MS NOW Highlights - July 8

[0:00] We have breaking news. We have a video from Graham Plattner, who is addressing the public. [0:05] Let's play that. Hey, everyone. It's Graham Plattner here. I think as many of you know, [0:13] over the past couple of days, I have faced some very serious allegations, and I just want to make [0:18] it clear. This is all false. The things that have been claimed did not happen. It's not real. [0:29] It has placed an immense amount of weight on me as I think about what needs to happen now. [0:39] Amy and I are regular people. We were not looking for this experience. We were not looking to get [0:49] into politics. We had no desire to run for office. I just want you to think about like what you would [0:59] do as a regular person in a position where a much larger world, large forces were working against [1:13] you personally to accuse you of the worst thing that a person could do, and it was not remotely true. [1:22] I learned about this through press inquiries with no time to truly respond, no time for investigations [1:36] before a corporate media system and the political establishment got to act as judge, jury, and [1:47] executioner. Accusations are supposed to be the beginning of things, not the end. I think it's [1:59] really important to understand why this is happening in the timeline, why this is happening [2:06] right now. Much like October, when the first attack started, much like the news that was created [2:15] the week before the primary, there is a reason that this is happening now. I only have until July 13th, [2:25] until I am officially the nominee. This was the last week to try to get me off of the ballot, [2:32] and that's why this is occurring. It's not the false allegations, though, that have brought us to [2:47] where we are. It's the fact that they are being used by the political establishment to put structural [2:56] pressure on us. We live in a political system that is not built for normal people. It is a system that [3:09] is built structurally to make sure that movements like ours cannot flourish, that if they begin to [3:17] succeed, they can be crushed. What we have accomplished here, you made possible. The people [3:31] of Maine, the volunteers, the voters, the grassroots donors, and I have all the faith in the world [3:39] that we could win if we could continue to harness that. But the brutal political reality is that [3:48] they are going to take everything away from us. Those in power who have the ability to do so [3:59] are using these allegations as an excuse to take away all of the things that we need to run a campaign. [4:06] We are going to lose our ability to fundraise. We are going to lose our ability to access voter data. [4:16] We are going to lose all of the things that any campaign needs on the basic level simply to function. [4:25] Larger organizations, the national level party, the bigger donor networks, they have all committed [4:35] to spending no money in this race if I'm in it. They would rather see Susan Collins win than have [4:44] me be the next senator from Maine. What comes next needs to come from the people. Needs to come from the [5:00] people of Maine. Needs to come from the voters who on June 9th, at a strength of over 150,000, [5:08] the largest number in the history of Maine primaries, said no to this kind of politics, [5:16] voted for a politics that would actually represent them, voted against the political system, [5:23] against the donor class, against the entrenched forces. And I'm not asking for how this process [5:34] is going to work. I'm not trying to dictate to anyone who it should be or how we get there. [5:40] But I will say this. It needs to be open, transparent and democratic. It needs to be [5:47] reflecting the will and the values of the people that built this movement, the people that showed up [5:53] on June 9th. People in D.C. need to stay in D.C. Decisions should not be made in back rooms by [6:00] people in places of political power. Party apparatchiks are not the ones to make these decisions. [6:07] These decisions need to be made in the open by the people of this state, the people who got us here. [6:14] This is exactly the kind of political system that everyone voted against on June 9th. [6:23] And for that reason, we need to be assured that it is going to be open and democratic as we move [6:29] forward. Amy and I struggled about getting into this. Last summer, right around this time of year, [6:43] we sat down and we looked at each other and we said, if we believe in the kind of politics we think [6:49] that we do, we have to do this. Over the past couple of days, really yesterday and today, [7:00] we have had to have that exact same conversation. We believe that for the movement to continue, [7:12] it can't be made. And for that reason, we are suspending campaign operations. [7:36] This is incredibly difficult because I know that some will think it's an admission of guilt, [7:41] and it most certainly is not. We're not doing it because of the allegations. We're doing it because [7:46] of the structures that are being taken away from us by those in power. And I also feel an immense [7:52] amount of responsibility to everyone who has worked so hard to get us to where we are. [8:10] We went toe to toe with one of the most entrenched political systems in the history of the world, [8:15] and we won. We beat them on June 9th in overwhelming numbers. We did it the right way. [8:27] We built a campaign. We engaged in electoral politics. We motivated people. We banded together. [8:34] We did it the way that we were told we are supposed to make change. And we won. And now they are not [8:41] going to let us have it. Not if it's me. And so we're suspending campaign operations. [8:54] I want to make clear, though, I intend to file my paperwork to withdraw. The process needs to assure [9:04] that what comes next is reflective of the