MS NOW Highlights - June 11

[0:01] Donald Trump might not want to break out his birthday party hats just yet after an emergency [0:05] lawsuit was filed to keep his UFC cage match slash birthday party from going forward on Sunday. [0:11] Deadline White House's legal blogger Jordan Rubin writes this about the lawsuit, quote, [0:16] a volcano of corruption is what plaintiffs suing to stop this weekend's UFC fights at the White [0:22] House called the planned event, telling a judge that President Donald Trump and his allies are [0:27] poised to profit, quote, from the first private for-profit sporting event ever held on White [0:32] House grounds. The event will feature million-dollar VIP packages, brand placement opportunities [0:38] adjacent to the Lincoln Memorial, and an exclusive broadcast on the president's favorite streaming [0:44] service, plaintiffs told the judge. Such a volcano of corruption, if allowed to go forward, will mark [0:49] an inflection point in American history. The images it generates will one day appear in the history books [0:55] and not in the chapters about times remembered fondly. We could hear from the judge on that [1:00] any time. I want to bring in Brendan Ballew. He is the founder of the Public Integrity Project, [1:05] as well as a former special counsel in the Justice Department. He represents the plaintiffs in the [1:09] UFC lawsuit. Mike and John are still with us. Brendan, take me through the lawsuit and what happens if [1:17] the judge rules in your favor. Yeah. So the basic issue here is this is not a lawsuit about a fight. [1:23] It is a lawsuit about corruption. Right now, what's happening is the UFC and its parent company, [1:29] TKO, are selling what are called sponsorship packages for $1 million to $1.5 million per person. [1:36] Plus, they're giving exclusive licensing for showing the title card to Paramount, which is closely allied [1:41] to the president, and showing ads at the White House lawn and potentially even at the Lincoln Memorial. [1:46] So we're already seeing ads, for instance, for Monster Energy Drink. We're expecting ads for [1:51] Crypto.com and others. All of this is a way for the UFC and for Donald Trump, who's invested in that [1:58] company, to make a private profit from public property. That is the fundamental problem here. [2:04] So that's why we've sued. In terms of what could happen here, you know, this is before Judge Meta. He is [2:09] going to rule based on the briefings. And it's either that the fight could get enjoined, or at the [2:15] very least, if he finds that the plaintiffs have standing, that the sort of most corrupt aspects of [2:21] this could be reduced. So, for instance, the walkout that's scheduled at the Lincoln Memorial for the [2:29] UFC could potentially be canceled or moved. Mike, what's interesting about the UFC birthday party [2:37] slash cage match is that about a quarter of Trump's base is into it. The question was asked [2:43] by Reuters, is it appropriate for Trump to hold the UFC match? Just 16 percent of respondents said yes. [2:51] Even Trump's worst poll, he comes in around 34 percent. So that's not a third of Trump's existing base [2:56] that thinks it's appropriate for Donald Trump to have erected this monstrosity on the White House [3:04] South Lawn and decided to host this UFC fight there. Look, I don't think that most Americans [3:13] would have a problem with a professional sport having an event on the South Lawn of the White [3:17] House. Like, at the end of the day, it's, you know, we all celebrate sports together. We all sort of [3:22] look to them as a way of unifying each other and such. I think what changes people's views about it is [3:29] that if it's done for corruption and if it's done for reasons that are enriching the president or [3:36] people around the president and they're using the office of the presidency to do that. Like, [3:42] if Major League Baseball had a game on the South Lawn of the White House, like, in the same way that [3:47] they have a game at the Field of Dreams field in Iowa once a year, I'm not sure that that's that big [3:53] a deal. But the problem with what's happened here is that it gets lopped in with everything else that [4:01] Trump has done. And there is a sustained body of evidence and a narrative about how Trump has used [4:10] the office to enrich himself and people around him have done that. So when they have an event like [4:15] this on the South Lawn of the White House, the average person looks at it and says, OK, is this truly [4:19] a celebration of American sport, of the country, of people coming together to watch an event or is it [4:27] a way to make money? And there's a reason, ethics experts will tell you, that people in power should [4:34] not engage in anything where it looks like they're making money because it raises larger questions [4:39] about what they're doing in other areas. Can we trust what an elected official is doing if they are, [4:46] you know, if there are accusations that they are making money at the time? So people look at this [4:52] and they say, OK, what's really going on here? And I think that's probably one of the reasons that [4:57] there's skepticism about it. It's an extraordinary number, though, Heilman. I mean, it is around the [5:04] approval rating for Donald Trump's performance on the economy. Actually, that's five points lower. [5:08] That's 9%. Well, I'll say a few things about this. One of which is, I think when you see those [5:14] pictures, it's another sign to a lot of Americans that that entrepreneur's not focused on them and [5:21] their issues. It's like, when you see that thing being that this is what he's doing right now, [5:24] like, you know. Because this is all that he's doing right now. Right. He's not bringing, [5:28] he's not bringing, but it's just a vivid symbol. It's like, it's like tearing down the White House [5:32] ballroom. There's, it's, there are people who object to that because they love the White House and they, [5:36] they look at that, looks like six flags. It's like, it's tacky as hell. But that's, it's kind of like, [5:40] what's the president doing? He's planning a cage match. He's tearing down the, there used to be a [5:46] rose garden there, by the way. It's just absolutely incredible. But he's, he's tearing down the East [5:52] wing. He's trying to build the arc to Trump. It's just all these things that have nothing to do [5:56] with what voters actually care about, you know, which is like, why are my prices going so high? [6:02] And why is like, he's just seems unfocused on all of these things that are really about