [16:06] this fight, not alone, but without some of the former leaders of the Department of Justice, [16:15] people like Merrick Garland or Lisa Monica or leaders of the FBI, Christopher Wray, under whom [16:21] all of you served and worked and who, even if they couldn't keep Todd Blanche from harassing you or [16:26] investigating you, they could testify to the character of the workforce of the men and women [16:31] of the Department of Justice. Yeah, I think there is sort of a mixed bag because there is a segment [16:38] of our country that associates Merrick Garland and other leaders of the Justice Department under Biden [16:45] with Biden's leadership. And there are people who are unhappy with Biden's leadership. And my goal [16:51] in speaking out, I was not a political appointee. I wasn't appointed by President Biden. I didn't work [16:56] for him, didn't work for any president. I worked for the American people and I was nonpolitical. And my [17:02] goal in speaking out and, you know, I think the goal that other nonpolitical Justice Department [17:07] employees have is to really try to amplify that the Justice Department is not a political place. [17:14] Almost all of its work is nonpolitical. It benefits everyone, regardless of your partisan political [17:20] affiliation. And I don't know that it would be helpful to have people like Merrick Garland sort [17:26] of leading the conversation on that. I don't have, you know, the same name recognition and platform as [17:31] someone like that. But I feel like my voice has a certain credibility because I'm nonpartisan. I do [17:38] hope that more nonpartisan career employees of the Justice Department will join this conversation to [17:46] really try to demonstrate to the American people that DOJ is not meant to be political. It's work [17:53] matters to all of us, regardless of partisan politics. And we don't, we cannot have someone [17:59] like Todd Blanche in charge of the powers of the Justice Department. [18:03] Apparently, Pete Hegseth is attempting another rebrand of the Pentagon. [18:09] Allow me to introduce you to the high T Department of War, where the T stands for testosterone. [18:17] Our most decisive tactical advantage will always be the individual warfighter. We have a sacred duty [18:24] to maintain that advantage, which is why we must constantly look for new ways to optimize [18:29] your performance, your resilience, and your long-term health. And to meet that commitment today, [18:36] I'm authorizing a new screening program for testosterone deficiency for our service members, [18:42] ensuring you have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute best. [18:48] This is not a parody. This new mandatory policy will test both male and female troops over 30 for [18:55] low testosterone. Anyone with low hormone levels will have the option to receive [19:00] testosterone replacement therapy. Joining us now, Rachel Van Landingham, [19:04] a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the US Air Force and a former JAG. Eddie Glaude is still with us. [19:08] Rachel, Rachel, Rachel. What message does this send our troops? [19:17] Well, it sends our troops who, by the way, the United States military engaged in six hours of [19:22] airstrikes last night over Iran, that the Secretary of Defense is more worried about limiting medical [19:28] autonomy of our troops than he is regarding the major war that's being waged right now. What's really [19:35] striking to me, Alicia, is the broad brushstroke of this new policy and the fact that it applies [19:41] to women as well as men. There is no FDA-approved low testosterone treatment for women. And if he's [19:49] really concerned about the health of our force and preventive medicine is a good thing, then he should [19:55] also be mandating estrogen screening for women over a certain age because there's, you know, [20:01] tons of research out there that estrogen is needed and it declines drastically in women over a certain [20:06] age. So this focus really on male virility, male testosterone, and the fact that it was rolled out by [20:13] the sitting secretary of actually defense, aka war, during a time of war is troubling. [20:21] I want to pick up, Rachel, on what you just said there because the Defense Department declined to [20:25] say whether there would be estrogen screenings for female service members and if there would [20:29] be repercussions for service members who declined recommended testosterone treatment. [20:34] NBC News points out that since 2015, these therapies, quote, [20:38] carried warning labels and have only been available to men who have both low testosterone [20:43] and an associated medical condition. Any concerns, Rachel, that troops could potentially [20:47] get medical interventions they don't actually need? Well, I do trust the medical providers within [20:54] the military to follow approved FDA guidance. And let's be honest here, the fact that Congress did [21:02] mandate the Pentagon just last year in the National Defense Authorization Act to do a deep dive into [21:09] a screening for low testosterone and possible treatment protocols. So this has long been a concern, [21:15] particularly amongst our special operations personnel, that low testosterone was something that was [21:21] afflicting particularly them in greater numbers. But there was a stigma in seeking screening for it, [21:28] a stigma because they were afraid of an effect on deployability. So they were often going off base, [21:33] off label to try to treat this. So I think, you know, in a