Mainers who on June 9th turned out and showed that they are [9:11] desperate for a different kind of politics. It needs to be driven not from back rooms, [9:19] but by the will of the people. And the decisions that come next must come from that. All we were asking [9:31] for was health care, was to end the genocide, to use our taxpayer dollars at home to uplift our [9:40] communities instead of waging war overseas. We were asking for a fairer system. We were asking for [9:49] an end to the corruption, the end to the money in politics. We were asking for real democracy, [9:59] and we did it the right way, and we won. But now the ball is in the court of the democratic [10:09] establishment. My name might be on the ballot right now, but that ballot line belongs to the [10:18] people of Maine. And on November 3rd, it needs to belong to the people of Maine. And the next [10:25] democratic senator for Maine needs to belong to the people of Maine. They need to reflect the will [10:32] and the values of the people of this state. I love this state. I love Maine, and I love Mainers in [10:46] ways that I can't really describe. I'm immensely proud of what we have built, and I have the [10:56] utmost faith that we will continue to build, and we will continue to move towards a better future. [11:04] From the bottom of my heart, thank you. Thank all of you, and keep fighting. We're going to win someday. [11:23] That was Graham Plattner officially announcing that he is dropping off of the ballot for Maine Senate, [11:32] or excuse me, for federal Senate from Maine, but taking zero responsibility for any of the [11:39] scandals and more troubling things in his past that have destroyed that campaign. Instead, blaming, [11:47] let's see, corporate media, the political establishment, lots of hate for the political [11:55] establishment, saying that we banded together. We did it the way we were told we were supposed to [12:03] make change, and we won, and now they are not going to let us have it. So lots of finger pointing and [12:10] blame and not taking any responsibility. Note that whoever he conceives of as the political establishment, [12:19] you do have many of his once allies, including Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna, also calling for him to drop [12:27] out. People who believe many of the same policy ideas, believe in many of the same policy ideas [12:33] that Graham Plattner himself says that he was taken down for. He also said during that 10-minute video [12:41] that all we were asking for was health care, was to end the genocide, to use our taxpayer dollars at [12:47] home, to uplift our communities instead of waging war overseas. We were asking for a fair system. [12:53] We are asking for an end to the corruption. So lots of allegations that he was being taken out by [13:00] nefarious forces that are forcing him to suspend his campaign rather than the drip, drip, drip of [13:09] scandal after scandal that has dogged his campaign and that have littered the last few months with red flags. [13:16] I want to bring back in our guests at the table, Neera Tanden from CAF, as well as Nikki McCann-Ramirez [13:24] from Rolling Stone. So Nikki, what did you make of that mini documentary that we just watched? [13:32] I think it's clear that whoever was advising him in media has left the campaign at this point, [13:37] because that's not a statement you let your candidate put out on their own. I also think when I see [13:43] something like that, my question is always, who is they? Who is they? Is it the AFL-CIO? Is it the [13:49] main Democratic Party? Is it the dozens of allies you have who have abandoned your campaign? I think [13:55] Plattner would have been much better served by a two-minute video announcing that he was [14:01] suspending campaign operations. He could deny the allegations. That is his right. This has not been [14:04] proven in a court of law. They are allegations. But this screed, I don't think, does anything to help [14:12] transition out toward a new candidate to bolster sort of the idea that this process is going to go [14:18] forward, that he supports having his voters who he claims to care about continue to be represented by [14:26] someone who holds their same values. I think the thing here is that Graham Plattner, time and time [14:31] again, was given chances by the voters of Maine. I know a lot of voters who live in Maine, friends [14:38] of mine, who swallowed a lot of stuff, who were deeply uncomfortable with the stories coming out [14:43] about Graham Plattner. And they swallowed that and they voted for him because they thought that in the [14:48] slate of candidates before him, he was the best chance to defeat Susan Collins. And the people he [14:52] has let down the most, aside from the people who he allegedly criminally assaulted, are the voters of [14:58] Maine, who believed in him, who gave him their time, their energy, their votes, who invested [15:05] their belief that they could actually have a better government in him. And he let them down by not being [15:10] honest with them. It wasn't that he wasn't honest to us, to the media, to the donor class, is that he [15:15] wasn't transparent with his voters. And that video, I just, I don't know. It just, if there was any [15:22] respect left for me, it's kind of gone after seeing that there were so many ways to bow out of this race [15:27] that weren't that. Yeah. I do want to get your thoughts, Neera, but first I want to go to MSNOW [15:34] Capitol Hill reporter Kevin Fry, who is live on the scene in Bangor, Maine. Kevin, what are you [15:40] hearing on the ground from voters about how all of this has shaken out in the last few days? [15:46] Yeah, I mean, look, it's been about a month since I was here last. And at that point, that was right [15:51] after the New York Times sexting scandal. And a lot of folks were willing to, you know, as was just [15:56] being mentioned, digest this and say, OK, we are going to, we're going to accept the narrative [16:00] that he is a changed man. As we talk to folks over the last day and a half that we've been here, [16:05] it has very much flipped the, we've turned the corner. The red line that no one could really [16:11] identify necessarily a month ago had been crossed. The Rubicon had been overcome. And that was because [16:16] of the reporting in the last two days. So this felt like where we are inevitably tumbling toward. [16:22] Now, as we've been talking to voters, they would like to see what they described as a quick [16:28] and a transparent process. They want to see this as being democratic. And several folks that we spoke [16:34] to were quick to name drop folks, including Troy Jackson. They see him, at least a couple of the [16:39] folks that we talked to, as kind of picking up at least the policy aims that maybe Plattner was [16:45] espousing, but certainly without the baggage that he carried. Now, some of the news within the last [16:49] two hours or so beyond this Plattner statement is that we now have at least a preliminary sense of [16:57] what this process is going to now look like now that there is going to be a vacancy on the democratic [17:02] line ahead of November's election. And that is that the democratic main democratic party today, [17:08] members of the committee met about a hundred or so of them discussed exactly the steps forward. [17:13] And our understanding from talking to sources that were on that call is that this looks like [17:17] it's going to be about 500 to 600 delegates meeting for a convention at time to be announced. [17:23] But the counties are supposed to, we're being told, start working on figuring out who those delegates [17:27] are going to be to send them to this centralized meeting. And from there, they'll work on electing [17:33] a candidate. Obviously, one of the tensions that we're expecting to see and that we've witnessed [17:38] over the last few days is between kind of the party establishment versus those that believe that [17:42] they need to basically poke the establishment in the eye. That could also be interpreted as more [17:46] progressives versus moderates. There are different ways of kind of interpreting this depending on [17:50] who you're talking to. But that is at least how voters are kind of responding to what we're looking [17:56] at with the prospect of an opening and how the party is at least at the moment preparing to navigate [18:00] it. Kevin, thanks so much for your time. I'm sure we will be heading back to you later this evening [18:06] and in the coming days to hear your insights on what people are saying on the ground and how this [18:10] convention of source is going to shape up. Thanks so much. [18:13] Neera, so you watched this 10-minute video as well from Graham Plattner refusing to take [18:19] responsibility for any of the things in his past. He certainly has the right to defend himself [18:25] against some of these criminal allegations, but not taking any responsibility for how his campaign [18:33] has ended up. Do you think that was helpful for the party to move forward and to defeat Susan Collins? [18:40] I mean, I guess I'd say, look, this whole situation is a horrifying tragedy on so many levels. And the [18:48] people I feel the worst for are really the people Nikki is talking about, the people who were betrayed [18:55] by Graham Plattner. I mean, he's angry at the world, but it's his own actions that have caused this [19:03] situation that we're in. And I feel like the fact that he takes zero responsibility of that can [19:09] really enrages me. But I do feel the people I feel the worst for in this situation are people [19:15] who felt hope about this campaign. And I do think the process has to ensure that people who felt hope in [19:22] this campaign and his campaign and about change in Maine have a voice in that process. I mean, what I found [19:31] sort of really disturbing about this video is there so much more ire to like Democrats nationally than [19:39] two people he never mentioned, Susan Collins or Donald Trump. And I find it sort of tragic that [19:48] after all the destruction and wreckage, you know, he's going out by basically trying to torch Democrats. [19:56] Democrats. And just as a reminder, like he did win the primary, but it's his own actions that have [20:01] caused this. And you don't have to ask me. You can ask Senator Sanders, Senator Warren, Congressman [20:09] Kana, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. These are his allies in the fight who recognized what [20:16] happened here was horrifying. And genuinely, I hope that in future there can be more acceptance and [20:28] actually trying to build back because, you know, this is a, you know, he's caused a lot of pain to [20:35] a lot of people who put their hopes in him. And those people are the ones who need to find hope [20:40] again. And I think it's his responsibility to be part of building, like, you know, not destroying [20:46] everything around him, but actually helping build support for whoever the nominee is in the future. [20:51] Yeah. I mean, and I should again say he has flatly denied the allegations of sexual assault, [20:57] among other things that have other accusations that have been levied against him. But I will say [21:02] that the other people that I feel terrible for, not only because of the things that they say. [21:07] Are the women. Are the women. The women. Yes, it's not just the voters. It's the women who had [21:11] to basically parade these awful periods of their lives or what they, you know, allegations that they [21:17] have made at the very least before the public and the media, because they felt like it was their [21:22] civic responsibility to tell people. And they're getting viciously attacked by people. It's really [21:27] ugly. And, you