Trump LASHES OUT at Netanyahu in call on Lebanon, Iran war

[0:00] Axios has some new reporting on that call between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. [0:05] The president reportedly lashing out at Netanyahu during expletive-laden conversation. [0:10] That's according to U.S. officials and a third source briefed on the call. [0:14] According to one U.S. official, Trump told Netanyahu he was effing crazy [0:19] and that the prime minister would be in prison if it were not for Trump, [0:23] likely referring to the Israeli leader's years-long corruption trial. [0:26] The president adding, quote, [0:27] quote, everybody hates you now. [0:30] Everybody hates Israel because of this. [0:32] That's the president of the United States. [0:33] A second source briefed on the call said Trump was, quote, pissed [0:37] and at one point yelled at Netanyahu, quote, [0:40] what the F are you doing? [0:42] One of the U.S. officials told Axios that Trump felt in recent days [0:45] Netanyahu was escalating in a disproportionate way. [0:49] Another U.S. official said Trump also was concerned by the fact that Israel [0:53] had killed so many civilians in Lebanon [0:55] and objected to the Israelis knocking down buildings to take out a single Hezbollah commander. [1:01] Let's bring in one of the authors of that report, White House reporter for Axios, Mark Caputo. [1:06] Mark, take us inside that call a little deeper, if you would, [1:10] and perhaps just explain a little of President Trump's frustration that [1:14] the Israeli prime minister's military campaign, particularly in Lebanon, [1:17] is threatening and perhaps preventing a negotiation that might bring this war to an end. [1:22] Well, leading up to this, over the weekend, my colleague, Barack Ravid, and I had written a story [1:29] about Trump sending back an edit, an addition to a peace deal with Iran, [1:36] and they were hoping to get an answer in a few days. [1:39] And in the course of reporting that out, we were told by the administration, [1:42] by administration officials, that Israel, that Netanyahu, [1:46] wanted a component concerning Lebanon in there, [1:49] and that Trump had rebuffed him, thinking that that was just sort of an added feature [1:53] that would have sort of bogged down the talks. [1:57] And then the next day, this massive bombing campaign erupts. [2:01] And from what we're told in Trump's mind, he figured, he felt, they felt, [2:06] that this was Netanyahu sort of saying, well, I'm not going to get my way, [2:09] I'm sort of going to bomb my way to your attention. [2:11] And it really, really bothered President Trump, we're told. [2:15] And yesterday, in the early afternoon, Trump got him on the horn, [2:20] Prime Minister Netanyahu, and just lit into him, [2:23] and sort of let him know that this is unacceptable in Trump's view. [2:27] Now, let's be clear. [2:29] The president keeps thinking that there's going to be a deal with Iran, [2:32] and it hasn't happened yet. [2:33] But in the administration, there has long been the sense of, [2:39] OK, Netanyahu is our partner in this process, [2:41] but a lot of the things that Netanyahu has said and done [2:45] haven't been as conducive to getting the outcome they desire, [2:49] and in some cases has managed to bog the conflict [2:52] and conflicts down in more conflict. [2:55] So, Mark, yesterday, Iran said they're going to cease any sort of talks [2:58] with the U.S., direct or indirect, because of what's happening in Lebanon. [3:02] So, take us inside the administration as best you can [3:06] with your and your colleagues' sources. [3:08] Where does the Trump team now view those negotiations? [3:11] Where could they go from here? [3:13] What sort of, not concession per se, [3:16] but how do they get them back on track? [3:18] How do they even get Iran to the table? [3:22] They claim, and President Trump had said on True Social yesterday, [3:25] and again, it's a claim. [3:26] We don't have an ability to, you know, verify these things, [3:29] that the talks are still going on, that things are still happening. [3:32] And perhaps one of the reasons they made sure that the story got out there [3:36] is they wanted to broadcast to Iran that they're serious about the deal. [3:41] The bigger problem that the United States has in striking this agreement [3:45] are the details, as I say, the