nuanced way, this is a good approach to [21:39] saying, hey, look, everyone's going to get screened once a year during part of your already annual [21:44] physical health assessment. This is just a screening tool to ensure that, you know, we head off things [21:49] at the pass for men of a certain age. That's fine. But I'd like to see that it's limited to men, [21:55] that there are privacy protocols put into place and transparency regarding what's the effect of this [22:00] if the member declines the treatment. And parallel to that, what about women? Women shouldn't be tested [22:07] for testosterone. Yes, women have testosterone, but at rates 10 to 20 times less than men. And it should [22:14] be part of a much broader preventative health approach, such as estrogen, hormone replacement [22:19] therapy, screening, and then, you know, guidance one-on-one with their providers. [22:23] That context is so fascinating, Eddie, especially because Hegseth doesn't sound like the secretary [22:31] of defense in that video. He sounds like an influencer who's trying to sell you supplements. [22:35] And it's all, right, it's all, it's all because it all sounds vibes-based. [22:39] Yeah, absolutely. So that, what Rachel just laid out makes me less harsh, less judgmental about what's, [22:45] what the policy is about. But I think there are three things that really animate how my response to [22:49] this. One, every time Hegseth talks about manly man, I just want to just play men in tights. [22:54] That's the first thing I want to do. The second thing, the second thing I want to talk about is [22:57] that there, we need to begin to think about the way, the intellectual kind of lines, the kind of [23:03] tributaries that inform and shape this stuff. This sounds a lot like a kind of respectable version of [23:09] Bronze Age pervert stuff around manly man, around a certain kind of notion of masculinity that we need [23:15] to begin to interrogate. And then there are, of course, Hegseth's Christian commitments. [23:19] This is also tied to a kind of muscular Christianity that was really critical to the 19th century, [23:25] that led to an expansion of YMCAs and the like, about spiritual athletics and the like. And we see [23:31] this discourse animating much of what Hegseth has done, and particularly the folks he's committed to, [23:39] religious community they're committed to. So we need to see these tributaries and connect the dots, [23:44] it seems to me. It's interesting to me, your slip of tongue there, because you said Donald Trump [23:47] instead of Hegseth. But we all know where this actually comes from, which is this idea, [23:51] Rachel Van Landingham, that somehow the American military is not mighty enough, [23:57] that there had to be a culture shift. And I think that is the challenge. It is hard not to see this [24:02] policy in the broader culture shift that Hegseth has brought to the fore. [24:07] Absolutely, Alicia. And it's not that it's just not mighty enough. It's not white male enough for [24:14] Secretary Hegseth. Secretary Hegseth has fired women, senior military leaders, has blocked for no [24:20] cause senior military women being promoted. He's blocked their promotions. He has said in his books [24:26] and written that he does not believe women belong in combat. He has mandated the highest male standards [24:32] for combat positions. This seems part and parcel of his war on women as well as his war on minorities. [24:39] You can put that all together. Professor Rachel Van Landingham, Eddie Glaude, [24:44] I am so grateful to both of you. Thank you so much for being with us. [24:46] I want to turn this a little serious. This guy felt comfortable also judging your faith. [24:57] This guy and others felt comfortable saying you're going, that you're going to hell. Now, [25:04] I find this absolutely fascinating that somebody could be so ignorant of the gospels of Jesus Christ [25:12] that they would make such a proclamation in a political campaign, not even knowing that Jesus said, [25:22] judge not that you be not judged. Blessed are the merciful for they shall be shown mercy. [25:26] The same, you know, by the measure that you use for other people, I will use that measure against you. [25:32] I mean, the fastest way to hell if you believe what Jesus Christ says is to be focused on the speck in [25:41] your neighbor's eye instead of the plank in your own. And yet again, they continue to attack your faith [25:49] and your relationship with Jesus Christ, which again, I not only find offensive, but I also [25:56] find it self-defeating because people that actually read the Bible, that read the red letters, [26:02] understand that is the last thing a Christian is supposed to do. [26:05] Yeah, that's exactly right. You know, my granddad was a Baptist preacher in South Texas, [26:11] in Laredo. And when I was real little, he told me that as Christians, we're supposed to follow the [26:18] two commandments that Jesus gave us to love God and to love neighbor. That's it. Christianity is a [26:24] simple religion. He would always tell me not an easy religion because it's not always easy to love [26:29] our neighbors, but it is a simple religion. And if we can focus on those two commandments, [26:34] if we can love our neighbors, not, not just our neighbors who look like us, not just our neighbors [26:39] who pray like us, not just our neighbors who vote like us, if we can love all of our neighbors, [26:45] including our enemies, that's when we are truly following that barefoot rabbi from 2000 years [26:51] ago. It's