MS NOW Highlights - May 26

[0:00] It was always going to come to this. The very same Republicans who swallowed their principles, [0:07] removed their spines, silenced their deep concerns about Donald Trump's lack of principles [0:12] or stability or sanity, are the very same ones today sounding the loudest alarms [0:19] about Donald Trump's foreign policy. Prominent Republicans now openly and publicly wondering [0:24] if the leader of their party, their movement, and the country appears to be on the verge [0:30] of making a deal with Iran that leaves the United States of America worse off than before the war [0:36] with Iran began, as Donald Trump now finds himself stuck between relaunching a deeply unpopular war [0:42] that is causing deep economic anxiety and pain for every American and eroding his political coalition [0:49] in the standing of his party, or, curtain number two, accepting a deal with Iran that has the potential [0:57] to leave the current Iranian regime strengthened and in a stronger position with more leverage [1:03] than they were in and than they had at the start of the war. Republican Senator Roger Wicker, [1:09] who notably is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote this, quote, [1:13] The rumored 60-day ceasefire, with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith, [1:19] would be a disaster. Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught, [1:25] exclamation point, from Mr. Wicker. Texas Republican Ted Cruz had this to say, quote, [1:32] I am deeply concerned about what we are hearing about an Iran deal, in quotes, being pushed by some voices [1:38] in the administration, that the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime still run by Islamists [1:46] who chant death to America, now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium [1:50] and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, [1:56] then that outcome would be a dangerous mistake, end quote, from Ted Cruz. Even Lindsay Manit with [2:05] Fund Graham is saying the quiet part out loud these days, quote, [2:08] It makes one wonder why the war started to begin with, if these perceptions are accurate, end quote. [2:15] Now, time will tell if Lindsay Graham or Ted Cruz, or Roger Wicker, for that matter, [2:22] these ride-or-die allies of the presidents who have today become voices of dissent over the framework [2:31] or outlines of a deal with Iran will fall into line, as they have every single time over the last [2:38] decade. But in the same way that Broken Clock is right twice a day, Lindsay Graham is getting to [2:44] a fundamental truth, an unanswered question, about the war with Iran. It has never been clear to the [2:52] vast majority of the American people why the war was started to begin with, or what the objectives [2:58] were, when we would know we'd succeeded. In the early days of the war, Donald Trump had called for [3:05] regime change, very publicly, saying help is on the way. But Iran's brutal dictator has been replaced [3:12] with that brutal dictator's son. Then it was said that the point of the war with Iran, this was [3:20] something Marco Rubio said publicly, was to eliminate Iran's missile program and nuclear program and [3:27] degrade their military. But we know that U.S. intelligence believes that Iran has retained [3:31] significant military capabilities and that the nuclear program has hardly been damaged. Now, [3:37] as Tom Nichols writes in The Atlantic, quote, now the president will end up having to sign off on a set [3:43] of terms that will likely make the JCPOA, the Iran deal signed by the Obama administration, [3:49] look demanding by comparison. And the U.S. proposals, The New York Times reports, quote, [3:54] focuses on ending Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, something that was not an issue before [3:59] the war started. In any case, Donald Trump may not get the chance to sign off on any deal as the [4:05] ceasefire is looking very shaky at the moment. U.S. forces launching strikes overnight. What CENTCOM [4:12] said were, quote, self-defense strikes on missile sites and Iranian boats that were planting mines. [4:17] Iran's regime is threatening to retaliate against these new strikes. Donald Trump lurching toward a [4:23] potential endgame with the war in Iran is where we begin today with some of our favorite reporters [4:29] in front. Deputy Secretary of State, former Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman is here. She led the [4:34] U.S. negotiating team that reached an agreement on the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. Also joining us, [4:40] the aforementioned staff writer at The Atlantic, Tom Nichols, is here. He's a professor emeritus of national [4:46] security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. Ben Rhodes will join us in a moment. Ambassador [4:51] Sherman, let me start with you and your thoughts on these very notable, as I call them, ride-or-die [5:00] allies of Donald Trump sounding very public alarms about what's been reported about a possible deal. [5:08] I feel like it's a little bit of deja vu, because when we were doing the JCPOA, the Joint [5:16] Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran nuclear deal, these were the voices that were [5:21] saying it is a bad deal. It doesn't take care of everything. It doesn't stop everything forever. [5:29] Indeed, it was a deal that was quite sustainable for a long time and certainly could have been [5:35] extended through swift and good negotiations. That said, we're in a very different