devil's in the details. [3:49] And bottom line is, is that Iran wants money, [3:52] and President Trump doesn't want the appearance [3:55] of giving Iran money, of paying them money. [3:58] So we had described in a story a few months ago [4:01] about sort of a cash-for-uranium deal, [4:03] and the president sort of overrode his advisors [4:06] who were talking about that at the time [4:08] to say, well, sort of, no money is going to change hands [4:10] in any way, shape, or form. [4:12] Now we understand that behind the scenes that is happening. [4:14] Part of this, therefore, is going to be President Trump deciding [4:17] at what point does he allow Iran to have access to some sort of money, [4:22] there are frozen accounts, billions of dollars, [4:24] to begin this process and to free it up. [4:26] Until then, though, it looks like we're just in this Cold War cycle [4:30] of going back on agreements, [4:34] not having a true peace deal, [4:38] and having a hot war or conflict occasionally flare up. [4:42] Because until Iran gets its money, from what we're told, [4:45] it doesn't really want to make a deal [4:47] because it wants security [4:49] and it wants some sort of recompense for the damage. [4:52] And there was a lot of damage [4:53] that was inflicted on Iran by the United States. [4:57] And the Wall Street Journal editorial page this morning [4:59] suggesting that Iran is playing Donald Trump here [5:02] using Hezbollah to keep Israel in the war [5:05] and therefore prevent these negotiations [5:07] or at least give them an excuse not to negotiate. [5:10] Mark, you've been very busy overnight and this morning, [5:12] some of your reporting as well on President Trump [5:15] now planning to scrap that $1.776 billion [5:19] anti-weaponization fund. [5:21] That's what they're calling it anyway. [5:22] It was intended to compensate people who claim [5:24] they were victims of unfair prosecution by the government. [5:28] That's according to a senior White House official [5:29] speaking to MS Now. [5:31] Since its announcement, [5:32] the fund has received bipartisan backlash [5:34] with critics describing it as a scheme [5:37] to reward Trump's political allies [5:39] with public benefits, [5:41] perhaps including people who attacked police officers [5:44] on January 6th. [5:45] Two people familiar with the matter [5:46] tell the New York Times President Trump [5:48] had been leaning toward backing off the fund for days. [5:52] The move comes after the Justice Department [5:53] stated yesterday it would abide [5:55] by a federal judge's temporary order [5:57] not to proceed with any steps [6:00] to launch that fund until at least June 12th. [6:03] That is when a hearing on the matter is scheduled. [6:05] But one issue remains unclear, [6:07] whether getting rid of the fund will affect [6:09] another part of the legal settlement in the case, [6:12] namely, if it provides Trump, his family, [6:14] and his businesses with immunity [6:16] from current and pending IRS audits. [6:19] Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said [6:20] Democrats will push a bill this week [6:22] to ban the fund permanently, [6:24] arguing Trump's verbal assurances mean nothing. [6:27] Mark, you reported this yesterday. [6:29] MS Now matched your reporting on the story. [6:31] This is obviously a deeply unpopular idea [6:34] and one of the few times we've seen [6:36] at least members of the Senate [6:38] in the Republican Party [6:39] push back pretty loudly [6:41] on an idea of President Trump's. [6:44] They say in politics [6:45] when you're explaining you're losing [6:46] and it's almost impossible [6:48] to explain this $1.8 billion fund, [6:50] just the details of it, [6:52] which was the president [6:53] would be able to appoint five members, [6:56] there would be no say from Congress [6:57] and how this money is essentially [6:59] appropriated and expended. [7:01] And there were no clear details [7:04] as to what the process was [7:06] for doling out the money [7:07] or who qualified. [7:08] So, yeah, it's a very difficult thing. [7:10] Also, in the administration itself, [7:12] there's just been a lack of understanding [7:14] of just how this came about. [7:15] The president's personal lawyers, [7:17] including a man named Boris Epstein, [7:19] who's a longtime close advisor, [7:21] and the attorney general, [7:23] Todd