spectacle [6:06] and self aggrandizement. And yes, self enrichment too, but it's just sort of like he's distracted, [6:10] not paying attention to my, to my business. I also think that there's an element of this, [6:14] which is kind of like the thing in, we're in this great moment. I want to, we'll come back to the [6:19] Knicks. We're in this great moment where the glory of the part, as we were saying before, part of the [6:24] reason that sports is so powerful is that it's a thing that's not infected by politics. This thing [6:28] where politics and sports always get commingled, but it's still the case that you can go to a Knicks game [6:31] and you'd be rooting for the Knicks or for the Spurs. And you don't know the guy next to you [6:35] could be MAGA, the guy next to you, he'd be super woke. For three hours, nobody cares. Yeah, [6:39] you're in a Mets game and you're rooting for the Mets and no one's asking each other, [6:43] hey, are you on Team Blue or on Team Red? It's like the safe space where you can go and just care [6:47] about a different tribe, not like the political ideological. People are like sick of having [6:51] politics. In fact, absolutely everything. And Trump has done a lot of that. And this is just, [6:55] it's like, oh, really? I got like, even if you like this particular brand of sport, [7:00] you're kind of like, why does Donald Trump have to have his nose in this? Why does it have to be [7:05] Trumpified? You know, why does UFC have to be, he goes to these matches and I know he gets applause, [7:11] but I think for most Americans, they look at it and go, it's again, it's like, why is Donald Trump [7:14] sticking his nose in this particular thing? And then the third thing I'll say very quickly is that [7:18] the thing that we, that I sport, as Mike said, just now quoting Mitt Romney, it's sport, must worry [7:24] about right now is the sense that like financialization of it is taking over. And in between the [7:31] betting. The betting, yeah. And just the, as you listed at the beginning of what this is about, [7:35] it's like, here's the platinum sponsor and here's the this and here's the that and here's the gold [7:39] plate of this and here's the VIP access. Here's this, that, it's like, it's the one thing about the [7:44] Knicks that bums out real Knicks fans is like nobody in the city can afford to go to a Knicks [7:49] finals game or any of these playoff games. There are many thousands of dollars to get a seat up in [7:53] the Raptors. No one can afford to go to the World Cup, which is a thing that people are really looking [7:57] forward to. And now you look at it's 6,000, it's 18,000, $12,000 for a seat way up in the nosebleed [8:04] section to go to a World Cup match. Why are people not excited about the World Cup? It feels like it's [8:07] overpriced. And this is another thing where it's like, it's just the melding of sport and just [8:12] financializing. It's all about, you know, profit companies and rich people and all that stuff. [8:18] It just makes people a little bit nauseous, I think. I mean, Brendan, when do you expect a [8:21] decision and what do you make of their arguments? They were all about the fighters already dropping [8:26] weight to make their weigh-ins. Yeah. So the decision could come out any minute, could come [8:32] out tonight, could come out tomorrow. I think a number of their arguments were just exceptionally [8:37] weak. You alluded to one of them, which is saying that they are worried about the harm to the [8:41] fighters if this fight were delayed, given that they're cutting weight and they might have to cut [8:46] weight indefinitely. I don't think that's the case. If they reschedule the fight, they can just, [8:51] you know, go back to normal living and then cut weight when you get closer to the fight. [8:55] You know, I think it's very hard for the government to argue that it's complying with the law here. [9:00] And in fact, it reversed itself a couple of times on what it was doing specifically at the Lincoln [9:04] Memorial. So this all comes down to a fight overstanding whether the plaintiffs are the kind of people [9:09] who can bring suit here. I will just say, you know, also they, at the risk of being a little [9:15] repetitive, this isn't a fight over MMA. In fact, I want to shout out my colleague, Sam Ward-Packard, [9:20] who really was the architect of this case. He's a huge MMA fan. But to go back to these earlier [9:26] points, this is such a corruption of the sport when you have such obvious profiteering from public [9:32] property for an event like this. We're tracking these reports of absolute chaos and infighting [9:40] in the Trump White House. There is a lot of concern about the basically seemingly accurate [9:46] reporting in The New York Times about the Epstein crisis inside the White House. But Donald Trump [9:51] pushing back on that because I guess he's mad that the story is public. Washington also waking up to [9:56] this type of headline. Knives are out inside an insular and isolated White House. Political reporting [10:03] on the angry and grievance-driven Trump White House mood these days with one ally saying knives are out [10:10] in some capacity. People are stabbing people like it's chaos, the chaos creeping back. Another MAGA [10:17] political operative quoted as saying Trump is pissed and people are not recognizing the level of pissed [10:23] that he is. It all comes back to Epstein, a story that we've reported and told you they have not [10:29] been able to stab, including high-profile testimony this week and that New York Times bombshell, [10:34] which is part of a forthcoming book that probably has more details because this was just an excerpt. [10:40] The Times reporting the rather unusual, somewhat embarrassing detail that they misused [10:46] the national security situation room to spin Epstein. The response here, instead of shoot the [10:52] messenger, it's find the leaker, a reported massive leak probe into who might have been talking to [10:58] those journalists. You'll note, though, that a leak probe implies there are real people who said real [11:03] things to the journalists. In other words, that the story was basically true, right? They want to find [11:08] their own aides who are still in the White House who talk to the reporters. Meanwhile, the inflation [11:13] numbers that are coming in show that the inability to stem or end the ceasefire and the war in Iran [11:20] continues to catch up with America and Trump at home. Price gains have wiped out the pay increases [11:26] that Americans have even gotten over the past year on average. So