know, they, you're absolutely right. They are the victims of this whole situation and [21:34] should never have had to bear this burden. Yes. As well as one of his campaign staffers who has been [21:40] smeared because she resigned early on. But anyway, I hope that there are a lot of apologies coming to [21:46] some of those women. Okay. We are continuing to monitor the fallout from Graham Plattner, [21:51] suspending his campaign for Senate. His decision follows a wave of calls from to drop out of the [21:56] race. Literally nobody in elected office is defending Graham Plattner right now. That is [22:01] except for the president of the United States. A lot of people say big falsehoods. There you go [22:25] from the mouth of Donald Trump. Now, just last month, Trump was calling Plattner a thug and the [22:30] worst human being that's ever run for office. But it seems the president has never met a sexual assault [22:35] allegation he didn't want to question. And those bizarre comments come on the heels of a rough 48 [22:40] hours for the president of the United States, who has been facing humiliation after humiliation. I [22:46] mean, today, a federal court officially ordered that $5 million of Donald Trump's money be released [22:51] to E. Jean Carroll, who successfully sued Trump for defamation. In a blistering order, the judge wrote, [22:57] quote, defendant has been stalling this case for years. A jury unanimously concluded that he sexually [23:03] abused and defamed plaintiff and awarded her damages accordingly. It is time for him to do equity and [23:09] pay the judgment. Also today, another federal judge rejected Trump's efforts to put his name back on [23:14] the Kennedy Center, a loss that we know humiliates Trump because his administration has left a tarp [23:20] over the place where his name used to be, as if that tarp means his name is actually still there. [23:26] And who knows what they are telling him in there? We don't know. Now, on top of all of that, [23:30] Trump faced even more humiliation today when his so-called peace negotiations with Iran fell [23:35] completely apart. Who could have seen that one coming? All of us. The U.S. has launched multiple [23:40] new rounds of airstrikes against Iran, including one just tonight. Trump has now declared his ceasefire [23:45] over, claiming he doesn't even want to deal anymore. And as a result, oil prices are once again [23:50] spiking, with gas prices expected to rise again soon. It is safe to say Trump is not having a very good [23:57] week. And it is only Wednesday, everyone. Lots of time to go. But perhaps the most humiliating thing [24:03] that happened to Donald Trump this week, the thing, you know, that gets under his skin more than anything [24:07] else, was his doddering performance on the world stage. It started as soon as he got off the plane [24:13] from the annual NATO summit in Turkey. Trump meandered, you can see him there on the screen, [24:18] down the tarmac until Turkish President Erdogan took him by the arm and told him where to stand. [24:23] That happened. Then Trump held a series of bilateral meetings and press conferences where he seemed [24:29] even more confused. At one point, he even invented an entirely new country for America to bomb. [24:37] Two months ago, we had 100. I told this story yesterday. We had 111 missile shot by the Islamic [24:45] Republic of Japan. I seriously hope someone is making sure the president has not accidentally [24:51] declared war on Japan. Anything is possible. Trump followed that up with one of his signature [24:56] rants about Barack Obama's Iran deal known as the JCPOA, of course. But he somehow even bungled [25:03] that one. Obama nuclear, the Obama deal. That was one of the worst tragedies. JCPOC. What a terrible, [25:20] what a terrible deal. And speaking of getting names wrong, there was also this embarrassing slip [25:26] while meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Do you have a question for President [25:33] Putin? Do you have a question for President Putin? What would you like to ask him? Because [25:43] I'm going to ask him that question. Okay. So what happened there, just in case that was like, [25:50] what the heck is happening? Trump asked the reporters if they have a question for President [25:54] Putin, points at President Zelensky, then realizes his mistake. And his fix is to try to cover word by [26:00] acting like he's Vladimir Putin's press secretary, like he's just fielding questions to take back to [26:05] the Russian dictator. Trump had more than a few of those moments today, like this moment, when he [26:09] started talking about the president of Turkey, like he was the CEO of a tech startup. [26:16] I want to thank President Erdogan, who's really a great man. He's a strong person, [26:21] a very strong personality. And that's why he runs such a successful and good company. [26:27] Running a company, running a country, what's the difference? They're both just ways to get rich, [26:33] at least for Donald Trump. It seems the man is basically getting laughed at every day by judges, [26:39] by world leaders, by European soccer players. Most are responding to him with a collective eye roll. [26:44] But it doesn't mean we can entirely dismiss him. Because when this president gets embarrassed, [26:49] when he feels cornered, that is when he's most likely to try and cling to power. I mean, [26:54] just the last 24 hours, we learned that the Trump administration is now threatening to withhold [26:58] a billion dollars in counterterrorism funds from states unless those states completely change the [27:03] way they run their elections. The more desperate he gets, the more desperate those plans get, too. [27:09] The Trump administration is demanding states transition to using paper ballots, verify the [27:13] citizenship of every voter, and hand over their voter rolls to the Trump administration. [27:17] As