Blanche's office, [7:24] it wasn't Blanche himself, [7:26] have a close relationship. [7:28] Blanche used to not only be [7:29] the private attorney for President Trump [7:32] before President Trump was re-elected, [7:34] but also for Boris himself. [7:36] So, the DOJ and Epstein [7:38] had come up with this deal [7:41] and the particulars of it. [7:43] Some members of the White House [7:44] and the West Wing said they were included. [7:46] Others said they weren't. [7:47] So, there were some people saying [7:48] they were completely blindsided by that. [7:50] So, not only did you have [7:51] the Congress against the White House, [7:54] you had portions of the White House [7:55] just saying we didn't know anything about this [7:57] and they weren't able to get any clear answers. [7:59] Not a great way to get anything done [8:01] and the result was finally [8:03] President Trump, from what we understand, [8:05] was told, [8:06] look, I just can't go forward with this anymore. [8:08] He's got a lot of things on his plate. [8:10] We just discussed a huge one. [8:12] And in the end, [8:12] this just wound up being just a big distraction. [8:15] Now, let's be clear. [8:16] In our story, [8:18] the sources we talked to said [8:20] that this is dead for now. [8:22] I think for now is an important word [8:23] because President Trump does believe [8:25] that government was weaponized [8:27] against a number of people [8:28] and some of those people [8:29] are very close friends of his [8:31] and they do want [8:32] some sort of remuneration [8:34] or recompense. [8:36] And so, I wouldn't be surprised [8:38] if some form or some measure like this [8:41] or some sort of fund came back, [8:43] but it would probably have to be more [8:44] in the sunshine [8:45] so you'd have less opposition. [8:48] So, Mark, [8:49] what's your sense from your reporting? [8:51] There was a lot of discontent [8:52] among some members [8:53] of the United States Senate [8:54] towards the fund. [8:56] Sure. [8:56] John Thune in particular [8:58] said something [8:58] that indicated he was not [9:00] in favor of it. [9:01] But do you think [9:02] that this is a start [9:04] to opposing Trump, [9:06] being able to stand up [9:07] and say out loud [9:08] I don't like this [9:09] or is this a one-off? [9:12] I can't say either way. [9:14] I mean, the Congress, [9:16] Republicans in Congress [9:17] have looked at the prior primary results [9:20] where President Trump [9:21] has taken out [9:22] sitting members [9:23] of both the Senate [9:24] and of the House [9:26] in Republican primaries. [9:28] He's very popular. [9:29] He has a big stick. [9:31] He walks loudly [9:31] and wields a big stick. [9:33] And so, they are scared of him. [9:35] There are certain things [9:36] that they just can't eat [9:37] and this was one of them. [9:38] So, I think it's [9:39] on a case-by-case basis. [9:41] President Trump's decision [9:42] to endorse Ken Paxton [9:43] over John Cornyn, [9:45] the sitting senator from Texas, [9:47] really rankled a lot [9:48] of Republican senators [9:49] in the wrong way. [9:50] So, there were a number [9:51] of factors that are involved [9:53] here in this opposition [9:55] that you're seeing [9:55] rise up from the Senate. [9:57] And then, of course, [9:58] overlaying all this [9:59] unpopular war in Iran, [10:01] $5 gasoline. [10:02] It makes the political environment [10:04] really challenging [10:05] to say the least. [10:06] And, Willie, [10:07] just to underline [10:08] what Mark said [10:08] about this fund [10:09] is gone for now, [10:10] there are some Democrats [10:11] in the Senate yesterday, [10:12] though heartened [10:13] by this news [10:14] that Trump is abandoning [10:15] this at the moment, [10:17] but said that there were [10:17] some... [10:18] The DOJ [10:19] language around it [10:20] had some wiggle room, [10:21] that this could be revisited, [10:23] that, yes, [10:23] DOJ was walking away [10:24] from this idea [10:25] for the moment, [10:26] but they do have concerns [10:27] that it could come back [10:28] in the months ahead. [10:28] President Trump [10:29] does not like [10:30] to concede defeat, [10:31] so we'll see [10:32] if he finds [10:32] some way back to this. [10:33] We'll see you next time. [10:33] We'll see you next time. [10:34] We'll see you next time. [10:34] We'll see you next time.