place now, [5:42] as you pointed out. Before the president started this war of choice, this ill choice, [5:51] the Strait of Hormuz was open. There was freedom of navigation. And now he has to spend all of his [5:57] time figuring out how to open the Strait of Hormuz, end our blockade, get gas prices down, [6:04] which will take at least two or three months to be achieved once this is accomplished, [6:09] all the while not really having started negotiating on the nuclear issues, figuring out how to verify [6:18] or monitor any of it, including the end of the Strait of Hormuz. So lots of details and very little [6:27] substance so far. I mean, let me just ask you, I mean, it seems like an undeniable conclusion [6:34] to say that we are worse off, we are in a worse position in terms of leverage and accomplishments [6:40] now than before the war started. What, I mean, I want to say what were they thinking, [6:46] but I don't, I mean, if you have, what were they thinking, ambassador? [6:49] I have no idea. I've stopped trying to understand how the president thinks other than sometimes [6:57] being quite impulsive. Look, we always knew, and every administration, Democrat and Republican, [7:06] had gamed out the use of the Strait of Hormuz as leverage. This was nothing new. We had all gamed [7:12] out that in fact it could start an Arab-Persian war, that Iran could attack our allies and partners [7:19] in the Gulf. This is nothing new. But in fact, President Trump moved forward and all of those [7:26] things happened. So the points of leverage are now quite clear that Iran has. And even [7:32] if the Strait of Hormuz can be opened, if the blockade ends, if gas prices stabilize over the [7:39] months ahead, we will be nowhere where we need to be. And we will all understand that at any point, [7:47] Iran can do this again. Let me give you a chance to respond to Mike Pompeo, who I think is insulting [7:55] Trump by insulting you, but I don't think it's quite, I don't think it lands as the flex Mike Pompeo [8:00] thinks it is, especially once the White House spokesperson, Stephen Chung, gets the F-bombs [8:07] involved. But let me read you Mike Pompeo's statement and let you respond. Quote, [8:12] the deal being floated with Iran seems straight out of the Wendy Sherman, Robert Malley, Ben Rhodes [8:17] playbook. Pay the IRGC to build a WMD program and terrorize the world. Not remotely America first, [8:24] it's straightforward. Open the damn straight, deny Iran access to money, take out enough [8:29] Iranian capability, so it cannot threaten our allies in the region. Overdue, let's go. I think [8:34] what he means to do is to threaten Donald Trump's, you know, virility with a comparison, [8:42] an unfavorable one to you. But what he reveals to the world is that Trump has been completely [8:48] bamboozled by the people around him who have led him down a path that pales in comparison to the deal [8:56] you negotiated. I think Lindsey Graham, in the quote that you showed, said it exactly right. [9:02] It makes you wonder why we went down this road to begin with, because we are in a place that is [9:09] much tougher. Look, negotiating with Iran is very difficult. They are tough guys, all guys, [9:16] and they are the largest state sponsor of terrorism. They aren't, this isn't a regime any of us want, [9:25] and the president started all this by saying he'd have the backs of the Iranian people. [9:31] That's gone by the wayside. The president, ostensibly of Iran, started to restore the [9:37] internet today to give people access, but they've been using VPNs to figure out what's going on in [9:43] the world. But the lives for Iranian people are worse, not better than when this all started. [9:50] Let me, let me just, for close viewers, I'll share what Stephen Chung, the White House spokesperson, [9:59] had to say in response to Mike Pompeo. Mike Pompeo has no idea what the F he's talking about. He [10:05] should shut his stupid mouth and leave the real work to the professionals. He's not ridden to [10:10] anything that's happening, so how would he know? With friends like that, I'm not sure who needs [10:16] enemies, Tom Nichols. Yeah, that's some top-notch communication from the communications director [10:22] right there. I'm like 10 years retired, and I could have done better than that. [10:27] You know, guy's really on top of his game. And as, you know, as I said, and when I wrote this, [10:32] this was a little glimpse into what I think is kind of sweaty panic inside the White House that, [10:38] you know, this is going, this is all going south on us, our own allies, our own most sycophantic [10:46] supporters. I mean, when you're getting scored on by Lindsey Graham, that's got a sting. [10:53] But, you know, there are two, I'll take a whack at the thing you asked Ambassador Sherman. You know, [10:57] what were they thinking? I think two things are clear. One is that Donald Trump thought this would [11:02] be a war that would bring him glory. I think that's what he was thinking. I shall be the liberator of [11:08] Iran. And I think the second thing they were thinking is this regime will collapse. And I think [11:14] everything we've been going through for the past two months, all of these operational successes [11:21] that aren't amounting to a strategic effect are all because once the regime didn't collapse, [11:27] you weren't going to get all the other stuff you wanted. Had the regime collapsed overnight [11:32] and a more compliant regime had come into power, you'd say, okay, now we're going to talk about