this is some of that economic math. [11:31] But the bottom line is, if you adjust for inflation, your hourly earnings, all Americans' hourly earnings [11:38] are actually lower. They've effectively fallen because of Trump's inflation. Now, Trump says he loves [11:45] the inflation. I guess that's something he does not have in common with the American worker. And there are [11:50] other statements, which from someone who has focused on PR, who is known to be a communicator, [11:56] have raised wider questions about why any politician, including the incumbent president, [12:00] would say that he doesn't ever even think about your financial situation or that he doesn't care [12:05] about what you do and vote in the upcoming midterms or, as mentioned, that he loves inflation. [12:11] He loves it. Meanwhile, in private, there are oil executives warning the White House that the gas [12:42] price problem is only going to get worse. The Washington Post reporting on what were essentially [12:46] private warnings. Americans paying at the pump. Federal workers, meanwhile, are preparing to host [12:56] the UFC ring there at the White House. We have new footage. We should mention Trump also owns stock [13:02] in the company behind this fight. Critics questioning whether this is part of the ongoing grift and that [13:07] it doesn't end there as the Trump family is trying to make money by selling a $12,000 commemorative gold [13:14] coin that connects with this unusual fight that Donald Trump wants to hold at the White House, [13:21] which is a type of focus and energy going to this instead of, you know, governing the war, [13:27] high prices. Jimmy Kimmel having a field day. The Trump family is offering a special commemorative [13:36] coin with his head on it for this UFC event for the low, low price of only $11,999.99. [13:46] You can see, though, it's a beautiful coin. Julius UF Caesar is pictured. [13:55] You know, if you forget the last many years of politics, if you go back to, say, 2014, 2013, [14:03] you know, before Trump was even really floating this run, it's like the Simpsons episode that [14:08] imagined it or any other cartoon. The fact that it's really kind of the most absurd version of [14:17] Donald Trump hawking the coins and the products and the wrestling and the reality TV gambits, [14:25] the type of thing that you wouldn't think he would need to do. He's in the second term. He has no more [14:29] elections to run. He could try to, at times, focus on other things. But this is who he is. He was not [14:34] going to change. He has shown America who he is. And so that's the weird moment we're in, living through a [14:42] summer where people are actually having to cancel, reschedule, change their weekly plans, the vacation [14:49] they were going to drive to the lake for because gas is too expensive. And whatever gains, as I [14:55] mentioned, they got in hourly wages have been wiped out by Trump inflation, including the gas crunch [15:00] that is only a direct product of a war that he started that nobody, nobody seemed to want in America [15:07] and that he certainly didn't run on. And he certainly didn't get Congress to clear. And so [15:11] against the backdrop of these serious problems, foreign and domestic, you have Trump selling coins [15:17] and doing these reality TV ploys. And you might say, OK, well, the news is reporting on that. But, [15:23] you know, that's who he is. And that's how he got elected. And that's his appeal. Well, [15:27] it's not his appeal anymore. He has historically low second term approval ratings. He is at a low [15:33] enough approval that statistically a heck of a lot of people who have voted for him in the past [15:37] now disapprove of him. So maybe the schtick and the campaign moves and the antics that [15:43] did get attention in our political attention economy during campaign season aren't actually [15:48] turning out in a way that the American public wants. And that's before you even get to the [15:53] aging president's physical stamina. And this is the type of story we reported on regarding the last [15:58] president who happened to be a Democrat and this president who happens to be a Republican. What [16:02] they have in common is what has become a big kind of ongoing issue in sclerotic [16:07] Washington, which is a lot of people who are way past retirement age, continuing to do their [16:13] jobs or do them as best they can. Trump, again, being seen in what looks like a public nap and not [16:20] at a kind of quiet end of the night kind of event. This was actually at the loud, action-packed [16:26] Knicks-Spurs game. Today, there is reporting that he saw 22 different medical specialists as part of [16:32] his last checkup. Now, if you have good health care and everybody would want the president to have, [16:37] of course, the best there is, you can see as many specialists as you want. The question is whether [16:41] this relates to other issues and a lack of transparency in the White House. There are [16:47] questions from outside physicians who said they were skeptical of the disclosures about his health. [16:51] And remember, when you are president, you give up some of that personal health security that [16:55] most Americans have. In other words, it's not your employer's business or anyone's business if you [17:00] don't want to share. But that's not the case with the president. There is a long and important [17:04] standard of the president and the White House sharing the medical exams and other information [17:10] because it is a national security issue and a matter of public import. If you ask the public, [17:15] though, well, Americans are concerned that he may no longer be physically and mentally fit enough for [17:20] the job. And that is a backdrop that might remind you of why Biden ultimately exited the race, [17:27] because those kind of problems, those numbers are very hard to reverse. [17:30] And while Donald Trump isn't running for office, his party, of course, is up in the midterms and [17:36] Republicans are watching their odds get worse. Larry Sabato is a renowned elections forecaster. [17:44] He sees Republicans struggling and Democrats surging in several Senate races. [17:50] Take it all together. And what do you have here? A kind of a doomsday of problems. We didn't have to [17:58] be at war. Trump started the war. So we didn't have to have a gas crunch. The war caused that. [18:05] We didn't have to have an Epstein crisis that lasted this long in America. If Donald Trump had done [18:09] just what he said he would do and immediately released the files, it wouldn't have taken this [18:13] long. And ironically, it may redound against his benefit and hurt the Republicans that here deep [18:19] into the summer, we're still looking at that issue, the reporting, him hunting the Epstein leaker, [18:24] more witnesses going before Congress because Trump's DOJ did not do the investigations that [18:31] they should have and said they would. And you don't have to take the news's word for it. You can get [18:36] that take from Megan and Tucker and the right-wing podcasts. So all of this is congealed into a [18:42] problem for the Republicans going into the midterms and potentially for Donald Trump as he looks at a [18:47] nation that increasingly sees him as unfit and off the path Americans want. [18:54] Good evening from New York. I'm Chris Hayes. It has been 103 days since Donald Trump took us to [19:01] war with Iran. And we've had about 103 different proclamations from the man that the war is over, [19:07] or it's back on, or we have a deal, or that we're about to have a deal, or that we're bombing them [19:12] again. It's obvious to pretty much the entire world at this point that he has no idea what he's doing. [19:17] Today, we got all of the above in the space of a few hours. First came the bombing. [19:21] Yesterday, a U.S. precision strike destroyed a drinking water facility. According to [19:27] New York Times analysis, a facility that serves 20,000 people, according to the Iranian government, [19:31] as temperatures have reached well over 100 degrees this week. It is unclear if the U.S. [19:36] intentionally hit the facility, but of course, targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime [19:41] if it was done deliberately. Another U.S. strike on a tanker reportedly killed three Indian nationals [19:47] and left dozens more in the water seeking rescue. The U.S. said the ship ran the U.S. blockade of the [19:53] street of Hormuz. The Indian government has protested. Then Trump called into Fox this [19:58] morning to brag that the U.S. dropped $250 million of bombs on Iran last night, and to promise more. [20:07] Yeah, there will be more bombing tonight. It'll be bigger, bigger, more powerful. They're finished. [20:17] We can walk in there tomorrow. We could take soldiers. I don't want to have boots on the ground, [20:22] but if I wanted to, we could put a small group of soldiers and take over the whole place. [20:28] They have finished. We dropped $250 million worth of bombs on them last night. The whole thing is [20:34] crazy. And they're really in submission. They just don't know it yet. [20:42] For as long as I have covered politics in this country, somehow spending on the military, [20:46] government spending, spending on bombs just doesn't count. Oh, we just redropped a quarter [20:50] of a billion dollars of bombs last night. The Iranian government responded by promising [20:55] retaliatory strikes outside the Middle East. And then just three hours before the U.S. was set [21:00] to launch massive strikes. According to NBC News, Trump announced, actually, the war is over. [21:07] We just made a great settlement of the war with Iran. And we're going to be subject to finalization [21:16] of documents. We should get done over the next few days. We'll probably have a signing maybe in Europe. [21:22] And has the Supreme Leader approved this deal, sir? [21:25] I understand the answer is yes. [21:27] I understand the answer is yes. Now, would it surprise you to learn that is not true? [21:31] A senior Iranian official tells MSNOW Iran has not agreed to anything. State media reported the [21:37] same thing. But oil prices fell and stocks rose on Trump's guarantees. That's pretty much exactly [21:42] what happened the nearly 40 previous times Donald Trump promised a peace deal was this close. [21:49] This whole thing has been impossible to follow, even for professionals like us that have to follow [21:53] it for a living. The fundamental issue here is that there is a real crisis. It is produced by [21:58] Donald Trump with help from Netanyahu. There are real bombs falling, real people dying like the [22:03] Iranian schoolgirls whose school was destroyed on the first day of Trump's war by American weapons [22:08] and the 13 American service members who've died and the Indians who died at sea, not to mention [22:13] drinking water plants being bombed in the past day. Attacks the military called self-destruction strikes [22:19] and retaliation for downing of a U.S. helicopter. All of this is real, except to Donald Trump, [22:26] who is incapable of seeing it, this crisis, as anything other than a PR issue. And he cannot [22:34] understand why his incessant self-contradictory jawboning isn't getting him better press. [22:41] Behind the scenes, I will tell you, they won't even dispute it, although they probably would, [22:47] because it makes sense. They're very good. Iran is very good at publicity, but they're not good [22:51] at fighting. I took a look, and I must tell you, they can't believe the press they're getting. [23:00] They can't even believe it. And they told me, they said, it's amazing how well we're doing in [23:04] the papers. We're not doing so well. They're negotiating with us to make a deal. [23:09] Please, everyone, just take a second with this. The Iranians call Donald Trump in the midst of a [23:13] wars. They're bombing each other to tell Donald Trump secretly, between you and me, you guys are [23:19] doing so well. We're doing so terribly. I can't believe the press you're getting. Did they really [23:23] tell you this? They can't believe how well they're doing in the papers they told me? Did they? Is that [23:28] a real thing that happened? Are the Iranians in the room right now, sir? And remember, we have seen [23:33] this before. I think a lot of us blocked it out because it was such a traumatic year of our lives. [23:38] But this is exactly, exactly what happened with COVID. During COVID, Trump was incapable, [23:45] I mean, constitutionally incapable, of distinguishing between the political and PR [23:51] problem that COVID and the associated disruptions posed for him and the actual virus, and actually [23:57] combating that, to the point where he didn't want to test for the virus because he didn't like [24:03] the headlines. So the media likes to say we have the most cases, but we do by far the most testing. [24:11] If we did very little testing, we wouldn't have the most cases. So in a way, by doing all of this [24:16] testing, we make ourselves look bad. If you don't test, you don't have any cases. If we stop testing [24:21] right now, we'd have very few cases, if any. So I said to my