The Beat With Ari Melber 5/27/26 — 🅼🆂🅽🅱️🅲 Breaking News Today May 27, 2026

[0:00] Hi, Nicole. Thanks so much. Welcome to Beat. I'm Ari Melber, and we are following all of this [0:03] news. Later tonight, we have a special guest, a Democrat with a plan to stop what he calls [0:09] unprecedented corruption from the thug fund to the self-dealing. It's Democrats on the move. [0:13] We've told you we're going to bring you those kind of stories, not just what's happening [0:16] from the White House, and that's coming up tonight. Also, Neil deGrasse Tyson on [0:21] Intelligent Life out there somewhere. His new book, Take Me to Your Leader, [0:26] the Trump Pentagon dropping those UFO files. He is always a great guest to have, and he's coming [0:30] up live tonight. We begin with Republicans concerned, though, that Donald Trump is doing [0:35] exactly what the Democrats want, at least in Texas, which is not a usual headline. [0:41] Democrats eyeing what they see as a closer race in Texas, the possibility of turning it blue, [0:47] which would be critical to their math to try to take back the Senate, all thanks to Donald Trump. [0:52] Indeed, there was a headline in a conservative outlet saying this is the one time that both [0:57] parties apparently agreed, if you look at the Trump side wanting the long-shot candidate, [1:02] the Democrats want the long-shot candidate, and they agreed. It's only the Senate Republicans who [1:06] are closer to the cost who are freaking out. So we have this scandal-ridden, Trump-endorsed, [1:12] very conservative candidate, Ken Paxton, who beat the long-term, long-time statewide ballot [1:19] John Cornyn. He's been on that ballot as a senator across over 20 years. He's been on that ballot for [1:24] other statewide races. This is a sign, among other things, that even in a red MAGA place like [1:30] Texas, they are, the voters, mad at Senate Republicans. They are not mad necessarily in [1:35] the Republican primary at Trump specifically, but they ousted a long-time Republican. They're not [1:40] taking orders from the Republican Party. And apparently, if Trump says he wants to go with [1:45] the candidate that's more likely to lose the Senate, a lot of voters are going along with [1:49] that. That itself is interesting. Meanwhile, Paxton's Democratic opponent, James Tallarico, [1:54] posting the gentleman's mugshot. Paxton, we should note, did settle what was a federal corruption case [1:59] against him. So legally, he went through the process long enough to get the mugshot, [2:05] so it's public record. But in fairness to him, he's not in prison. He wasn't convicted. [2:09] We should also note, though, that in the constitutional process in the state of Texas, [2:13] which is pretty conservative, he was impeached when serving as Texas Attorney General for [2:19] alleged offenses that alarmed at least that largely red state. But again, in fairness, [2:24] I will tell you, he was ultimately acquitted. So legally, he's got the open lane to run. [2:29] Politically, almost nobody, including Senate Republicans, thought that this mugshot impeached [2:34] individual was their best chance. Now, Democrats also are drawing the link to other times when we see [2:41] Trump seize on and support people that the party said would lose who went on to lose. Walker, [2:46] Blake, Moore. If you don't remember all those names, that's because they lost. And most people [2:51] don't sit around remembering the losers of campaigns. They were on the scene for a couple [2:55] months. And then, despite their Trump endorsement, were not heard from again, not in federal government. [3:01] Meanwhile, the Cook Political Report, which is kind of a nonpartisan Bible, because of the Trump [3:06] move here. And because Trump's candidate is in, they are now lowering the odds that Republicans [3:12] win with Paxton. They thought it would have been better with, as I mentioned, the other guy. [3:16] Meanwhile, the official Republican Senate campaign arm, which was back in Cornyn, [3:20] now trying to walk back its many attacks on Paxton. The internet, though, might remember. [3:27] This is the sound of Texas. And this is how it sounds under Ken Paxton. [3:37] Those are just some of the memorable attacks. The Democrat, Tallarico, [3:50] just did a newsworthy interview with Lawrence O'Donnell, where they discussed Paxton's baggage. [3:58] I can't tell you the number of people who come up to me at the end of these events [4:03] and whisper, I'm not a Democrat, like they're in the Witness Protection Program, including [4:08] a lot of people who voted for President Trump in 2024. [4:13] That is the sound of a different kind of candidate. You also might remember, [4:17] some have called him a Colbert Democrat because he had that big newsworthy interview on Colbert, [4:22] which then the government of the Trump administration basically tried to silence [4:26] under abuse of FCC