terrorism. [11:38] Now we're going to talk about the strait. Now we're going to talk about nuclear stuff. [11:41] But once that didn't happen, they didn't know what to do. And they still don't know what to do. [11:47] And I think what you're seeing now is the kind of, again, this kind of panicky, sweaty [11:51] search for a face-saving exit. I think that's put, you know, this, I mean, it's forcing [11:58] CENTCOM into saying things like, well, these were self-defense strikes. These are obviously [12:02] meant to be demonstrative. They're meant to show that we can still hit Iran. But to what end? [12:08] What is it they think they're going to get out of this now that the regime is obviously going to [12:14] stay? The Iranian people have been abandoned and now, you know, are, as the ambassador just said, [12:22] worse off than they were. The notional idea that the Iranians could choke off the strait [12:29] of Hormuz is now a reality. And we've spent billions of dollars and a lot of our weapons [12:35] stocks. And for what? The strain that Trump is putting on his own party with what Republican [12:42] senators call selfishness. The sound you hear is, of course, Election Day in America. We'll keep [12:48] following these primaries. And voters in Texas are coming out in the Republican primary. And they [12:54] are looking down the barrel of what some view as a Mago Civil War, where Donald Trump has picked the [12:58] anti-Republican re-election side. That's what Senate Republicans even are saying. So kind of an [13:04] unusual headline if you think about it that way. This is the runoff you might have heard about if [13:08] you follow the news. You have an embattled incumbent, Republican John Cornyn, and the very controversial, [13:16] once impeached, scandal-plagued Ken Paxton, who netted a Trump endorsement. And that's got Republican [13:22] senators and strategists mad. They say it makes it less likely that they'll hold the Senate. [13:26] Some have called this a brutal primary that reads Republicans in tatters. Of course, [13:31] it all depends on whether the eventual nominee can win. But it paves the way for a rising star [13:37] in the Democratic Party to have what, again, even Republicans say is potentially a better [13:42] shot at turning this seat blue. Now, if you're watching the news going, [13:47] I feel like I've heard about this before, it is true. We have heard many times about efforts to [13:52] turn Texas blue that have not actually won, or as the kids would say, manifest. [13:59] But why is this time different? Well, Paxton has more than your usual amount of MAGA baggage. [14:03] He had to settle a federal corruption indictment. He was impeached for alleged fraud and obstruction [14:08] of justice. His wife filed for divorce amid these allegations. And those are allegations. Of course, [14:15] a divorce proceeding can go on in court. But it is a matter of public record for voters to be aware of [14:20] that there are allegations of multiple affairs. I will note that he was acquitted in his impeachment, [14:26] and he has asserted that he is innocent of all corruption charges. But this is politics, [14:31] not a court of law. The Republican senators were basically unanimous at wanting the non-impeached, [14:39] non-scandal plagued incumbent Republican to be their choice. The candidacy has divided many, [14:47] including even some couples in Texas. [14:48] It's not a great choice, either one, really. But I think I lean towards Paxton, for sure. [14:58] He's local. Cornyn hasn't always been with the Republicans the way I would like. [15:04] But it was a tough choice. But I did vote for Paxton on the runoff. [15:10] What are your thoughts about Paxton? [15:11] A crook. Yeah, that's it, period. He's just a crook. [15:16] That's an independent talking. [15:18] When the economy is taken into account in the summer, people plan their trips. They think about [15:24] gas prices. They think about what they can afford. And it's less under Trump. Here was a White House [15:29] official, though, today. [15:30] The thing that I've seen when I look at credit card data and other things that I can get for the private [15:37] sector is that while people have been spending more money at gas stations, they've been spending [15:42] more money on everything else, which means that they're still very, very optimistic about the state [15:47] of the economy. You can ask yourself whether transferring your planning and your budgeting [15:54] to your credit card reflects, quote, optimism or just the crunch of the fact that things are more [16:00] expensive and people go into credit spending to say, all right, well, we'll do the July 4th trip [16:04] on the card and we'll figure the rest out later. It's more of reality than optimism. And it's a rising [16:09] price problem that Trump promised and has now failed to fix. 59 percent, meanwhile, say Trump lacks [16:14] mental sharpness. Many people skeptical of his health problems. He says he got a clean bill of [16:19] health after a third in-person doctor visit in just over the years. Skeptics, though, [16:24] have been raising questions about everything from the appearance of his hands to recent events where [16:29] he has his eyes closed in meetings, whether you call that a nap or something else is the eye or the [16:33] closed eye of the beholder. I want to bring in from The New York Times, Molly John Fass and Michelle [16:40] Goldberg from The New York Times, also both analysts for us at MSNOW. Michelle, we started [16:45] with Texas where I want to be objective. If Paxton