that commandment to love thy neighbor is what it got me into public service. It's why [26:57] I became a public school teacher on the west side of San Antonio. It's why I ran for the state house. [27:03] It's why I've passed those 60 bipartisan bills to lower people's costs. I'm trying to love my neighbor [27:09] through public policy. I'm trying to make my neighbor's life a little easier, a little better, [27:14] a little less stressful. Yeah. And it feels like that kind of love has been missing from our [27:18] politics, from our public service for a long time now. And it really does feel like in Texas, [27:25] that message from 2000 years ago is still resonating with people today, particularly today, [27:31] given the divisive, corrosive politics we've all been suffering under for 10 years now. [27:38] Yeah, you know, and I don't want to get too deep into theology here, but there is something really [27:44] important that needs to be said based on what you just mentioned, what your grandfather, [27:50] preacher, told you. Jesus is very clear. All the laws, they all collapse into two things, [27:58] love God, love your neighbor. And then, and this is, this is so important to explain, [28:04] I will say to my Republican friends who don't understand this, who may not have read the Bible, [28:11] but also people that, that, that want to understand more of like what's going on on [28:15] the hard right, how it's the antithesis of what Jesus preached. So Jesus said to the disciples, [28:21] love God and love your neighbor. The disciples said, oh, who's my neighbor? [28:24] That's right. After Jesus said, love God, love your neighbor. So what does Jesus say? He goes, [28:30] let me tell you a story. And he tells the story of the good Samaritan and tells how, how a man's [28:37] beaten up. He's left on the side of the road and all of his friends, all of his neighbors, all of his [28:43] own people passed him by, left him in the ditch to die. It was a despised Samaritan. It was a foreigner. [28:50] And Jesus specifically picked a foreigner who's the most despised to save this man in the ditch. [28:58] And he said, that is your neighbor. So when I see people being gunned down in the streets, [29:07] when I see people despising the others, whether they are black or they are brown, [29:14] because they don't fit into their vision of what a white America is like, can you explain how that [29:21] is the antithesis of everything Jesus taught his disciples, especially when he was telling them [29:29] how to get to heaven? Yeah, you're taking us to church, Joe. This parable of the good Samaritan, [29:37] I think, has so much to offer us in this moment in our country, this moment in the world, [29:44] because you're absolutely right. For Jesus' listeners 2,000 years ago, [29:49] that story of the good Samaritan would have been shocking. You know, these days, [29:54] we think of a good Samaritan as someone who just helps people on the side of the road. And that's [29:58] important. You should help people on the side of the road. But we're forgetting how radical that [30:02] message was that he picked a Samaritan, not just an enemy, but a religious enemy. And so he lifted up [30:10] the heretic. He said the heretic is where salvation comes from. That is such a shocking message. It's [30:16] still shocking today. I've said it's as if Jesus stood in the middle of DKR Memorial Stadium at the [30:24] University of Texas and told a story called the good Aggie. Like, it would be shocking to the folks [30:30] who were listening. And no, my dad's an Aggie, so I can make that joke. But, you know, I think we [30:36] have to remember that the other, the outcast, the enemy has something to teach us. And I would say [30:44] that's true for the Democratic Party, too. Jesus would be telling us that the person who's going to [30:49] help us is our MAGA uncle. And that would be shocking for Democrats to hear. So we all need to [30:56] check ourselves, because these these media systems, particularly social media, these algorithms, [31:02] they divide us for the profit of a few people at the very top. They're pitting neighbor against [31:08] neighbor, telling us that that our enemies are the problem. And Jesus is trying to break all of that [31:14] from from 2000 years ago. His message is is as relevant today as it's ever been. And I think if we [31:21] can learn to love the neighbor, if we can learn to love our enemies, that is the key to saving this [31:27] American experiment in self-governance, not just here, but this experiment in democracy all over [31:32] the world. So how do you take this message to the voters in Texas, but also to your competitor, [31:40] Ken Paxton? We understand you have an announcement. Well, you know, Ken Paxton's billionaire handlers [31:48] don't let him answer questions in public. He hasn't appeared on a debate stage in more than a decade. [31:56] He refuses to answer really basic questions like, why did you give an Epstein style sweetheart deal [32:03] to an admitted child predator, Adam Hoffman? How did you become a multimillionaire on a government salary? [32:11] Did Tim Dunn and Ferris Wilkes, your top two billionaire mega donors, buy an acquittal in [32:18] your impeachment trial? He won't answer, I think, those very relevant questions. He doesn't answer [32:24] to the public because he's not a public servant. He is a puppet politician. And I want him to prove me [32:31] wrong. As we just talked about, we have to be focused on forgiveness and redemption and second [32:37] chances. And so that's why