Rep. Jim Himes says the "the Iranians now, in some sense, control what happens on Election Day"

[0:00] And we're back now with Connecticut Democratic Congressman Jim Himes. [0:04] Congressman, you sit on the House Intelligence Committee. [0:07] We are 37 days out from the midterm races. [0:11] I know you received a classified briefing on foreign threats, [0:15] and you released a statement saying that the U.S. intelligence community [0:18] assessed no adversary had interfered or attempted to interfere [0:23] with infrastructure or vote counting. [0:25] Why did you think it was important to make that statement [0:28] if nothing changed? [0:32] Yeah, well, Margaret, we know that the president, as he careens on, [0:38] and I overheard you talking about the Strait of Hormuz [0:41] and gasoline prices and everything, [0:43] as the president careens towards a very substantial loss [0:48] in the election, we know that he's going to deny its legitimacy. [0:51] And I say we know it because he always does that [0:53] when an election goes against him. [0:55] By the way, he does it when an election doesn't go against him. [0:57] In 2016, of course, he famously claimed [0:59] to have won the popular vote. [1:00] So this is coming. [1:01] This is coming. [1:02] And the only question is, how prepared are we for it? [1:06] And we could spend two hours on the various scenarios [1:08] that Donald Trump is going to do to claim [1:10] that the election is corrupted, that he's going to say [1:13] that there's illegal aliens voting in Michigan and Florida. [1:15] My little piece of this is, and we saw a preview of this, [1:19] in his July speech to the nation, he is quite possibly going to claim [1:24] that the Iranians have taken control of the voting machinery [1:27] in Florida or in North Carolina or that the Russians or the Chinese. [1:31] And as the guy who has access to that information, [1:33] I'm making sure, to the extent that I can, [1:36] that people understand what the history is and that in real time, [1:39] I'll have some insight as to whether what the president says [1:42] in that moment is true. [1:44] Do you have that assurance from U.S. officials [1:46] that they will provide you that real-time intelligence? [1:48] Well, the answer, of course, is yes, I've received that assurance. [1:55] Do I believe it? [1:56] Right. [1:57] You know, it was really interesting listening to you talk [2:00] to Senator Kennedy, who, in his very veiled and folksy way, [2:04] was breaking with the president in pretty substantial ways. [2:07] As he said, he may end up with a picture with a sombrero on his head. [2:10] You know, look, it's one of the attributes of this administration [2:13] in this second version of his presidency is that if you go against the president, [2:18] you get fired. [2:19] So, yes, I have received those assurances. [2:22] They only partly make me comfortable. [2:24] Well, we will watch for that. [2:25] You said no interference. [2:27] Influence campaigns, of course, are also something that I understand [2:31] we'll have to be tracking. [2:34] You heard from President- [2:34] Influence is very different. [2:36] It's important that people understand the distinction. [2:38] You know, interference is messing around with the actual machinery [2:40] or the vote tallies. [2:42] Influence happens all the time. [2:43] People buying, you know, Facebook pages opposing some candidate. [2:47] That happens. [2:47] Yep. [2:49] Understood. [2:50] Thank you for making that distinction. [2:51] You heard President Pozeshkin at the top of this program [2:54] dangle this chance at diplomacy. [2:57] President Trump openly speculated at the United Nations [3:00] that Iran's waiting on a deal until after the midterms. [3:04] What do you think, if anything, would change after November [3:08] that could affect how the executive negotiates? [3:14] Yeah, you know, it's funny. [3:15] I read the transcript of your interview with the president of Iran, [3:18] and it was a whole lot of words. [3:20] There were some interesting nuggets in it about, you know, no, we're not. [3:23] We're not inviting the president to Iran, and no, we're not. [3:26] There was interesting stuff in there. [3:27] But make no mistake, right? [3:29] Two things are true. [3:30] The president's threat to annihilate Iran is nonsensical. [3:34] You know, he's been trying that for six months now, and he's not wrong. [3:37] We sank their navy. [3:38] We destroyed a lot of their planes. [3:40] But, you know, the Iranians have for six months sustained the very worst [3:43] that we and the Israelis can throw at them, you know, [3:47] unless the president wants to start sort of killing civilians in cities. [3:51] We've shown what we can do, and the Iranians have shown that they can sustain that. [3:54] More interestingly, and you ask about this in the context of the election, [3:57] look, the Iranians now, in some sense, control what happens on election day. [4:03] Why do I say that? [4:04] Because if the Iranian regime, and this is why they're not negotiating before the election, [4:07] if the Iranian regime wants to make sure that Mike Lawler loses in New York 17, [4:12] or that Ashley Hinson is not a senator in the Midwest, [4:15] they will call their friends the Houthis and say fire five missiles at five ships, [4:20] or they'll fire a couple of missiles or drones at ships in the Strait of Hormuz. [4:25] Oil goes up to $120 a barrel. [4:27] Diesel, already at record highs, goes to $8 a gallon. [4:32] And guess what? [4:32] Mike Lawler and Ashley Hinson lose their elections, right? [4:36] And so the Iranians are not stupid people. [4:38] They've been negotiating literally for thousands of years, [4:40] and they understand that they now have a massive impact on what happens in November. [4:45] They're simply because they control the flow of oil and fertilizer and other stuff out of the Strait. [4:50] So do you think they're giving up that position before the election? [4:53] Of course they're not. [4:54] Well, a lot of what they asked for, the president already agreed to back in June in that MOU that failed. [5:00] But I want to ask you about another big meeting this week, [5:03] and that was in Washington between Xi and Trump. [5:06] The White House said afterwards that the countries would set up a bilateral communications channel [5:12] for artificial intelligence incidents. [5:15] Do you consider this in any way a step forward? [5:20] Yeah, of course it's a step forward. [5:21] I mean, it's not something that came out of the pageantry of the last five days, right? [5:26] Scott Besson had set this up weeks before the actual visit of President Xi occurred. [5:33] And look, we all know because we can read and watch TV that nothing significant came out of this. [5:40] But look, when you have a situation as important as the relationships between Beijing and Washington, [5:46] simply talking is a win in and of itself. [5:50] So again, we all know that nothing terribly meaningful came out of this conversation. [5:56] And look, Xi himself is waiting for 37 days when he will now face a president of the United States [6:02] who has been rebuked by his own people, who will be in a much weaker position of political leadership than he is today. [6:09] So, you know, President Xi wasn't going to make a commitment any more than the Iranian regime was. [6:14] But like I said, let's not be too harsh. [6:15] Anytime we're talking to the Chinese and stopping misunderstandings and making incremental progress on things like AI [6:22] or not starting another trade war, you know, it's a valuable couple of days. [6:26] Congressman Himes, always good to have you with us. Thanks for your time today.