gets the nomination with Trump's help and ultimately [16:52] holds the seat, then it may have cost them a little more, but it will feel like noise. [16:56] If they blow a seat, though, in a red state because Trump just didn't care about holding the [17:02] Senate, that would really be something. Yeah, I mean, it would be astonishing. This has been the [17:05] white whale for Democrats for as long as I've been covering politics, the idea of a Democratic [17:11] senator from Texas. And I think most people who follow Texas think that that Tallarico has a [17:16] better chance against Paxton because he is so plagued by, you know, scandal, both in terms of [17:22] kind of bribery and corruption, but also just in terms of this very ugly and messy divorce. [17:28] At the same time, the the amount of Republican the way that these Republican senators are showing so [17:34] much kind of angst and sense of betrayal over Donald Trump stabbing John Cornyn in the back. [17:39] It's like this is the line for you. I mean, to me, that's what's astonishing is that you see them [17:43] all say, well, now that now we're going to stand against the ballroom right now, we're going to [17:47] stand against the slush fund. Now we're going to vote for a war powers resolution because how dare [17:52] you take out our friend John or potentially to help take out our friend John Cornyn. And I think it [17:58] just goes to show how utterly insular they are, right? That this is the line that Trump can cross [18:07] that will finally make them say, you know, this man is out of control. [18:12] Yeah. I mean, your criticism makes a deep point. If you remember in The Dark Knight where the Joker [18:16] says, and this is his cynical view, he says people are only as good as they're allowed to be. [18:22] And whatever the cowardice or narrowness, or you called it insularity of these Republican senators, [18:27] apparently they are only as independent as they think they're allowed to be. And having watched [18:34] a move that in the narrow math of the Senate, they perceive, let's put aside whether it happens, [18:39] as I said, we don't know. They perceive it as materially making it more likely they lose the [18:45] Senate. And that, as you say, unloads them to say, well, maybe we will stand up against your ballroom. [18:50] Yeah, exactly. I mean, and what's so bizarre too, is that it's actually only by kind of standing up [18:56] against Trump in these very small ways that they might have a chance, I think, or have a better [19:02] chance of holding the Senate. [19:03] I think about this and doing some research. A nurse in Queens who makes $75,000 a year [19:10] pays more than $12,000 a year in taxes. Does that really make sense? If people want me to pay [19:20] more billions, then let's have that debate. But don't pretend that that's going to solve [19:26] the problem. You could double the taxes I pay, and it's not going to help that teacher in Queens. [19:32] I promise you. Putting aside his defense of his tax record, which is sort of what he's answering [19:39] the question on, he advocates eliminating the entire federal tax burden of those lower income [19:46] people. And so my question to you on the politics is, why do you think he views that as popular right [19:51] now? I mean, that would have been lefty radical 10 years ago. Well, I'm not sure if he does really [19:55] advocate for it. I mean, he throws it out in an interview as a way to deflect from the question [20:00] of whether his own taxes should be raised, right? But if you support the Republican Party, as Jeff [20:06] Bezos does, you are kind of de facto not supporting lowering taxes. [20:10] Agreed. That's what I'm saying. I mean, he's with the president, so we know where he is [20:14] on policy, but there's something that he thinks is popular there. [20:17] Well, I think that a lot of these, especially in the technology industry, right, they know [20:21] that artificial intelligence, or at least they suspect that artificial intelligence, [20:25] is going to be terrible for a lot of people's jobs. And they know that there's going to be, [20:30] you know, sort of metaphorical pitchfork-wielding mobs coming for them, right? They're already [20:35] fantastically unpopular. And so you see them kind of paying lip service to things like, [20:41] I guess, eliminating their tax burden, a universal basic income. They throw all these ideas around, [20:47] but they never actually then kind of support redistribution when it actually counts. [20:53] On night one of the Colbert Report, back in the day, I said, anyone can read the news to you, [20:59] I promise to feel the news at you. And I don't know about you, but I sure have felt it. [21:06] Steven, I'm here on behalf of Paramount. They wanted me to read this statement. [21:09] Paramount strongly believes in covering both sides of any black hole that is swallowing [21:13] everything we know and love. That's what we thought America was just the land of the free, [21:19] the greatest democracy. That was what it was. [21:23] Yep. Yep. That was it. Yeah. Yeah. [21:26] Still is, hopefully. [21:39] Thoughts? [21:41] I mean, that's what it was. I think that, I mean, look, there's no question that this show was taken [21:47] off the air for political reasons. And I think even in Trump one, it would have been unthinkable [21:55] that these kind of TV networks and that these media oligarchs would be, you know, kind of listening [22:02] to Donald Trump about programming decisions, both because I think maybe they thought that [22:06] Donald Trump