laws, which, and sometimes this happens, which ended up drawing a lot more [4:30] attention, support, and even online donations to Tallarico. Now, is he going to get a bigger [4:36] airing and hearing now? Certainly looks like it. And that dynamic I mentioned, that Republican [4:42] voters are mad, that doesn't mean they've all turned on Trump. I'm only going to tell you [4:46] what the numbers show. We're not getting ahead of ourselves with what's happening. But the fact [4:50] that they're mad and mad at Senate Republicans and that 100 million was spent in this race [4:54] shows the party is not exactly united at a minimum. Take Nebraska, a very conservative place [5:00] where a Republican lawmaker was getting an earful from constituents with some backlash for the Trump [5:05] agenda. Why do you continue to protect the pedophiles and Trump's DOJ as they continue to break the law? [5:13] What are you going to do about the rampant corruption occurring all over the Trump [5:18] administration? I have a question about Congress's approval of wars. Where are you stepping in? [5:25] How much did DOJ save the taxpayers? I'll fact check you. [5:32] How can your morals let you fall into like with Trump? [5:40] That's some of the back and forth, even in red areas where people are even holding town halls. [5:44] Many Republicans have been avoiding them or carefully vetting them. And as the midterms [5:49] look bad for the Republicans in the House and worse, getting worse in the Senate, although the math [5:55] would still be on their side, they have 53. Trump is now saying something that you don't usually hear [6:00] from an incumbent president who wants to motivate his base discussing the war. He says he doesn't care [6:05] about the midterms. Their whole economic system is broken down. They thought they were going to [6:14] outweigh me. You know, we'll outweigh him. He's got the midterms. I don't care about the midterms. [6:18] He doesn't care about the midterms. Now, I told you, I always try to keep the fairness in the [6:23] context. Imagine it's not Trump. You could imagine a different president making a statement [6:28] like that for foreign policy reasons, trying to say, hey, this other country thinks that I'm under [6:33] the gun. I'm not politically at home. And if that were just foreign policy strategy, it might be smart. [6:39] The problem for Donald Trump, of course, is it's not just that he's saying that in war diplomacy or [6:45] ceasefire talks. He's acting like he doesn't care about the midterms because he keeps siding with [6:50] candidates that his own party says are worse for the midterms. I want to bring in two wise and [6:58] expert seasoned politicos, not calling anyone old, just saying we've been around the block. I could [7:03] say that about people I know and like. Reverend Al Sharpton, of course, host of Politics Nation, [7:07] former presidential candidate and president of the National Action Network. And first question [7:12] is obviously going to Mark. Mr. McKinnon is a longtime political strategist from Texas, [7:18] knows that state well, as well as national politics. If you've ever seen the Showtime show, [7:22] The Circus, he created it. You might remember him from George Bush's campaigns all the way back [7:27] to the statewide Texas campaign and then the presidential. As for the Paxton primary win, [7:33] which is the news tonight, a perfect storm is lining up for Texas Democrats, says this experienced [7:40] Republican. Welcome to you, Mark. I have questions, but first, the floor is yours. You know so much [7:46] about this. What happened last night? Thank you, Ari. Well, it's fascinating. I've worked on both sides [7:52] of the fence. I actually worked for George W. Bush and Ann Richards, but Ann Richards was the last Texas [7:57] governor elected 35 years ago. I remember that election because I worked in it. But there hasn't [8:03] been a Republican elected statewide since. So I'm the guy who every two or four years is always [8:09] pushing back when the media or people call me and say, oh, I don't know, this could be the year, [8:13] blue tide. And I always tap the brakes. But I think something different. You're saying Democrats [8:19] have struggled there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But there's always this notion, or there has been in recent [8:25] cycles, the Beto Grace is a good example when he ran against Cruz. But I've always been resistant because [8:30] I just know how conservative Texas is, generally speaking. So, but I think something's happening [8:37] that's coming together that could really make this race a possible pickup for Democrats, which is [8:42] astounding to me. I mean, first of all, you have an exceptional candidate in James Tallarico, [8:47] really just completely unique. And I tell people who may have heard whatever they've heard about him [8:52] on either side, just watch his speech. He's