I am challenging Ken Paxton to three televised debates. I'll be on that [32:44] debate stage because I answer to the people of Texas. Ken Paxton answers to his billionaire mega [32:50] donors. We'll see if they let him show up. Democrats replacing their Senate nominee in Maine after [32:55] Graham Plattner dropped out over serious sexual assault allegations, which he denies. Now, [33:00] Democrats need just four seats to take back the Senate. Maine is a top prospect because it's a [33:05] Democratic state. Voters there backed Harris by seven points just last election. It went blue, [33:11] if you check, in the last nine presidential races in a row. And yet this blue state has a Republican [33:18] senator in Susan Collins. And she's won five elections there largely by making the case [33:24] that this is what she claims. She tells voters she's a centrist, that she believes in compromise [33:31] and bipartisanship, that she's a proponent of women's health, often claiming, as I'll show you, [33:37] that she will be a defender of abortion rights in the Senate. And as you see, she says to this year, [33:44] she is an independent voice. But these claims have been falling apart over time. So tonight, [33:52] after the understandable attention on the Democratic ticket in that state, right now, [33:57] we turn to a special report on why Maine is such a focus in the first place. It's because of its [34:05] vulnerable, embattled, and sometimes misleading incumbent senator. And the choice facing Maine [34:11] voters is, as I just showed you with just a handful of states that matter, a place where their choice, [34:18] if you're watching in Maine, your choice, could determine the control of the entire United States [34:22] Senate in just a few short months. So for Maine voters, one of the key hurdles for electing any [34:28] Republican senator has been Roe v. Wade, abortions rights, women's rights. Most voters there are [34:36] pro-choice. But as we all know, you're watching the news, so you know, Republicans have long demanded [34:41] as a litmus test requirement, no negotiation, they will only put pro-life judges on the Supreme Court. [34:48] And so Collins has spent years trying to tamp down what is a volcanic issue for her at home [34:56] by vowing to oppose judges who are against Roe. She campaigned as a pro-choice candidate [35:03] since her 1996 election. She said she supported Roe, and she accepted donations from pro-abortion [35:11] rights groups. Open Secrets has documented that. She also told voters that she was vowing to oppose [35:18] any Supreme Court nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade. That goes years back, and she said it over [35:25] and over. That was the main thing her constituents saw as the problem with having a Republican senator. [35:32] I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean [35:44] to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions. [35:52] She wouldn't do that. Wasn't going to do that. Said that over and over. Now, you might recall [35:59] Trump's nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, was clearly a conservative activist with a conservative judicial [36:05] record. He was likely to overturn Roe. Experts and activists loudly noted that in real time before [36:13] his confirmation vote. And just to be crystal clear, Donald Trump himself said he would only pick [36:21] among a list of pro-life judges suggested by pro-life or anti-abortion legal groups. So this whole thing [36:27] was organized as, hey, we're only looking at that kind of judge. And Kavanaugh, as you may recall, [36:34] faced skepticism for many reasons. He lost the vote of another Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski. [36:40] They needed Collins' vote to get to 50. And she'd made a big show of sharing her concerns, [36:47] raising Roe and these issues in her meeting with him, which drove headlines about what she would do. [36:51] In the end, after everything I just showed you, everything she told Maine voters for years, [36:57] she then came out casting the 50th vote for Justice Kavanaugh, breaking the thrust of her promise, [37:04] which she memorably tried to explain, casting this key anti-abortion vote, this pro-life vote, [37:11] this anti-Roe vote. She tried to explain it in a long and winding floor speech the day of that vote. [37:17] Maine pledged to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe. There has also been considerable focus [37:28] on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. [37:38] Protecting this right is important to me. The judge asserted to me a long-established precedent. [37:46] It's not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked. Mr. President, [37:54] I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. [37:58] The ayes are 50. The nays are 48. [38:04] There you have it. One of the most significant votes of Collins' career. [38:08] A vote that was crucial to putting Kavanaugh on the court. [38:13] He was selected and announced from that list of pro-life judges. [38:17] And at the first judicial opportunity they got within about four years, [38:21] Kavanaugh was crucial to that new MAGA majority, thanks to Susan Collins, gutting Roe v. Wade. [38:30] Breaking news from the Supreme Court at this hour. [38:32] The justices handing down the highly anticipated ruling on abortion. [38:36] Roe was a 50-year-old precedent that had been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court itself multiple times. [38:41] That did not matter to them at all. [38:43] People here are talking