was a transient phenomenon and they would be ashamed to have done that. And now we've [22:12] seen this mass capitulation, not by the American people, but by these, you know, kind of ostensible [22:19] elites. It is so shameful and it's so short sighted. Unless they really think that they are just going to, [22:27] you know, that there's going to be some sort of authoritarian consolidation and they're never [22:31] going to have to answer to an opposition party. If there ever are Democrats back in power, I hope [22:37] that there will be a lot of hearings about the sort of decisions that these various owners have made to [22:45] kind of curry favor with this administration. [22:47] And Molly, Sherry Redstone, you say goodbye. [22:52] And I say Sherry Redstone agreed to cancel Colbert so that she could get regulatory approval. It was [23:00] pretty craven. And, you know, she set a date so she could sell Paramount to the Ellisons and was able to [23:07] do it. It was pretty transparent, very craven. And also it's worth realizing that people who watch these [23:15] shows don't like it, right? We've seen the CBS takeover. Barry Weiss has gone to CBS. She has made [23:22] some decisions, editorial decisions, and their numbers just, you know, their evening news numbers [23:30] just keep going down. So there is, we really do see that viewers don't like these kind of ideological [23:37] decisions being made at news channels that never used to be like that. [23:44] And you think people, they see Colbert end, and then where do they go? [23:48] I mean, I think they follow Colbert. We'll see what Colbert does next. But like, you know, [23:53] what's replacing Colbert is not something similar. It's a comedy hour. [24:00] You were at that detention facility in Newark yesterday, Delaney. There were protesters, [24:07] there were members of the press, and there were a number of Democratic office holders, [24:11] Lillian Mejia, who we spoke to yesterday. That's footage of you having water poured in your eyes [24:18] after Pepper's previous fire. Can you just take us through what exactly happened? [24:25] I came out of the detention center and immediately saw that there was a very precarious and tense [24:32] standoff, you know, where you had a line of armed ICE official, ICE agents, an armored vehicle. [24:40] You had a line of protesters there. And I was trying to do my best to deescalate this. [24:47] I put myself between the ICE agents and the protesters. At some point, ICE officials said [24:54] they're just going to push this convoy of vehicles through the crowd. And I told them, [24:58] you cannot just plow your way through a crowd of civilians. I tried to stop it, [25:03] tried to find an arrangement, but they continued on. So I put myself again between the agents and [25:08] the crowd. And that's when they started shooting pepper balls at our feet, as well as, you know, [25:13] right past me, seeing the pepper spray. I did my best to try to keep people safe, [25:19] to try to deescalate and keep the crowd and the agents separate. But, you know, [25:24] myself and a number of others certainly started, got, you know, irritation in our eyes. My throat [25:31] was burning. It was something that was really painful to watch. I mean, Chris, I'll tell you, [25:37] like, I have to say the ease with which it seems like violence is emerging in our streets in America, [25:43] we cannot normalize this. Violence in America, it should not be easy. It should not be inevitable. [25:49] And this is something that I'm worried is going to continue on in the coming days. I can't say for [25:54] certain that we're past the worst of it. But this is directly related to that reconciliation bill. [25:59] And I hope the American people see it next week when we're voting on the Senate. We cannot give [26:04] ICE billions of dollars more with no accountability when American families are getting nothing here [26:10] and nothing to help them with their affordability crisis. [26:13] Senator Andy came in New Jersey, who was in that detention center yesterday in between [26:18] protesters and those agents outside that DHS detention facility. Thank you so much for your time [26:22] tonight. Today, activists are holding a third day of protests at the site of the president's [26:28] proposed 250-foot-tall triumphal arch. The administration is fighting lawsuits filed by Vietnam vets and [26:35] others who have sued to stop construction near the entrance of Arlington National Cemetery. [26:40] We shouldn't have no arch. That is not an honor to the veterans. That isn't. That is just, [26:47] you know, an ego trip to this president. And it's on our taxpayer money. And it shouldn't be paid. We [26:53] need that money more for veterans' benefits. We need it for housing, for health care. [26:59] Nothing hurts me more for the military to think of one person's more important than all the people [27:04] that have died for this country. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman from California, [27:09] Jared Huffman. He's the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, which oversees the [27:14] National Park Service. He has gone to the site where the arch is being constructed. So, [27:20] Congressman, in an op-ed, Republican Senator Jim Banks argued that public beauty is a gift and the [27:26] arch's design revives the classical architecture of the Capitol, the Washington Monument, and the [27:32] Jefferson Memorial. Is beauty in the eyes of the beholder when it comes to the triumphal arch? [27:38] Well, it certainly is. And the one thing that shouldn't be in the eyes of the beholder is [27:43] the law. We have a bipartisan law passed in the 1980s, the Commemorative Works Act, that lays out [27:49] a thoughtful process, how to do it right when you're changing the United States Capitol. [27:55] Donald Trump has flouted that law and, you know, just seems to think that he's the king and he can [28:00] build these tributes to himself all over Washington, D.C. [28:03] Well, I think, you know, but the Trump administration claims they don't actually [28:07] need Congress's approval for the arch because they're just building on the plans for another [28:12] project that was approved over 100 years ago, but just was never built. And it's on that exact [28:17] same spot. So what, if anything, can you and your committee actually do about it? Because [28:22] as we saw firsthand, you saw it, and there's the picture of you when our cameras went with you. [28:27] The work's already started. It has. They didn't want us to see. That's why we had to look behind [28:33] the curtain there, Chris. But they were breaking ground, something that is certainly was belied [28:40] just the day before by the Secretary of Interior, who testified in our committee that there was not [28:45] even a project, that there was just a discussion. But you mentioned this century-old authorization [28:51] roughly in the same place. That was for a totally different design plan. It had nothing to do with [28:57] an arch. And so if the president tries to justify, you know, rushing ahead like he did with the east [29:03] wing demolition on the basis of that century-old design plan for something totally different, [29:10] that's a specious argument. And I don't think that Judge Chutkin and the federal courts will [29:15] think kindly about it. And of course, it's not just the arch. There is that giant hole in the [29:20] ground where the east wing of the White House once stood, redoing the reflecting pool is taking [29:25] longer than expected, costing more than expected. And now we have this, new images of construction [29:33] on the South Lawn for a UFC cage match that's supposed to celebrate America's 250th anniversary. [29:42] All of this going on, I should point out, for the start of the summer tourism season. [29:47] What do you make of this, Washington? [29:49] This is just Donald Trump trying to remake our nation's capital and our culture and, [29:56] you know, our daily lives in his image. And this is just not America. We don't have a king. [30:02] We have a very diverse country. Not everybody loves UFC fights and wants to celebrate them at the [30:09] White House. Not everybody wants these military parades on Donald Trump's birthday. They don't want [30:15] Donald Trump's name on buildings all over town. And they don't want this gaudy arc de Trump [30:22] obscuring the view of Arlington Cemetery. So all of these things, you know, any one of them [30:27] in isolation might seem fairly trivial. But the bigger picture is we've got a president [30:32] who is off the rails, who thinks that the rules and the laws about our nation's capital and [30:37] commemorative works just don't apply to him. [30:39] When you talk to members of your committee and the folks who oversee the Park Service, [30:45] do Republicans express real concerns to you? [30:49] They roll their eyes. But they won't find the courage to stand up to President Trump. I'm so [30:57] impressed that finally the dam broke in the United States Senate over this slush fund. And they did [31:02] finally stand up to the president. I hope that we see more of that. [31:07] And before we go, I want to talk to you about redistricting, because your district in California, [31:11] I think it's fair to say, was significantly redrawn ahead of the midterms. You're still [31:16] in a solidly Democratic district. But do you have some larger overarching worries about [31:22] redistricting around the country? Some of those obviously still being fought in court. [31:27] And the fact that some people are predicting this is just going to cause chaos in the midterms. [31:33] Well, the chaos has already begun. I am very worried, Chris. I think we're in a race to the bottom [31:38] on political gerrymandering. I don't like gerrymandering at all. I'm appalled that this [31:43] Supreme Court blessed it as something that is perfectly fine to do. And what you've seen since [31:50] then is just the worst gerrymandering in modern history, perhaps ever. And now even racial gerrymandering [31:58] is underway throughout the South. So my hope is that voters across the political spectrum [32:05] will be disgusted by this and that it will perhaps set the stage for nationwide redistricting reform so [32:12] that we can just end the entire scourge of political gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering [32:17] once and for all. [32:18] We have only a minute left, but there's one argument that says exactly what you just said. [32:24] It's time for us to all come together and get something in place. It was every 10 years, [32:29] right? The other part of it is we're in the cycle now and it's not going to end. We are on the hamster [32:35] wheel and the hamsters aren't going anywhere. What do you think realistically is going to happen here, [32:40] Congressman? [32:41] I think both those arguments are true in this moment. Certainly Democrats cannot unilaterally [32:47] disarm given this race to the bottom that Trump has initiated. But we've got to look at the horizon [32:54] and what is sustainable for this democracy. And you can't