just got a different approach, different language. He embraces [8:56] values. He can out Bible Republicans on, on, on, on faith issues. And it's really compelling, [9:03] you know, but so stack that up with a candidate who couldn't be, you know, having greater baggage [9:09] than Ken Paxton. So you have like kind of a pure good, you know, pastor type of character and the guy [9:15] who's had all these criminal charges against him and then impeach. So I think you stack all that up [9:20] and the fact that Democrats are enthused right now. That's what happens in midterms. It's which [9:25] party is most enthusiastic. More Democrats voted in this primary than Republicans did in Texas. That's [9:31] what really got my attention. So the Democrats are cranked up. Whatever happens on the Republican [9:36] side. And I, Ari, I called a bunch of my Republican friends around the state today. And here's what [9:41] they said. They said, I'm, I'm not yet ready to say I'm going to vote for Tal Rico, but I'm absolutely [9:46] not voting for Ken Paxton. Well, and that's the issue with what they, they call low quality [9:51] candidates, right? You get, you get a different trend line than the, than the state's trend line, [9:57] which is still red, if a candidate is low quality enough. And so you mentioned that race with Cruz [10:01] and Beto, where Cruz won by less than three points. What, what does that tell us about sort of the gap [10:07] and what Tal Rico has to do here? And then I'll let Rev respond to you. Well, thanks. I think that's a great data [10:12] point. So you look at that race in 2018, where again, everybody said, you know, there was a shot [10:19] here, Democrats, because they had a great candidate in Beto. But Beto really made some mistakes at the [10:23] end of the campaign. He nationalized the campaign. And at the end of the day, you know, Republicans [10:29] and these same friends that I talked to just couldn't handle Beto's nationalizing the race. I think [10:34] that Tal Rico learned lessons from that race. I think he'll be a better candidate than Beto was. And I think [10:40] that Paxton will be a way worse candidate than Cruz. So stack that up. That's an easy three points. [10:45] I would totally agree with Mark on his last statement, better candidate and worse candidate [10:52] given Tal Rico and given Paxton. I think also you have to remember the environment in which we are [10:59] having the elections with people's gas prices high, with affordability out of reach for many people. [11:08] A member of our National Board of National Action Network is a commissioner in Houston, [11:13] Rodney Ellis. He said people are hurting. Trump people are hurting. And I think that you can [11:19] clearly look at all of the reasons that a guy like Tal Rico would appeal to them. And they don't have [11:26] the flag in the Bible against Tal Rico. It's hard to put the Bible in the hands of Paxton. So I think [11:33] that you have elements there that if they're handled right, and we'll see, could lead to a democratic [11:39] victory. Well, it's like Kendrick Lamar said, sometimes you got to hide the Bible if God is [11:43] watching in a big fight. But you're saying this is a Democrat who's not hiding the Bible. He's going [11:48] to run tough and strong on his faith. That's exactly right. And he puts it out there. And it's a state [11:54] that that matters. And it's, and he's contrasting with a guy that's been accused of several [12:00] proprieties, including by his own wife. So it's not even, it's not like I'm trying to out God you [12:06] or out Jesus you. I'm this and you are that. And, and, and, and he's supported by a president who [12:14] we all have questions about. But even with all that aside, with affordability and the other issues [12:21] like Iran and other issues that are troubling the average Republican Texan, I think that Talarico has [12:29] a good shot. Yeah. And, and Mark, people watching might say, having been fatigued by the losses of [12:36] Democrats you mentioned in Texas, but also what you might call Trump's resilience. You know, he's not [12:41] known for his honesty or his ethics. But he, he gets back in the ring. And so you got viewers and [12:47] voters who say, okay, well, I'm, I'm hearing the same old story. I thought it was interesting that [12:50] the Wall Street Journal kind of agreed with the point you raised earlier. I'd love for you to expound [12:56] on it, Mark. The journal says Trump and Democrats get Paxton. The Senate nominee, they all want it. [13:04] I alluded to that earlier. But again, this is Murdoch's paper. And he says the risk for Republicans is that [13:09] more moderate and indie voters will be turned off by Paxton, providing the opening for [13:12] Talarico, the seminarian and state lawmakers become a fundraising force [13:16] among Dems hungry for victory. Speak on that, Mark, because it overlaps with, with