the New York Times puts it, the policies align closely with some of the goals pushed by right-wing [27:23] activists that are rooted in false conspiracy theories about election machines and voting by [27:28] non-citizens during the 2020 election. In other words, Trump wants to force states to completely [27:34] upend the way they conduct elections just months before the midterms, or risk losing critical security [27:40] funding. Miles Taylor, a former top security official in Donald Trump's first administration, [27:45] wrote about just what this new policy means for those states. And he says, quote, [27:50] I can tell you firsthand that those are the funds used to protect you against terrorist attacks, [27:54] cyber attacks, mass shootings, weaponized drones, and more. I will say it again. If you live in a blue [27:59] state, Donald Trump and his team are threatening to put your life in danger if your state doesn't [28:04] give him control over elections. Very clear there. Trump is at his most desperate and unpredictable [28:09] moment of his presidency so far. And that means he is also at his most dangerous. [28:16] Does anyone buy that? Or is there something more to what that Post reporter was asking just then? [28:21] Something about the security of that plane. Joining us, MSNOW international reporter Inez [28:26] Della-Katerra, an anchor of Turkey, New York Times chief White House correspondent, [28:30] and MSNOW contributor Peter Baker, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, [28:34] Richard Haas. He's also the author of the weekly substack newsletter, Home and Away, [28:39] and former CIA director and secretary of defense in the Obama administration, Leon Panetta. [28:46] And as you were in that room, what a weird answer. [28:49] Yeah, that's right. I mean, you know, President Trump made a lot of news at the summit, [28:56] but there are a lot of questions he didn't answer. And I would say he didn't make so much news [29:01] during that final press conference. So that exchange that you just played was certainly [29:05] kind of a bizarre one. He was asked twice about why he's not flying his new Air Force One back home, [29:11] and twice he declined to answer. He just said that the plane would be going to the U.K. to visit [29:17] service members there. But there are all sorts of questions as to whether this has to do with [29:22] security, like you heard the New York Post reporter asking. We just don't know at this point, [29:27] but it was certainly unusual. You know, the fact that the president, the fact that the president [29:31] is not flying back on this plane is unusual. And then the fact that he wouldn't answer questions [29:35] about it is certainly raising eyebrows. Peter, what do you have on this? [29:41] Katie, I'm with you. This is not an answer that sounds particularly persuasive. The idea that he's [29:48] going to give up flying on this jet. He's talked so much about so he can show it to some soldiers. [29:53] I agree with you. I can't imagine anybody believes that. Security is the first question you ask, [29:59] right? He is in Ankara. It's not that far from the Middle East. There is now this rupture in the [30:06] ceasefire, which he's declared with Iran, which he declared today is over. And that's a plane that [30:13] has gone through a very quick retrofit compared to what normal Air Force Ones go through in terms of [30:20] making it compatible with what a president and commander in chief should be flying. Now, Secretary [30:25] Panetta probably knows this much better than I do. But there would be questions asked as to whether [30:29] that jet has the protections, has the capacity for security that a normal Air Force One built by [30:38] Boeing on behalf of the Air Force, according to various particular specs, would have. The plane [30:45] with the president of the United States, the commander in chief is supposed to be able to ward off [30:48] attacks, be able to withstand an electrical magnetic pulse, all kinds of things that are meant to [30:53] to put, you know, the commander in chief in safe hands. Is this jet now flying for luxury, which is [31:00] what he's talked about, meeting that need? Secretary, Peter, Peter teed you up. [31:05] You know, I've always been concerned about security issues with this kind of plane that's built by [31:18] another country. Regardless of the fact that that country, we may have good relations with that [31:26] country. The fact is that from a security point of view, you have got to be concerned that there are [31:35] going to be efforts to try to gather intelligence. And I'm sure they've reviewed the whole plane. But as [31:45] somebody involved with security, I would be very concerned about making sure that the president's [31:52] security is protected. The only way to do that is by having that plane made in the United States [31:59] and carrying the equipment that is provided by the United States so that we can assure that the [32:08] president is not only secure, but safe. So I don't I don't think there's any question that there are [32:15] security concerns here. What they are, we don't know. But I'm sure that's involved. Have you ever heard [32:24] of a situation where the president switches planes like this? I mean, I know usually there are two Air Force [32:30] ones. You know, one is not called Air Force One. When the president travels, there's always a [32:35] backup. Usually there's if there is a problem, there's it's a maintenance issue, right? Could it just [32:42] be a maintenance issue? Well, it's a it's a brand new plane. If there's a maintenance issue with a brand [32:51] new plane, that raises even more concerns. I don't think this is about maintenance. This is a cover story of [32:59] some kind to try to deploy one plane to Britain and have the president return to the old plane that [33:10] was Air Force One. There there's more going