just have these cycles of gerrymandering and [33:01] the worst possible abuses of the political system. We've got to reset this thing. [33:08] And my hope is that we can do that under a Democratic Congress in the near future. [33:12] Congressman Jared Huffman, thank you. It's good to see you. [33:15] We've got some more serious business to discuss tomorrow. The president has called a cabinet [33:20] meeting to discuss foreign policy updates, among other things. And there are several updates tonight [33:26] in the Middle East. Earlier today, Iran was threatening retaliation for what the U.S. called [33:31] self-defensive strikes that happened yesterday. The U.S. spokesperson said targets included missile [33:36] launch sites and Iranian boats attempting to place mines. And that Central Command continues to defend [33:42] our forces while using restraint during the ongoing ceasefire. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it [33:48] could take a few more days to negotiate a peace deal. But that's just after saying over the weekend [33:53] that progress had already been made. Watch this. [33:56] We have what I think is a pretty solid thing on the table in terms of their ability to open up the [34:04] straits, get the straits open, enter into a very real, significant, time-limited negotiation on the nuclear [34:09] matters. And hopefully we can pull it off. We're either going to have a good agreement or we're going [34:13] to have to deal with it another way. We'd prefer to have a good agreement. [34:18] But Iran responded and said the deal is not imminent. Back with us tonight, Jeff Mason, [34:23] White House and Washington correspondent for Bloomberg News and Susan Glasser, staff writer for [34:27] The New Yorker. Okay, Jeff, like for real, where do negotiations stand and help us clear up what has [34:33] actually been proposed? It's a little bit like a groundhog, groundhog situation, a groundhog day [34:41] situation, Steph. We've seen so many times already where the president has said we're close. The [34:48] administration has said we're close. Iran has come back and said we're not that close. The president, [34:53] as you rightly reported on Saturday, indicated that a deal was imminent. And he said that details were [34:58] going to be shared shortly. And then the next day said that he was waiting for a good deal. So we know [35:04] some parameters of the deal that that have been outlined. But it is hard to gauge how close they [35:10] actually are. And it is hard to to see where it goes from here, considering the fact that you had [35:17] these U.S. strikes yesterday and with Iran's threat of retaliation. Susan, we keep hearing these veiled [35:24] threats from both Marco Rubio and President Trump. But The New York Times reports that the president's [35:29] pressure campaign has had little, little effect on Iran's terms for a peace deal. Is he going to [35:36] accept that he doesn't have the leverage that he thinks he does? I mean, look, is the sun going to [35:43] come up tomorrow? I don't know. It's been raining a lot, right? I mean, you know, let's be clear, [35:48] right, that Donald Trump is shredding over the course of this last month. You know, what remains of [35:55] America's international credibility? You know, he there's this sort of aspect of everyday claiming [36:01] that a deal with Iran is, you know, hours away, minutes away, days away. And it doesn't happen. [36:07] It's actually been more than a month of the ceasefire being extended without any meaningful prospects for [36:13] a deal. And the deal that they're talking about, by the way, would largely be an agreement to, [36:19] on what terms is unclear, reopen the strait while agreeing only to talk about in the future, [36:27] resolving the nuclear issue that Trump claimed was the reason that he went to war in the first [36:32] place. So it's basically right now, as I understand it, they're talking about whether in the next phase [36:39] they could talk about an agreement on the future of the Iranian nuclear arms program. So, you know, [36:47] it's not much of a deal. And even that they haven't been able to achieve, first of all. [36:51] And then I just I think it's so important to underscore why does Trump keep doing this? [36:56] Because it works, because people can't believe that the president of the United States is lying [37:02] to them, that he's not telling the truth, that the deal is not going to happen in the next few [37:07] hours. I mean, I've seen perfectly credible, not naive people again and again and again fall into [37:14] the trap over the last couple months of thinking, OK, well, maybe Trump is exaggerating, but surely [37:19] the deal is, you know, hours or days away from happening. The markets have responded as if they [37:26] believe Trump has credibility and again and again been caught out by it. And I think we have to say [37:32] that Trump has this playbook because it, to a certain extent, works or at least buys him time. [37:40] OK, but here's the thing. It works as it relates to the market. The market believes it. Investors [37:45] believe it. And the market keeps going up. But let's look at the reality of things. As far as we know, [37:50] the Iranian regime is still intact. The country seems more emboldened over its control of the [37:55] trade of Hormuz than ever. Iran has denied agreeing at all to give up their enriched uranium. [38:01] And meanwhile, here, the cost of living has gone up. The global economy is strained. We could face [38:05] all sorts of shortages in the weeks and months to