people, slow the testing down, please. [24:29] It was a literal virus, a deadly virus, not a PR crisis. It killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. [24:35] And now, once again, we have a situation where his PR strategy is what's driving everything right now, [24:41] or at least this morning, it was to keep bombing, to try to fabricate a peace deal he can sell, [24:46] crucially, as something better than the Obama nuclear treaty. That's what this whole thing is [24:51] about. Again, real people, real lies, real destruction, real spikes in gas prices. But [24:56] Trump wants a deal that makes him look better than Obama or a total conquest of Iran. And absent that, [25:03] he just wants a few minutes or a few hours of some good press just to get him through. Again, [25:08] whatever makes the headlines good. And here's how you know that. When you have serious talks, [25:17] negotiations about nuclear disarmament, as the U.S. did under Obama, there are, you wouldn't be [25:22] surprised to hear, extremely complicated, painstaking and obscure technical discussions [25:28] that have to happen over months with nuclear scientists like Ernest Moniz. I mean, he literally [25:34] ran the MIT physics department. He's also Obama's secretary of energy. He was a linchpin in the Iran [25:38] nuclear deal and negotiating team. As talks went on for more than a year, Obama sent Moniz to discuss [25:44] the technical details of an agreement directly with the Iranian nuclear energy minister, who you see on [25:51] the far right in this photo. Two months later, the U.S. had a deal. Negotiators say the physicists [25:55] speaking to each other were integral to that because, as one White House official put it, [26:01] they treated these matters as scientific problems. This is how serious administrations tackle [26:07] serious diplomacy on this very important high-stakes technical issue. While the Trump administration [26:13] leaves it to these guys, presidential son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and billionaire donor, Stephen [26:19] Wyckoff. Just last week, Kushner and Wyckoff finally traveled down to the National Nuclear Lab in [26:26] Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to consult with experts who could possibly play a role in negotiations with Iran, [26:32] according to Axios. Possibly after four months of saying a deal is at hand. Now they are, [26:40] for the first time, meeting with their uranium enrichment experts, none of whom apparently work [26:45] in Washington. These are not serious people. They did get Axios to quote a U.S. official as saying [26:50] the meeting was a sign the negotiations are a very serious phase. Oh, they flew down to Tennessee to be [26:55] like, yeah, run me through this whole enrichment thing. And then what happened? What happened after that, [27:01] after the reporting about how close we are, we're exactly where we were when Trump launched this war, [27:06] except again for the death and the destruction, which have continued through this ostensible [27:10] ceasefire. And of course, the price of gas, which is still about $4 a gallon, which is driving [27:14] inflation, which has wiped out all wage gains that are Donald Trump. I have no idea what happens next. [27:20] I hope there is a deal. I don't want there to be war. And no one knows what happens next. Certainly [27:25] not Donald Trump. But what is clear is the fundamental goal here is to emerge with a PR win. [27:35] Nothing about the substance. He's lying and he's blustering and using the tools of life and death. [27:41] Real people raining down destruction, bringing global commerce to a halt, [27:46] all in the desperate search for good publicity. Moments ago, the president announcing Jay Clayton, [27:53] the former SEC chair, as the nominee to be director of national intelligence. [27:59] Let's bring in MSNOW senior national security reporter David Rode following this breaking news [28:04] and MSNOW legal analyst Catherine Christian also with us. David, tell us the latest on this kind of [28:12] surprise nomination. It is a surprise nomination. Jay Clayton is a prosecutor. I believe he's currently [28:20] the Southern District prosecutor in New York. That's Manhattan and part of Westchester County. [28:26] I don't believe he has a large amount of intelligence experience. And my key question [28:32] is when this, when he would take office, because the real concern surrounding Bill Pulte has to do [28:39] with any actions he might take regarding the midterm elections. But I would say this is a step forward. [28:45] He's a better nominee, sort of really speaking off the top of my head, than Bill Pulte. And that he has [28:51] a lot of experience as a lawyer and a prosecutor. But the question here is, is the timing. I just think [28:57] Bill Pulte should not be an acting director of national intelligence or serving in any form in such a [29:05] powerful and important office. [29:07] I do want to get to Bill Pulte and to the potential lack of experience and intel, Catherine. But first, [29:14] let me just read what President Trump put on Truth Social announcing this. I am pleased to announce the [29:19] nomination of very highly respected Jay Clayton, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, [29:24] the former head of Sullivan and Cromwell, one of the most prominent and successful law firms anywhere in the [29:30] world, and the current United States attorney for the Southern District of New York to be the next director [29:34] of national intelligence and importantly, to serve in my cabinet. I'll leave the rest for the viewers to read. [29:40] But Catherine, you know, speak to who this person is. Who is Jay Clayton? [29:44] Well, the president is right. He is a very highly respected attorney. He was chair of the SEC. He [29:51] was a partner at Sullivan Cromwell. I don't know if it was the best law firm in the world, but it's a [29:55] highly respected law firm. And he's the current United States attorney for the Southern District [30:00] of New York. But federal law requires that this position be given to some of the extensive national [30:07] security experience. And it doesn't appear that Jay Clayton has that. Clearly, he is a very competent, [30:14] highly qualified attorney and qualified to be the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. [30:20] It's not clear about that requirement of extensive national security experience. [30:27] David, is there any sense for why now? You know, we had Bill Pulte's name echoing in the ether. Clearly, [30:32] Republicans were incensed—some Republicans, I should say—were