Why Vivek Ramaswamy's latest ad is sparking debate — On Balance Full Show

[0:00] Friends, welcome to the program. Let's cut through the fear-mongering that we are getting [0:05] from both sides, and that's what happens silly season two weeks before the election. We're [0:10] going to focus on what's happening within our republic, and we should all relish in it, [0:16] even if just for a minute here. Bear with me. Democracy as we know it is working. That's our [0:22] Why It Matters segment tonight. Nearly every day, look at this, number 15th, 19th, 14th, 20th, 16th, [0:31] 19th, nearly every day, there is a headline reporting new records in early voting. I won't [0:37] read all the headlines, but it's happening in Georgia, in Texas, Virginia, Arizona, North Carolina, [0:42] and Ohio. It must come that democracy is working and that people are voting. It must come as an [0:48] enormous surprise to all those folks who said Trump winning in 2024 would be the end of the [0:55] American experiment. Don't give them the power. Look, are they a threat to democracy? Yes. Are they [1:00] going to take our rights away? Yes. Are they going to put people's lives in danger? Yes. I've never [1:04] voted for a Democrat. Wow. And it tells you, I think, the stakes in this election. You know, [1:13] Donald Trump presents a challenge and a threat fundamentally to the republic. It is a choice [1:20] about whether we have a country rooted in freedom for every American or ruled by chaos and division. [1:31] Fear-mongering didn't work then. It's not going to work now. Because Donald Trump is crisscrossing [1:39] in America with 16 rallies so far this month, he will likely hold another dozen before the election. [1:44] He will tell everyone he is on the ballot. And Donald Trump mostly has the same message [1:52] that Democrats had in 2024. When you see burning steeples and raging fires in France, [1:59] just remember that is what the radical Democrats want to do to America. They expect to do it. [2:04] If the Democrats win, you will have a 1929-style economic depression. [2:11] If you had a bad presidential or one of these lunatics got in, you will look at me right now [2:18] and you will say he's going to be the last Republican president in the history of our country. [2:24] I will be. I will be. [2:26] No, he won't be. Trump is repeating history. Now he's the one saying vote for us because the other guys will end [2:36] democracy. Elections are about the future. Whoever promises Americans a better future wins. [2:42] And it appears that lesson has been lost literally on both sides. Steve Cortez, former Trump campaign [2:47] senior advisor Mark McKinnon, creator executive producer of The Circus on Showtime. Charlie Dent, [2:52] former Pennsylvania congressman, all with us now. Steve, I want to start with you and give you an [2:59] opportunity to tell me if I'm wrong. Yes, I do believe you're wrong. And here's why. We know what the [3:07] Democrats did when they got the reins of power. They opened the border wide open for the world to [3:13] invade this country. Probably at least 10 million illegals unfiltered, unvetted. Steve, I didn't ask [3:19] if I was wrong about what was going to happen. I asked if I was wrong about the politics. [3:23] That is an existential threat to the country. And that's not conjecture. It happened. We had the [3:29] experiment. We had the four-year experiment. So it's not hyperbole for us to say the Democrats will [3:34] literally give away the country because they were in the process of doing so for the four years of [3:39] Joe Biden. That's not conjecture, Leland. That's facts. That's what happened. That's what they did with [3:43] the reins of power. So why isn't it working better with voters? Well, because we decided to go [3:50] to a war of choice and spike prices. That's why. Okay. Charlie, I bring you in. At some point, [3:58] we got to be fair about this. Every president loses the midterms. That's just what happens, [4:04] especially every second term, a president loses the midterms. Is there somewhat of an unfair [4:12] standard being applied to Trump and Republicans ahead of this? No, I wouldn't say so. You're right [4:18] that the midterm is always brutal on the party in charge and it's a referendum on the president. [4:23] But I think this midterm feels pretty darn strong in terms of the negativity towards the [4:31] administration because of the president's low approval numbers. They're really—they are terrible. [4:35] The good news for Republicans, of course, is that there just aren't as many competitive seats. You're [4:40] not going to see a 2010 or 1994-type wave in the Democrats' direction, but they're going to have a strong [4:47] night, let's face it. And a lot of it has to do with the president's conduct in office. It's the [4:52] economy. It's the Iran war. It's the tariffs. And frankly, he's done a lot that has harmed [4:57] agricultural and rural America. And I think that's a part of the reason why this is as difficult a [5:02] cycle as it is for Republicans. My sources inside, at least the Democratic Party, seem to think they're [5:08] going to do a lot better in the House than they will do in the Senate. They're less confident [5:12] when it comes to the Senate. But, Mark, there is a point that Donald Trump has when it comes to [5:18] what is happening and what we are watching happen in Paris is the very same forces at play as want to [5:27] take over the Democratic Party here in America. He's not wrong about that. And Paris is perhaps, [5:34] the riots in France, a little bit of what Republicans needed. Here's President Trump over [5:39] the past couple of days. It's about immigration. It's about illegal people coming in who basically [5:45] hate France. They hate the people. They hate everything. If you want to see what is at stake [5:49] in this election, just look at what's happening in France, a once great nation that is being conquered, [5:55] looted, and burned to the ground by migrants, jihadists, and communists