what you said. [13:22] And I don't think anyone would accuse, uh, Rupert Murdoch's paper of just looking for a liberal [13:28] propaganda. They seem to think this is the case. Well, yeah, or I think it's just observing the obvious, [13:34] which is, right, Republicans should not have had to spend a dime in this state. If Cornyn were [13:41] running and he were the nominee, they would turn all their attention to these other key races around [13:46] the country. They've already spent 135 million. And they're going to have to spend millions more [13:51] to try and protect Paxton, which is going to take a whole lot more money than it would have been for [13:55] important. So even, even, let's just say that Paxton won for some reason. And I, and I really think [14:01] that Talarico's got a shot here. Uh, but in the best case scenario, it's going to drain millions and [14:06] millions of dollars from races that Republicans could pick up because, because Paxton's the nominee. [14:12] Yeah. Um, I want to thank Mark McKinnon for, for kicking off our Texas coverage tonight. [14:16] Rev stays here on one other point. We'll be back in just 90 seconds. There's always a question of [14:23] politics or whether you're fighting the last war and people who've been change agents. Obama was [14:27] a path breaker. So apart from even the discussion around being an unusual path breaking candidate, [14:33] he also broke with Democrats on foreign policy and he had a different style. And we've seen Trump, [14:38] of course, whether you like it or not, uh, broke all kinds of dishes and rules. And so you wonder if [14:43] that doesn't only have to go towards entertainment. It could also could go back to old school where [14:48] people go, you know, whatever you think of Talarico, uh, he certainly doesn't come off [14:52] as a clout chasing, uh, uh, failed reality show star. [14:57] And he doesn't come off with someone that's just doing this for a personal agenda, uh, ambition [15:04] or power hunger. He just doesn't come off that way. And if Democrats have those candidates around [15:10] the country, it can really be helpful. But I think just observing him and I don't know him. I think [15:15] he's done my show once or twice, but I think observing him, his persona is so opposite of Paxton [15:24] that the contrast is going to be interesting when they have debates because you're going to see one [15:29] guy who's been accused of everything who just comes off like a guy that's slick. And another guy that [15:35] seems like a young man who knows the Bible and really wants to help people. Now, whether either [15:41] side is true or not, is that's how they're projecting. Yeah. And to extend our, um, this biblical [15:47] mood we've been in today, uh, the sins of the father, Donald Trump, are apparently sometimes [15:52] forgiven more by voters in red states for Trump than his mini me's. Because I showed some other [15:59] people whose scandals might not have even been worse than what Trump stands accused of. Right. Um, but those [16:04] folks, I showed Walker more than others lost. No, they don't, they don't forgive others. And I think [16:10] that Trump is, is a, is a, is a, is a one time thing, I think. And, and, and what you're seeing [16:18] with Trump is the cult of personality. Well, you can't transfer cult of personality. You can't transfer [16:25] charisma. So everyone that gets caught up in that storm with that charismatic cult of personality [16:32] leader doesn't understand that when the, uh, storm starts coming down, they hit the ground first [16:39] because they are, people are not following them. They're following him. And it's not only going to [16:44] be true in this year, it's going to be true in 28 when he has to pass it on. Can Vance or, or Rubio or [16:51] whoever filled that gap that they energized people with their charisma. What Trump said half the time [16:58] didn't make any political or policy sense. It was art of personality. Yeah. And they don't have [17:03] anyone else like that. Yeah. And you're putting your finger on the, on a bigger Republican problem, [17:07] which is, um, there's a fine line between knowing the song and sounding like you're doing karaoke. [17:13] And people go, no, I'd rather hear the OG. And if you can't carry the tune, [17:18] they may not get away with it the way he did. Rev Sharpton, always good to see you, sir. [17:21] Always good to see you. Okay. Appreciate it. Up ahead, [17:24] a Democrat unloading a new plan to fight the kind of corruption and just bizarre distractions we see [17:30] like this going on at the White House. The president thinking about wrestling instead of [17:34] fighting inflation in the war. We have that top lawmaker. And why is the Pentagon releasing files [17:40] that they say relate to UFOs? What's going on in this image? We're actually going to talk to one [17:46] of the foremost experts in the world, Neil