about that feeling of moving backwards. [38:46] The Roe v. Wade reversal, sending thousands of Americans into the streets. [38:50] This decision is really seen as devastating to so many women across this country. [38:56] Now, today I can tell you Collins has a roughly 58 disapproval rating. [38:59] That's very negative, very high. [39:01] And from the nomination hearings to these more recent times, people are getting fed up. [39:07] She is not hearing Maine women. [39:10] I'm a Democrat, but I have always voted for Susan Collins until this year. [39:14] She has just, she's just capitulated. [39:22] She's not listening to what the people of Maine want anymore. [39:24] Collins has been there way longer than she should have been, and it's time for a change. [39:31] That's a big dynamic when you listen to some of the voters' calls for change that, of course, [39:35] predate the recent Maine news, which is the Democrats' search for the right candidate to run against her. [39:41] But Collins' concerned dance about judicial nominees extends to a lot of other issues. [39:47] It's kind of like her main political move at this point. [39:50] Some view it as a shtick that has become such a kind of recurring, recycled, and unreliable nod [39:56] to a type of fake moderation that the script has become kind of a running joke, [40:01] at least in the informed or nerdy political circles where people track each individual senator, [40:07] have noticed her doing this, and it's a theme in some campaign ads. [40:12] For 30 years in Washington, she's been... [40:14] Very concerned. [40:15] I have a number of concerns. [40:17] I'm also concerned. [40:19] Collins is always concerned, but never courageous. [40:22] Caving to Trump on health care. [40:24] Concerned. [40:25] On affordability. [40:26] Concerned. [40:27] On ICE. [40:28] Concerned. [40:29] I am very concerned. [40:33] She is concerned, and she has found this has worked so far. [40:41] Now, Collins is also vulnerable, like some other incumbents, because of the larger revolt [40:45] against the out-of-touch, aging incumbent politician population, and that's across both parties. [40:51] Calls for generational change are rampant as long-serving incumbents cling to power. [40:57] We've seen that in primaries, Democratic and Republican. [41:00] And in the case of Collins, she's also outlived her own vows back when she was a younger, newer [41:05] leader. [41:06] Way back in the day, decades ago, she was tapping into the actual sentiment that we see [41:11] today. [41:11] Issuing what would become, I'll just warn you, another broken vow to Maine voters. [41:20] I have pledged that if I'm elected, I will only serve two terms, regardless of whether [41:26] term limits law, constitutional amendment passes or not. [41:29] Twelve years is long enough to be in public service, make a contribution, and then come [41:34] home and let someone else take your place. [41:36] That's what she said, and she broke that vow. [41:41] Had she honored it, she'd actually had to have stepped away from the Senate back in 2009. [41:47] Now, she's breaking that vow again this election cycle, seeking what would be her sixth term. [41:52] If she wins, she would complete that term at age 80. [41:56] Susan Collins is a charter member of the very political class she ran to oppose, breaking [42:01] her own vows, clinging to office for another term. [42:04] Part of this aging gerontocracy, with often sclerotic ideas that insist on trying to rule [42:10] over what appears to measurably be a majority desperate for new leadership. [42:16] Collins is a long ways from the upstart candidate who was advocating sweeping changes [42:20] and said that was needed over incremental steps. [42:26] It is very important that we recognize the many successes and the exciting projects and [42:31] the innovations that are going on every day throughout the state. [42:35] We can't do with incremental changes. [42:38] We need sweeping changes. [42:42] Sweeping changes, term limits, pro-choice leadership. [42:45] It's almost like every big thing she emphasized she has broken. [42:50] That was from Collins running for governor in a race she actually lost to Angus King in 1994. [42:56] Update to our Senate today. [42:58] King is 82, serving as the junior senator with fewer years in the body than Collins from their [43:05] same state. [43:06] She's now running to hit 36 years total. [43:09] If you're counting, that's three times longer than the cap she claimed to set for herself. [43:15] And yet, as Collins told Maine voters... [43:17] 12 years is long enough to be in public service, make a contribution, and then come home and [43:25] let someone else take your place. [43:28] 12 years is long enough. [43:30] So she said, many Maine voters now do seem to agree with what has become a discredited claim [43:35] from their representative, who has become the problem she campaigned against, at least [43:40] on the issue of incumbency. [43:43] Collins has added that vow to several others that I showed you she broke in pursuit of this [43:46] lifetime of power, perhaps regardless of the cost to her state or her own credibility. [43:53] Now, to channel the incumbent with that trail of broken promises, a Maine voter might look [44:01] at all this that we just saw, the facts, the records, her own claims and actions, and [44:05] say, you know, this is concerning. [44:09] You might even say it's very concerning. [44:12] Or the voters might do something different than their aging incumbent, and they might actually [44:18] do something about it.