incensed by him as acting DNI. [30:40] So why now? This is a victory for Democrats in Congress who held up Section 702, the approval of [30:48] that very important tool to the intelligence community. Some say it's too important, in a way, [30:53] too powerful. But this is a law that allows the U.S. to surveil its communications between foreigners [31:02] and Americans. And so during these kind of sweeps, when they collect this lot of NSA eavesdropping, [31:09] they can obtain the communications of Americans who are conversing with foreigners. And so there [31:14] are complaints from both the left and the right about it should be a more thorough process to protect [31:19] Americans' privacy. But what Trump has done here is back down. We have the president backing down [31:25] again. You could argue earlier today he's sort of backed down to Iran. He's now backing down to [31:29] Democrats because Section 702 was going to expire. And there were deep fears about not having that tool [31:36] would make it more difficult for the intelligence community to see terrorist threats and many other [31:42] threats to the United States. I want to bring in David Drucker of the Dispatch. David, let's talk [31:50] about the political implications of this. You have David Rode mentioning that this is a victory for [31:54] Democrats who have pressured on FISA. How will Republicans view this? Will they be breathing [31:59] a sigh of relief? Or are they still going to have concerns about Jay Clayton in this role? [32:05] Well, we're going to have to see how Senate Republicans react to Clayton and his qualifications [32:09] or lack thereof per the statute, which was laid out very expertly there. But I think this has to be seen [32:18] as the president acquiescing to the wishes of the United States Senate, which needs to confirm [32:23] any new DNI. There was a bipartisan dissatisfaction with Bill Pulte, just feeling like he was not only [32:32] not only was he not a national security expert or professional, but that he wasn't up to the job [32:38] and was too partisan of an individual. And what you're getting with Clayton is a lawyer and somebody [32:46] who can theoretically sell himself and present as nonpartisan, which is something that Tulsi [32:54] Gabbard didn't present with when she was confirmed. And I think that the president moving [33:02] so quickly to Jay Clayton after promoting Mr. Pulte and saying, look, he'll be there for a while [33:09] because there are things that he wanted Pulte to do and he talked about that, I think shows that the [33:14] pressure he was under, both with the reauthorization of FISA, but just general unhappiness from Republicans [33:21] as well as Democrats in the Senate. I just say, you know, one side note here, you know, for some [33:26] Republicans, they feel that 20 plus years on the DNI, the office of the director of national [33:30] intelligence has outlived its usefulness and they wouldn't mind seeing it go away. Clearly the [33:34] president wants to fill this position. And I think that he had to move away from Pulte. I think the [33:40] interesting thing is that he did it so quickly and didn't send Pulte on his, you know, fact-finding [33:45] missions in the intelligence community, which he had said was very important to him just a couple of days [33:50] ago. Why do you think that is? Why so quickly? I mean, it's an outstanding question. Was it the [33:55] pressure from House Speaker Mike Johnson, who met with him two times, allegedly on this? You know, [34:00] it was the House Speaker who met with him. He wasn't meeting with Senator Thune. Do you see, [34:05] you know, Congress pressuring the president on this? Is that how this worked? [34:10] Well, I don't know that that I think we need to look at this more as a U.S. Senate issue simply [34:15] because they have confirmation authority here, right? And they were the ones that were unhappy [34:20] and they were the ones that were subtly, I'd call it subtly applying pressure, right? I mean, [34:24] usually the way you get Trump to reverse course if you're a Republican is not to go after him [34:30] directly, but just sort of, you know, make it known that you're unhappy with this and you think the [34:35] president's agenda would be served better if the president himself would make a different choice. [34:40] And I just think there was enough unhappiness among Republicans that it wasn't just the [34:46] Democratic opposition. I think we also have to, as David Rowe just mentioned here, and this was [34:51] important, there's a deep concern that FISA is going to expire, you know, and we don't think about [34:57] this much, but the reason the FISA court was created in the aftermath of 9-11 is we just felt [35:01] like we were not keeping tabs on all of these bubbling and percolating threats that could turn [35:06] into terrorist acts if we don't ferret them out first. And so even though FISA has lost favor [35:13] among the public to some degree, the U.S. government of both Democrats and Republicans has found it to [35:20] be a very important national security tool. I want to bring in MSNOW White House reporter [35:25] Laura Barone-Lopez. Laura, any sense for why the whiplash on this? Why did this happen now? [35:33] I think, well, ultimately, as both David Rowe and David Drucker said, this comes down to the fact [35:37] that the president was squeezed. He obviously wanted Bill Pulte, that someone who was a loyalist, [35:43] someone that the president has trusted, who has had the ear of the president for quite some time [35:48] now, even sometimes to the dismay of others in the president's circle inside the White House. [35:55] They haven't always liked how much Bill Pulte has been able to talk to the president and do the [35:59] president's bidding and encourage the president to go after his perceived enemies and say that he would [36:05] do it on his behalf. Now, the big question here, so ultimately, Ariel, to answer your question, [36:11] it came down to, I think, the fact that FISA, that warrantless surveillance law was going to expire [36:16] on Friday, as well as the fact that Pulte likely was not going to get confirmed. Now, [36:21] when it comes to Jake Clayton, the big question is whether or not he is going to carry out as much [36:25] of the president's bidding as Pulte would have. Now, just yesterday, the president was talking about [36:31] the fact that he wanted some downsizing of the national intelligence apparatus, something [36:38] that Gabbard, Tulsi Gabbard, had already been doing, had fired a number of people across her agency, [36:45] but that that was