deGrasse Tyson. Next. He's mysterious. Close enough. If [18:03] you're working with an actual alien in real time, that's from the new film, Project Hail Mary, [18:09] which gives ultimately an uplifting vision of what our first encounter with alien life could be like [18:14] for humanity. And if we call that sci-fi, science fiction, right now, we're going to do some sci-fact [18:20] because we have this great guest I told you about. There are renewed questions about whether there's [18:25] life beyond Earth or what the Trump Pentagon is up to releasing a batch of documents and videos that they [18:30] kind of hyped up as maybe related to UFOs. There was also some testimony from civilians and military [18:35] personnel. One official said they were speechless after seeing certain flying objects. There's also [18:40] this 2019 clip that has unidentified objects that appear to fly over the Persian Gulf. There's a 2024 [18:47] video, and people discussed this online, that shows something near Syria that went, appeared to go [18:53] accelerate at a very fast rate. And from 2022, a cigar-shaped object that was flying, at least according to [19:00] this sort of grainy video near U.S. military installations. The footage sparks at a minimum [19:05] curiosity. Americans tend to believe when you poll them that aliens definitely or probably exist. [19:12] Of course, that is fueled by so many of the movies that make us want to believe. Well, as mentioned, [19:18] returning to the beat tonight is one of the people you would want in the entire world if you could [19:23] discuss this, Neil deGrasse Tyson, an acclaimed astrophysicist. His new book is Take Me to Your Leader, [19:29] perspectives on your first alien encounter. You can Google it and get it wherever books are sold. [19:36] Take Me to Your Leader by our friend. Welcome back. Thanks for having me. I have one regret about [19:39] that cover. Yeah. It's just people being beamed up. There should have been a cow in there. [19:43] We should have had more than just... No, just a cow. One cow. Just one cow. [19:46] That would complete the story. Starting with this odd drop from the files from an administration that [19:54] sometimes seems to want to be in the news or distract. We're all aware of that. You were a [19:59] little skeptical of how it came out. What do we make of these files? Well, I'm not surprised by them, [20:03] given the testimonies we've seen in Congress under oath of whistleblowers, former military personnel, [20:12] former intelligence officers, all saying that they've got alien body parts and crash saucers and [20:21] reverse-engineered technologies. So if they're saying we have it, to then have some documents that [20:30] basically say the same thing, it becomes less interesting to me, given that we had high-ranking [20:37] officials saying what is fundamentally the same thing. Now, what's different, of course, in recent [20:43] years is, you go back decades ago, the accounts of aliens were like the farmers in the back 40, [20:52] revelers from the bar just let out. And so you had plausible deniability of any of those accounts. [20:59] But when you have high-ranking officials talking about it, then you say, OK, let me even give them [21:05] that, OK? So from my perspective as a scientist, testimony does not count as evidence. Evidence is [21:13] evidence. So if you've got it, bring out the alien. Is that too much to ask, given all of these files [21:21] and everything else? By the way, I would expect, with a trillion-dollar budget or whatever it is today, [21:27] the Pentagon would investigate unknown flying objects. And of course, they would make them top [21:33] secret. And if it's top secret, it's not a cover-up. Let's make that distinction clear. If it's secret, [21:38] that's not a cover-up. It's just secret. But your scientific lens for assessing the narrow question [21:45] of whether aliens have been observable or close to our planet. On Earth, yes. Which is separate [21:50] from the larger question. Your view is what? Oh, the larger question, anyone who studied the [21:54] parameters would say, yeah, the universe is surely teeming with life. Teeming? Why not? Given the age [22:01] of the universe, given that we are made of the most common ingredients in the universe, and that life [22:07] got underway almost as quickly as it possibly could have in the early Earth. And our planet count [22:16] of exoplanets is now rising through 6,000, and that's only in a tiny little area. We're still [22:22] expanding that within our galaxy. To suggest that we are alone in the universe would be [22:27] inexcusably egocentric, or there's some hidden philosophy, be it religious or cultural, that [22:32] you're ascribing to that prevents it. Well, let me try to make sense of it simply, [22:36] because, you know, I'm just a country lawyer from Seattle. You're making partly a mathematical [22:41] argument. For aliens