come. And you cannot deny that America's [38:10] reputation is damaged. What did we get out of this, Jeff? Besides the fact that when Donald Trump [38:15] does this dance, does this shuffle, the market says, we believe you. Yay, keep going. But in reality, [38:21] what has it gotten us? Besides furthering the hole when it comes to debt and deficits? [38:27] And I would add to that that the question that you just asked me is the question that some [38:31] Republicans are asking of the president as well. And that is politically perilous for him. And you [38:36] have senators such as Senator Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, worried that President Trump is going to get [38:43] out of this war now too quickly and may perhaps ruin the purposes or not achieve the purposes [38:51] that they wanted and Hawks wanted him to achieve by going in in the first place. [38:56] And the political problem with that is he's facing sort of pressure from both sides. He's got that [39:01] pressure that I just identified. And then he's got the pressure that you were referring to, which is [39:05] the economic consequences that the United States is already facing and will continue to face [39:10] as a result of this war, primarily the increase in prices and specifically the increase in gasoline [39:16] prices, which of course are a political albatross for Republicans and for the president going into [39:22] the midterms in November. Despite that, to Jeff's point, you are seeing some pushback from the likes [39:29] of Ted Cruz, from the likes of Roger Wicker. And the fact that Lindsey Graham, who right now could be [39:34] considered president of the Donald Trump fan club, the fact that they're pushing back in certain terms, [39:39] what does that tell you, Susan? Well, look, remember the U.S. started this war along with [39:45] its partner Israel in the region. The Israelis have been very concerned that Trump has basically sort [39:52] of gone on his own in these talks with Iran. They have been concerned that Trump is cutting off the war [39:59] while enabling Iran to retain much of its ballistic missile capability in addition to its possibility [40:09] of resurrecting its nuclear program. Both of those are considered to be very serious, if not potentially [40:15] existential threats by Israel. So one aspect of this is you see some of Israel's strongest supporters [40:21] here in Washington speaking out very loudly, pushing back as the gap has widened between what Trump's [40:29] interests seem to be and what Israel's interests seem to be. So that's one aspect of it. I think [40:35] there's also, you know, to a certain extent, you can ignore reality for only so long. And part of it [40:44] is the reality that this is a major embarrassment for the Trump administration. And you see some of [40:50] his very strong, very vocal supporters understanding that if you end the war with the Iranian regime [40:58] intact with the global economy having been disrupted and with Iran now understanding that [41:05] it can weaponize the Strait of Hormuz practically at will and that it's a potential source of billions [41:10] of dollars of revenue going forward, that that's not going to be considered a victory, even in the [41:17] la-la fantasy land in which Donald Trump operates on social media. And so I think some of it is simply [41:23] Republicans saying, hey, wait a minute, Eric, you know, this isn't working out too well for us. [41:28] All right. Well, let's stick with Israel because at the same time, the president is now pushing [41:33] Saudi Arabia and Qatar to recognize Israel along with several other countries in the region. He wants [41:40] them to join the Abraham Accords. What is the thinking behind this? When we are so far away from the finish [41:47] line, a peace deal, any sort of compromise on several other very complex agreements, why put [41:53] this on the table now, Jeff? It's a couple of things. The first thing that comes to mind to me is [42:00] legacy, which is an issue or a theme that is absolutely defining President Trump's second term. [42:07] You see that at a local level. You see that in terms of the ballroom, in terms of the construction [42:12] projects that he's doing here in Washington. And you see that on a policy level with regard to Iran. [42:18] He often will say this is something that previous presidents should have done. Now he's wanting to be [42:25] able to show that he achieved a goal in Iran and in the Middle East that other presidents were not [42:31] able to do. And that includes the Abraham Accords. It was interesting to see his language about that [42:35] in his social media post. He said he wanted other countries mandatorily to join the Abraham Accords. [42:43] I'm not sure that the use of mandatory as an adverb in that sense is going to actually have any kind [42:49] of effect on countries that are deeply concerned about what's going on and aren't exactly lining up [42:56] to sign them. That doesn't mean that it's not an approach or an effort that the president and his [43:01] people are going to continue to push. It's one of the things that I think his foreign policy advisors [43:06] are especially proud of from the first term and no doubt would like to extend during the second term. [43:11] But the timing right now of trying to throw that all together when they don't have an Iran peace deal [43:17] yet and when they continue to sort of push and pull and try to figure out where that is, it's hard to [43:24] imagine that ultimate legacy driving goal taking or getting accomplished.