something that the president wanted to see done. There's also the question [36:50] of elections and voting systems and election security, which the president has repeated [36:56] those false claims over and over again, saying that election, that the American elections are [37:01] rigged and not safe. That was something Pulte also spread. And Jay Clayton just recently talking [37:07] to, I believe it was CNBC, kind of repeated some of that, saying in an interview that he thought [37:14] questions about election integrity were valid and that it was something worth looking at and that [37:19] there were essentially casting doubt about the security of American elections. So one big question, [37:25] I'm sure some senators are going to have, especially people like Lisa Murkowski and others who don't [37:30] support President Trump's continuation of these conspiracy theories, is what Jay Clayton is [37:38] actually going to do and whether or not he is going to try to take a hands-on approach when it comes to [37:43] election systems in the way that Tulsi Gabbard was starting to, Ariel. [37:47] So David Drucker, hearing Laura Barron-Lopez's reporting there, is it your sense that this is [37:56] what tipped the scales in Jay Clayton's favor, that he was willing to express some degree of [38:01] skepticism and election integrity? Well, look, we know that that's always important to President [38:05] Trump, right? I mean, he wants his top officials, he wants all of his officials to parrot his conspiracy [38:11] theories or his views as he sees them. His views on the 2020 election and elections that he does not win [38:19] are conspiracies because when he's lost, he's lost. I think the question here is in a confirmation [38:27] hearing, does Mr. Clayton talk about wanting to examine election security and do things to beef up [38:34] election security within the law and in ways that do not impinge on states' rights? And in our system, [38:41] states have purview over elections, not the federal government, in terms of how they are administered, [38:47] or is he going to begin talking about a desire to look back at previous elections, namely the 2020 [38:54] election, and take over where Tulsi Gabbard left off, showing up in Georgia or Arizona or anywhere else [39:00] asking for ballots and wanting answers as to, you know, this or that conspiracy? There is a difference [39:07] here, right? I mean, there is a role for the federal government to play to make sure the elections are [39:13] secure from foreign interference. And both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration [39:20] had departments and officials that did that work. The question is, are we looking backward, [39:26] trying to create proof that doesn't exist, or is he simply going to talk about doing the job that [39:32] the federal government is supposed to do? You know that feeling? We've all had this feeling. [39:39] When you buy a cute pair of shoes or something like that you saw on Instagram, and then they show up, [39:45] and you wear them for a day or two, and they're just not what you hoped they'd be. Or when you buy a movie [39:52] ticket, and halfway through the show, you think to yourself, ugh, I should have stayed home, or maybe gone to [39:59] see a different movie. We've all been there. We've all had versions of buyer's remorse. And right now, [40:06] it feels a lot like a lot of Trump voters are entering their very own buyer's remorse era. I mean, [40:14] think about it this way. Back in 2024, Trump won the support of 81% of voters who ranked the economy [40:19] as their number one issue. He won 81% of them. Or he won. That was their big issue. But fast forward [40:27] to present time. And a new poll out just this week found that a record 63% of Americans disapprove of [40:34] Trump's handling of the economy. Just take a look at the chart. There it is, right on the screen. [40:40] The light red line at the top that you can see right there is Trump's economic approval rating [40:45] during his first term. It's essentially hovering around the same place the whole time. Pretty [40:49] consistent. That dark red line you can see kind of on the one side of the screen is Trump's economic [40:56] approval rating during his second term. And as you can see there, it's basically plummeting off of a [41:02] cliff. And it's not just the economy that is driving feelings of buyer's remorse for Trump voters. I [41:08] mean, Trump ran for president repeatedly promising that as president, he wouldn't get us into any new [41:14] wars. A promise, by the way, he now insists that he never made. One of your consistent campaign [41:22] promises was no new wars going all the way back to 2015. Did you break that promise to the American [41:30] people? No. Under Trump, we will have no more wars. I didn't guarantee no war. If Trump comes back, [41:36] you won't have any wars. You won't have any wars. So when you say, I promised, I didn't promise [41:42] anything. They said he will start a war. I'm not going to start a war. I'm going to stop wars. [41:46] Trump absolutely did promise repeatedly that he would not start any new wars. It was kind of a [41:54] shtick he'd said all the time. He also promised that he was the great dealmaker and that he could [42:00] negotiate an end to any conflict. That was also part of his regular shtick. But now he's failing [42:05] on both counts. I mean, for the past two days, we watched Trump's ceasefire with Iran fall apart [42:10] as the two countries resumed fighting. Then this morning, Trump once again teased a big devastating [42:17] strike against Iran and threatened to take over their oil industry, only to back away at the last [42:22] second, claiming once again that a peace deal was imminent. There is no imminent peace deal, [42:28] clearly. Now, tonight he's claiming that Iran is ready to sign a deal with Iranian while Iranian [42:32] officials are publicly denying any such thing. The man is basically stuck and in way over his head. [42:41] That is very clear more than 100 days into this war. It's the same thing we've seen over and over and [42:46] over again since the beginning of this conflict. And the people who bought Trump's no new wars pledge [42:51] now also have buyer's remorse. In that same new poll I mentioned earlier, almost the entire country, [42:57] a full 92 percent of voters, say they think the war will last another month or longer, rejecting Trump's [43:03] claim that an end to the war is imminent. And two-thirds of Americans, 67 percent, think Trump has been [43:09] ineffective in negotiating with Iran. When it comes to Trump and his policies, there