in the universe. Because if the universe is that vast. Oh, yeah. And it's [22:46] happened once, as the number goes up, it's more likely than not that you think it would have [22:51] happened again. Yeah, none of us are in denial of the likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe, [22:56] life of any kind, microbial or otherwise, yes. And yet... That's a different question. Right, [23:01] different Earth. So let me read from your book, because you say that you have this idea of, oh, [23:05] a space alien lands in front of you, take me to your leader, what do you do? And you write for the aliens [23:09] who have reached Earth at all. We'd conclude they're more advanced than we are. Maybe you [23:12] should not seek out your actual leaders, but people who have high scientific and technological [23:16] expertise. As for... I'm thinking. I'm thinking. I'm thinking. I'm thinking. I'm thinking. I'm [23:21] sorry. Am I biased? I don't know. As for... Exactly. As for sci-fi versus sci-fact, you write that [23:27] the films have aliens looking like humans on the outside. And if they're identical on the inside, [23:32] we ask what it means to think of them as alien at all. If visiting aliens never got ill or they never [23:36] required medical attention, then they could easily be living and working among us, hiding in plain [23:41] sight. What are you doing here other than, you know, riling us up and getting everyone excited? [23:46] I'm not authorized to comment further. No. No. No. I'm just saying, the point of the book is, [23:52] look at how many... Look at how much of our literature has been given unto imagining aliens. I mean, [23:59] we have crowdsourced what aliens might be like in the guise of books and films and TV series. So by the [24:08] time they actually roll out the alien, it might just be anticlimactic. I would be most surprised if they [24:15] pull the alien out of the back shed and it's humanoid. That would surprise me most. Because most life on [24:21] earth does not resemble humans with whom we have DNA in common. But just to be the journalist here, [24:28] your view, this book, more likely than not, it has not gotten near earth. What people are bringing forth [24:35] as evidence, which includes a lot of testimony, you know, the I need a witness cry out in a court of law, [24:43] in a courtroom, is something uttered by no scientist ever. Let me ask it differently. You know, [24:48] this is... You're the scientist and I'm the lawyer. You don't see sufficient primary original evidence [24:55] to think that they've gotten near this planet. I'm going to say it... I'm going to make a stronger [24:59] statement. Let every testimony be true, okay? Until they fork up an alien, we will always and forever [25:11] have to say to each other, do you believe in aliens? Right. Because it comes down to you do believe [25:15] in the testimony of the people who say they've seen aliens. And we don't say, do you believe [25:20] in an octopus? We don't say that because you've seen an octopus. Yeah. But if no one had ever seen [25:26] an octopus, only a couple of dozen people, and you parade them in front of Congress, you got to [25:30] believe it. He's got eight legs and each leg has has has has suction cups and it's got a huge smart [25:36] brain. You can open jars and doorknobs and you you think, okay, draw one and they draw it. It'll be a [25:42] funny drawing, right? And no one would believe it. Well, we do say, do you believe in life after love [25:47] or life after Colbert? Let's take a look at your black hole science comedic moment on the final [25:55] finale. I was honored to be in the last episode. Yes. What is this? Stephen, maybe I can help explain. [26:03] What is it? Well, it looks to me to do science a little bit in that moment. And and what did you [26:10] think of Colbert? Just so I have a very low bar when it comes to agreeing to doing skits or or showing up [26:18] in a cameo. Just so I'll show a low the bar. I got a call from the SpongeBob people. And would I [26:24] show up in a cameo? And I was Neil de Bass Tyson astrophysicist. So if an artist, capital A. So [26:32] writer, producer, sculptor, if they care about science and they want to put a little extra science [26:38] in and they call me, I'm there for them. I think Colbert is one of the smartest people on [26:42] television. And anyone who's watched him would agree with that comment. That's not just blown [26:47] air. That's real. And so I think it'll be a loss to have him no longer on late night. But I think [26:52] he's bigger than late night. So he'll come up. He'll land on his feet, obviously. And he might [26:57] create something bigger than anything that was canceled. I love that spirit. And you do think [27:02] cosmically. And there is that thing that happens in politics. It happens in the rest of the earth [27:07] sometimes, which is you try to suppress something