on. I think the war in Iran may have some something to do [33:20] with it. He is in Turkey. It's right next to Iran. There there does have to be some real concerns [33:29] about the president's security. Even he himself basically admitted the concern about his personal [33:37] security. So for all of those reasons, I think that decision was made to try to protect the safety [33:47] of the president. So, Richard, let's talk about the context here, because as the secretary pointed [33:53] out, Iran is very close by. There's also news that the ceasefire. I mean, if it's still on, it's it's [33:59] extremely fragile, more fragile than it's ever been. The president seemed to indicate that it was not [34:04] still on. We struck Iran last night. Does this signal anything to you about what might be coming? [34:12] Not so much what's coming, but what has been and what is, Katie. First of all, the United States has [34:20] obviously targeted Iranian leadership, whether years ago going after Soleimani and more recently [34:27] going after the Ayatollah and others. The idea that Iran might retaliate by going after senior [34:35] Americans, including the president, is unfortunately plausible. Plus, the ceasefire never was complete, [34:42] and no one should expect it to be complete going forward. I think we've got to assume [34:46] periodic flare ups between the United States and Iran, whether it's over the strait, the nuclear issue, [34:53] or just about anything else. So I would just think in this kind of an environment, it would be smart to [35:00] emphasize or maximize security. And if it turns out, there is a differential between the old plane and [35:07] the new one, smart to use the old plane, but not smart at all to ever be using the new one. It's not [35:16] just questions of safety, but presidents have to basically be able to do everything the job could [35:20] conceivably require from Air Force One. And if this plane has any limitations, then it should not be used. [35:27] Well, I mean, if there's any limitations, why was it put in the air in the first place? That's a question. [35:31] But I do want to ask you about the Iranian intentions here. And I'm going to get this to [35:35] the secretary as well. But first to you, Richard, would the Iranians really assassinate an American [35:42] president? Wouldn't that be inviting World War Three? I think it's unlikely, but I can't sit here [35:53] and tell you it's inconceivable because, you know, part of it goes back to your question with the [35:57] Iranians. Well, who necessarily are the Iranians at this point? We just had the funeral and all the [36:03] people there. This is clearly a factionalized leadership in Iran. Could there be elements [36:09] of an Iranian leadership with the wherewithal to do it? Absolutely. Absolutely. So I don't think [36:14] we can dismiss that out of hand, whatever the calculation. Again, in the context of an ongoing [36:20] war, breakdown and ceasefire, given what's happened over recent days, weeks, months and years, [36:26] I would think it makes sense to be super careful at this point, particularly with the life of the [36:32] president of the United States. Secretary Panetta, same question to you. Bottom line is that you cannot [36:42] trust the regime in Iran. I think from the very beginning, although initially it was about regime [36:52] change, the failure to get any kind of regime change has made clear that we are dealing with a [37:00] hard line regime in Iran. And the result of that is that we really don't know what the leadership is [37:13] all about there, how it's operating. You've got obviously the military leadership. You have the [37:21] guard leadership as well. You really don't know who who's on first. And the result of that is that you [37:32] really don't know. And frankly, it's that lack of trust that I think means that this war not only is [37:45] going to continue, but that we are going to find it very difficult to implement whatever agreement we [37:54] had with Iran. And so we are in a very tenuous situation right now as a result of what's happening. [38:03] This more relaxed summer season is no reprieve for Trump's three largest vulnerabilities, [38:09] the unpopular Iran policy under strain today, as we've been reporting, the high prices and the [38:14] Epstein scandal, which has endured with new witnesses on Capitol Hill. And it's a flashpoint [38:19] for grassroots voters. We have new footage from a Republican congressman's new town hall. [38:26] What are you going to do for benefits for all people with disabilities? [38:31] Well, under the one big beautiful bill, we protected, we protected a system that if it had [38:43] gone unchecked, it would not have been long-term available for the very people that are the most [38:49] vulnerable. Why do you continue to protect the pedophiles and Trump's DOJ as they continue to break the law? [39:00] That's what the pushback sounds like in the rare district where an incumbent Republicans even [39:04] holding these kind of meetings, the affordability crisis, huge. Half of Americans struggle to pay [39:09] for the basics. And even the other half of those doing better agree the nation is facing this [39:15] affordability crisis under Trump, a problem that has worsened as the Trump administration cuts food [39:20] assistance. Tonight, we have new reporting that housing foreclosures hit a seven-year high. [39:27] Unlike, say, a Depression era, this is a crisis that comes along with deeper tension because everyone [39:33] can see the rich getting richer. More U.S. CEOs have crossed what was the once rare pay threshold [39:43] of $100 million a year for the first time in five years. Wall Street's been doing great since Trump [39:49] came back. Corporate leaders and the minority of elites who have stocks, they're all up. But that's [39:57] driving a gulf that even has MAGA Republicans mad. Megyn Kelly