are signs of [43:16] buyer's remorse basically everywhere you look. People who voted for him who are thinking, [43:21] this isn't what I voted for or this isn't what I want. Even take the things Trump himself is excited [43:27] about, like the big UFC fight he's planning to host on the South Lawn of the White House for his 80th [43:32] birthday on Sunday. A new Reuters Ipsos poll found that only 16 percent of Americans think it's [43:37] appropriate for Trump to hold that event, which means that most of the people who voted for him [43:42] are not on board with his big birthday party. And we're seeing that kind of buyer's remorse is not [43:48] only evident in the polls, but also in conversations with real people in places that were key to Trump's [43:55] victory. In states like Ohio, for example, which had become so red in the last several years, it almost [44:01] felt outside the grasp of Democrats, like Democrats are being unrealistic and trying to compete in the [44:06] state. I mean, in the 2008-20 election, he won it by eight points, Trump did. Then in 2024, he won Ohio [44:14] by 11 points, in large part because of repeated promises to boost the economy and bring back [44:21] manufacturing jobs. No more shipping jobs overseas. But guess what? That's exactly where Ohio's jobs are [44:28] going. In January, several Ohio factories announced plans to close, including this Conselmer instrument [44:34] plant in Eastlake, the one you can see there on your screen. The plant's billionaire owner, [44:38] John Paulson, a close ally of Trump, I would note, offshored all of those jobs to China. [44:44] Annette Dombrowski is a three-time Trump voter and a janitor at that Eastlake, Ohio plant. At the end [44:49] of the month, on June 30th, she's going to be officially out of a job. MSNAM reporter Alex Tabbitt went to [44:55] her house this week and asked her how she felt when she was laid off and whether she thinks Trump [45:00] understands what she is going through. I actually have panic attacks. I've had a couple this past [45:10] week and I get very emotional over it. I don't want to work anymore, but I can't afford to retire. [45:21] Obviously, President Trump is immensely wealthy, has been wealthy since he was born. [45:25] Yeah. Do you think he understands? No, no. He hasn't lived it to understand it. [45:33] He sees it. He has not lived it. He needs to live it. Wear the clothes. Wear the shoes. Wear your [45:40] Walmart clothes. Wear your Walmart shoes. Do your thrift store shopping. Don't eat steaks. [45:49] I don't get to go out to dinner. It's not an overnight thing, but it's been two years now. [45:54] You said you'd bring down the grocery prices. Literally, I must be the most angry person when [46:00] I grocery shop because I buy the same things every week and I see it jump every week. It is [46:07] not every couple months. It's literally every week. Our reporter, Alex Abbott, also spoke with [46:15] another three-time Trump voter, a man named Chris Tackett, a trucker from Ohio who expressed deep [46:20] frustration with Trump's broken promises. When President Trump said he wasn't going to start [46:26] foreign wars, when he said he was going to bring down prices, did you believe him? [46:29] Yeah. Yeah. I mean, his first term, I think he held true to everything that he said he was going to do. [46:37] I think he fought for everything he said he was going to fight for. This time around, [46:40] I haven't seen it. He's literally, he's backtracked on every, every single, um, pitch point he had [46:48] during his election, he's backtracking on. All we heard was drill, drill, drill, drill during the [46:53] election, and now all we're getting is drilled into the dirt with these prices. So I'm not a fan of [46:59] him. I voted for Trump all three terms. To be honest with you, I'm not a big supporter of him at this [47:05] point. I'm not a big supporter of him at this point, is what he had to say. Now that Ohio voter [47:13] also had another message for Trump. If you could talk directly to President Trump, what would you [47:19] tell him right now? Get it together, man. The average American is struggling to make ends meet right [47:24] now. And nobody wants to hear the war is almost over. Nobody wants to hear it's going to get better. [47:29] You've had a year to make it better at this point. Make it better. Make America great again, right? [47:35] More, more than a year to be exact. And there was also a one-time Trump voter who had a more [47:41] explicit message for Trump, which I think kind of encapsulates the buyer's remorse we've been [47:47] seeing lately on a number of issues. If you could talk to President Trump directly right now, [47:54] what would you tell him? Should you want me to really say it on air? I said, [47:59] you know, I don't mean to be disrespectful to any, any leader, but he's disrespectful to us [48:05] and he doesn't care. So. He's disrespectful to us and he doesn't care. That again, a guy who voted [48:12] for Trump. Trump's disrespect for his own supporters is essentially destroying the coalition that put him [48:19] in the White House to begin with. And it's not just voters he's pushing away. It's also Republican [48:23] politicians who have loyally supported his agenda, sometimes embarrassingly loyal. Now Trump upended [48:29] his party's plans last month when he decided to snub Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas and [48:34] endorse his scandal-plagued primary opponent, Ken Paxton, who then defeated Cornyn. Now for the [48:40] first time since his bitter primary loss, John Cornyn is putting his own Trump buyer's remorse on [48:46] full display in a new interview with the New York Times. And among other things, he's predicting that [48:51] Trump's final two years in office will be the most miserable of his life. And he's warning that, [48:57] quote, I think it's going to be a pretty bumpy ride for the next seven months, which is of course [49:01] referring to the remainder of Cornyn's own term in office. Cornyn also made reference to the famous [49:07] incident in the Oval Office where Trump-a-rated Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky saying, [49:13] as the president told President Zelensky when he was in his office a year or so ago, he said, [49:18] you don't have any cards. Well, we've got some cards to play. There we go. And when asked about [49:23] Trump's post-election claim that Cornyn would remain his friend, Cornyn told the Times, [49:28] if that's the way friends treat you, you wonder about his enemies. Hell hath no wrath like a [49:34] Republican scorned, I guess.