powerful. It pops back up. Hence the legend of the [27:12] phoenix. From the ashes. Yes. Let me tell you something. If I had my way, we'd just have you in [27:19] here every night talking about aliens flag holes for an hour. You'll be like, what happened to the news? [27:24] I'd be like, this is a version of the news. The universe is unlimited in all it can offer a newscaster. [27:31] I mean, by the amount of time the galaxies have existed, breaking news could take years. [27:36] Well, but also consider that your signal is in motion, moving at the speed of light in the radio bubble [27:43] that surrounds earth. So aliens would have some access to you at some point. Not the beginning [27:48] because it's the honeymooners and howdy doody and other radio signals on the leading edge. [27:55] But somewhere in there is an Ari Melber. Well, then if I may, I'll say, go get the book, okay? [28:02] Get the book and thank you, Neil. We'll be right back. All right. [28:07] War, gas crunch, other big problems. But your president at the White House is erecting a 90-foot [28:18] tall UFC octagon and 5,000 seats in order to host a cage fight. This is planning for Donald Trump's [28:26] 80th birthday next month. Structure quite a bit larger than the White House itself. Wealthy donors [28:32] are, quote, sponsoring the event, which is another way that there is sort of a new thing that didn't [28:38] otherwise exist that can use money to curry favor with Trump, whether you call that the swamp, [28:44] as he did when he campaigned, or something more troubling, as I guess in the eye of the beholder. [28:48] You can see the construction zone from just feet away from the other demolition site on your screen, [28:54] which used to be the East Wing. I mean, this image right here reveals both the president's priorities [29:01] while people pay more for gas and we're at war, and just the kind of chaotic situation you get [29:07] when you don't have oversight and you don't have a Congress that has really enforced anything. [29:12] So the president can just demolish buildings and put up a wrestling site and ignore other problems, [29:17] and that's D.C. right now. It's not an allegory. It's what it looks like. Donald Trump has abused [29:22] the levels of government, sometimes in ways that no one else thought to. For example, running an outside [29:28] business while you're president is not technically illegal. But if Barack Obama wanted to keep open a law [29:34] firm where he and his family and friends would get paid, they obviously would have made a lot of [29:38] money. He didn't try it. And then there are other things that Democrats say may be impeachable, [29:43] illegal, and constitutional. There is now an attempt by Donald Trump to make a lot of money in the [29:49] stock market in ways that has never been tried before. Whether any of that amounts to some sort [29:54] of cross-legal line, we don't even know yet. We don't have all the details. But he's certainly [29:59] used, and Democrats now say abused power, to pump the companies that were learned he's trading in. [30:08] Go out and buy a Dell computer. They make a great product. They're not looking for any publicity. [30:13] He committed to 200 Boeings. I told this to Boeing and General Electric. We're going to go to the [30:17] General Electric engines, which are great. Apple, a great company. Oracle will be building [30:22] a $14 billion worth of cloud computing and AI infrastructure in the kingdom. I didn't know that, [30:30] David. We have to talk to your father about that. I want you to know the Trump organization put out [30:36] a statement that insists these investments are independently managed by third-party financial [30:41] institutions, and that they have exclusive authority over investment decisions. That is a [30:49] kind of legal financial denial that doesn't address the issue of the appearance of a conflict of [30:54] interest and the contrast with most other presidents. Trump also trying to funnel money from you, [31:01] the taxpayer towards criminals who helped him with efforts to overthrow the election. [31:07] That is the last straw, even for some Republicans. I think it's stupid on stilts. Someone who assaulted [31:16] a police officer admitted their guilt, and now we're going to pay them for that? I don't think [31:22] it's an appropriate use of money. I call it a payout pot for punks. The Republican senators were pissed. [31:35] There were multiple senators yelling at the attorney general, saying, this feels like self-dealing. [31:39] This feels like Trump cut a deal with himself. Republicans say they're pissed. Democrats now [31:46] want to make an anti-corruption caucus that will actually do something about this beyond just [31:51] Republicans claiming that they pushed back in a private meeting. Congressman Jason Crow, [31:57] who's one of the new co-chairs of this effort, is here with us right after this.