recently slamming what she called Trump's [40:03] grift while regular people struggle. Trump and his family reaping windfalls from their own conflicts [40:09] of interest and self-dealing. Over $2 billion last year alone. Kelly and Tucker Carlson are leading a [40:15] growing backlash on the right, while independents and liberals are turning to more democratic socialists [40:21] as one answer to address all this greed. It's enough to make you want to holler, as the old line goes. [40:28] It's something Dylan Rattigan famously did on this network when he called out corporate greed and what he [40:34] called the, quote, banksters, taking advantage while regular people work hard and suffer. [40:40] I just showed the evidence, the foreclosures hitting this high, affordability crisis, and this inequality. [40:47] What's happening? Is it fixable? [40:51] What's happening is the greatest concentration of wealth probably that's even more than what we saw [40:55] during the robber barons at this point, just by magnitude. So concentration of wealth is what's [40:59] happening. Anybody can obviously observe that. To make it not happen would mean you have to understand [41:06] why it's happening, I guess. And from my perspective, the reason why it's happening is because it's easier [41:13] to make money by through some form of extraction or gatekeeping than through creation. And so as long [41:19] as it's legal or permissible to get money through some extractive mechanism or through some gatekeeping [41:26] mechanism where you split leverage or permit access or whatever, some form of exclusivity [41:31] that's unnatural, that that's always an easier way to create money than by creating actual value. [41:38] And so because the American culture so admires and looks up to the true creators of value, I think it's [41:45] one of the best things about this country, actually, that that goodwill for extremely creative, [41:51] innovative people gets borrowed by people who are making money through extractive or gatekeeping [41:57] techniques, basically, that where the clothing of a creative entrepreneur and the status of a clothing [42:05] of a creative entrepreneur, they're actually on the opposite side of that. [42:09] A charlatan in founder's clothing, as it were. [42:11] Well, I mean, they even might be a founder, but there's somebody whose value proposition is that you lose [42:17] and they win, as opposed to a value proposition where you win, I win. [42:21] And that is, I think, the most important filter and the most important abuse of the American dream [42:27] and actually the biggest insult to true creators who create real value is the borrowing. [42:33] It's like the animals in the wild that pretend to be, you know, some other thing that they're not [42:39] in order to sneak into the beaver lodge or whatever it is. [42:43] And so I think that, oh, I don't know if they're sneaking into the, wherever they're trying to [42:47] sneak. [42:48] Can beavers make a lodge? [42:49] Are you referring, listen, it's a, I was, I was just in the Adirondacks and so I got beavers on [42:54] the mind. [42:54] But, you know, my point is that there is the true creators and then there are those who pretend to [42:59] be creators who then are actually in some way removing value. [43:04] And that then allows for a massive, because it's easier to make money through corruption effectively, [43:11] whether it's monopoly markets, whether it's unique access over the government, whatever [43:16] the mechanism is. [43:16] But you think inequality is the issue? [43:18] In other words, no, I don't, everybody knows inequality is the issue. [43:21] Yeah. [43:21] And what we're witnessing right now amounts to what everybody, on Wall Street, they call [43:25] the K-shaped economy. [43:26] I'm sure you've used that phrase, you've probably done graphics on this show, where the economy [43:30] right now is actually benefiting a portion of the people in this country and that it's harming [43:38] the others. [43:38] I mean, the other thing that you have to understand in America in terms of how things [43:41] sort of play out on the policy side is it's really the only country in the world where [43:45] capital is enshrined with rights that are superior to humans. [43:50] Right. [43:50] Which doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. [43:53] So then the interest, but the interest of capital sometimes, or even as technology advances [43:58] more frequently, are at the direct expense of humans. [44:01] Yeah. [44:01] And that's sort of what makes things politically very interesting, I think. [44:04] Well, and this is why you make clear points as you're driving to the depth of it. [44:08] It's the same when you have a fiduciary duty under law, where you're saying actually more [44:12] than the labor value or the long-term rights of the community, or whether we destroy the [44:18] world around us. [44:19] Or whether we create anything of value for anybody. [44:21] We actually not have to have... [44:23] Our job is to optimize for how much money we make. [44:25] Not that we have to return on investment. [44:27] That's great. [44:27] Not that we have to even say big return. [44:29] No, we have to optimize maximum value, meaning you're always putting it above labor, environment, [44:36] everything else. [44:36] Financial results. [44:38] And that's a reasonable mandate if the rulemaking is you can only make money by creating actual [44:43] value. [44:44] Yeah. [44:44] Now, I want you to hold the old saying, we're going to now go and break into the [44:49] beavers' lodge. [44:50] Everybody knows... [44:51] As they all say. [44:51] Nature. [44:52] This is a long-known phrase. [44:53] We set up a reminder of why people are now worried about a bubble on the left and the [44:59] right. [44:59] You're the right person for this, so stay with me. [45:01] But you have the Trump Treasury Department now has what's an internal report. [45:05] They didn't release it, saying there could be an AI bubble. [45:07] It warns of risks posed by this current version of the AI market and makes a comparison many [45:13] have said. [45:13] Is this like the dot-com bubble, which, of course, hurt a lot of regular Americans? [45:17] And there's a lot of talk about this. [45:22] Concerns over the rising cost of artificial intelligence. [45:24] It led to a major tech stock sell-off that dragged down the S&P and NASDAQ. [45:30] All great technology changes produce bubbles. [45:37] Artificial intelligence gives a massive boost to the markets. [45:40] But for how long? [45:41] So what's the end? [45:42] Is it a bubble that bursts eventually? [45:44] So I think it is, yes. [45:48] This doesn't have to be inevitable. [45:49] The Times notes, though, that when you look at Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook's [45:53] parent company, Meta, they're going to spend $700 billion this year alone. [45:57] You can think of that as a bill that might come due. [46:00] We should also note that the big AI companies are, for the most part, losing money. [46:05] If you want a sign of the inequality that Rattigan just mentioned and the famed irrational [46:11] exuberance, Elon Musk has a new company, SpaceX, which was valued by the markets at one point [46:17] is equal to Amazon, one company has been around for decades, makes a lot of money, the other [46:22] is losing money. [46:24] Have we lost the plot? [46:26] We put the question to you, Dylan Rattigan. [46:28] I mean, I think it's self-evident that there's certainly a price. [46:32] When you don't know the value of something, which we saw this in 99, for instance, you [46:38] basically assign the most optimistic or most pessimistic, depending on the flow of the sort [46:44] of momentum of the underlying data, and so in this case, because no one really knows [46:48] when, exactly how, where, et cetera, it's just been assigned the most optimistic narrative, [46:53] which is AI can do anything, and it is, we'll do everything, and all the things that we've [46:58] all heard. [46:58] I think that the most interesting insight in terms of facts relative to artificial intelligence [47:03] are in that SpaceX prospectus, which is their investment offering document, which is [47:08] entirely where they have to reveal what are the basic assumptions. [47:12] Why should we give you this money for this company, for this thing, and what are your [47:16] assumptions? [47:16] And if you look at what the business is now, it doesn't have anything to do with what they [47:20] sold as a stock. [47:21] What they sold as a stock was 93% based on the idea that artificial intelligence would [47:28] grow by 10,000% in the next five years, and that 60% of the computer-based jobs, any job [47:36] that's done with interacting with the computer would be done by AI, such that instead of having [47:43] that the revenue, the reason you can justify 10,000% growth is, well, if I'm going to swap [47:47] the humans for the robots, I can get to that point. [47:51] And so if you really want to sort of have something to have a referendum on, you're like, [47:55] okay, do I really think 60% of the computer-based jobs will be gone in the next five years, [48:00] which is what the SpaceX prospectus says, and even if that's technically possible, what [48:08] are the political consequences of that, and what's the political resistance to that and [48:12] the humanity of Gen Z? [48:13] Right, a jobs question. [48:14] And let me ask, I mean, in psychology, they call that motivated reasoning. [48:17] Okay. [48:18] And in journalism, they call it bias. [48:19] Of course. [48:20] And Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan have to tell a story. [48:23] Right. [48:24] But the point is, whether Goldman and J.P. Morgan, who wrote that story and published [48:28] that story and sold that story, or SpaceX, who supported that story, right, because SpaceX [48:33] was sold not based on the value of the business that exists at all. [48:37] SpaceX was sold based on the percentage of the total addressable market. [48:41] And let me throw one more headline at you. [48:43] Jeff Bezos, he's got also a space company. [48:47] And just today, the news is coming out, they want $130 billion valuation, and they want [48:52] billions. [48:52] You're talking about this is Blue Origin? [48:53] Blue Origin. [48:54] Yeah. [48:54] Yeah. [48:55] But you know, I don't always use jargon, because not everyone's heard of Blue Origin yet. [48:58] Blue Origin is a name of a thing. [49:00] I wouldn't even call that jargon. [49:01] I don't know if it's somebody's name. [49:03] Not jargon. [49:04] Okay, all right. [49:04] Not jargon. [49:05] They might call you like Ari, then you're Ari if I call you bro. [49:08] How about more insidery than it needs to be? [49:11] Bottom line is, Bezos has a space company like Musk. [49:14] My final question. [49:15] Maybe the people would like to know the name of the company. [49:16] Oh, my God. [49:17] All right. [49:18] You can tell that we know each other. [49:19] 40 seconds left. [49:20] Go. [49:22] Should an honest government that's safeguarding the economy for the public be more involved [49:27] in what right now looks like hundreds of billions of dollars of capital transfer [49:30] to those companies and these looming AIIPOs if this is going to cause wide risk? [49:36] Yes. [49:40] The issue is not the need for regulatory intervention to deal with. [49:45] This would be the biggest political change in our lifetimes. [49:47] It's going to make the horse and buggy look like not much, although not that I was here [49:51] for that. [49:52] The issue is lack of trust in the government under both parties. [49:56] We'll see you guys. [49:56] We'll see you guys. [49:57] All right. [49:58] We'll see you guys. [49:59] We'll see you guys.