who hate Christianity. [6:03] What's happening in France has to do with immigration, not schools, not anything. It's [6:09] immigration that I told President Macron, close up your borders. [6:15] Mark, one of the president's huge and indisputable wins is closing the border. Joe Biden said he [6:21] couldn't do it. Trump did it within, what, three or four weeks, maybe five weeks. Given what's happening [6:29] in France, can he pivot the conversation now back to one of his real strong suits? [6:37] Joe Biden. Highly unlikely, Leland. Voters are listening to the president talk about France, [6:43] and they say, quit talking about France. Let's talk about what's happening right here in this [6:46] country. Let's talk about the promise that you made to never put us in a forever war, [6:50] which is causing all the economic hardship. And yes, historically, it doesn't often happen that the [6:57] president of power retains the Congress. But I was there in 2002 when George Bush did it, [7:02] and he did it by making tough, unpopular decisions like the surge in Iraq. So that was a tough [7:08] decision. And that's the kind of decision that Donald Trump has failed to make. [7:11] I don't think the surge had happened in Iraq in 2002, Mark. [7:14] 2007. Okay. Well, same thing. But in 2002, we kept the house. And it wasn't because of historical [7:28] traditions. It's because George Bush made tough decisions. Okay. Fair enough. Steve, [7:33] does, would President Trump be better suited right now rather than going on and on about Democrats and [7:40] everything else? Talk about what he is going to do for people going forward rather than trying to [7:46] make people feel stupid for feeling poor? Well, look, I think he should do both. Expose the radical [7:53] nature, the extremism of the Democrats. That is, of course, important. And at the same time, yes, [7:58] talk about your affirmative agenda. And I believe that the best affirmative agenda case to make [8:04] is that the pre-war economic trajectory was actually fantastic for this country. [8:08] We will wrap this war up. And once we do, we get back to growing real wages. That's where we were [8:14] pre-war. It's certainly where we were in the first Trump term. And we can get back to that. But you can do [8:19] both. Expose the radicalism of your opponents because it is important. And because, remember, again, [8:23] it's not an experiment. These people will reopen the border. These people are radicals. And in cases [8:29] like Abdul Al-Sayed, people who actually hate our country and enjoy the full support now of the [8:35] Democrat establishment. That's an important thing for the president and all of us who love America to [8:40] expose. Well, Abdul Al-Sayed does a good job of exposing himself, but your point is well-made. [8:46] Charlie, the opposite of this is, I think, what Democrats are doing because they seem to be doing [8:51] the exact same thing, which is going all in on fighting Donald Trump. Alyssa Slotkin, who I guess [8:59] has now become the Warner-in-Chief, talked last week about how she wanted to make things so miserable [9:04] that no young staffers would go work for the Trump administration because of the legal fees and [9:09] danger of congressional investigations. And then today, she said she thought that Trump was going to come [9:15] up with some kind of fake national security midterm surprise to scare everybody. Take a listen. [9:21] Look, that's manufactured outrage. That's his specialty. I think the thing that I've heard from [9:29] my own Republican colleagues and peers, including like interns and folks who work around the hill who [9:35] come to our events, they'll tell you, like, you know, I was worried. My parents were worried. [9:40] You know, it's really messy. I'm not sure what to get involved in. [9:43] Charlie, the flip side of everything I'm saying is that Democrats have not done much to articulate [9:49] how they're going to make things better either. [9:51] Well, of course not. Look, a midterm election is always a referendum on the president. [9:57] It's about Donald Trump and Republicans. It's not about the Democrats. Yes, it's true. [10:01] The Democrats' image ratings are terrible. But luckily for them, this election is not about them. [10:06] Now, they're going to have to figure if they get the majorities in the House and or the Senate, [10:10] well, then they're going to have to come up with a bit of an agenda. But for now, they don't have to [10:14] do a darn thing. And by the way, when you showed the president going after, you know, France, [10:19] I mean, that's just pure demagoguery. This is like a caravan moment. And I don't think it's [10:25] going to be successful. I'm not, I'm not sure. [10:27] Charlie, it's not, Charlie, it's not demagoguery when we see the red green alliance, the Marxist [10:34] jihadist alliance forming here in the United States, you have AOC hand in hand with Abdul [10:40] al-Sayed, somebody with serious ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization. So [10:45] it's not, you know, again, we're not making this up. It's real. It's tangible. It's starting to happen [10:50] here. And it's at a crisis level in France. We don't want it to get to that level in the United States. [10:55] JOHN YANG, Mckinnon, one of the things that the Bush campaigns did very well in 2004 is [11:01] they flipped it from being a referendum on George W. Bush to being a referendum on John Kerry. [11:07] How they did it, you can argue with tactics, but it worked. [11:12] Are Republicans successful right now? And it seems to me that they are starting to gain traction in [11:17] making this a referendum when it comes to the Senate, for example, in Michigan, [11:21] on Abdul al-Sayed rather than on Donald Trump and the economy. [11:28] Well, that's a great point. I mean, absolutely. The last thing you want to do is make it a referendum [11:32] on Donald Trump. He's the least popular president in modern history. So you don't want to be a [11:37] referendum on him, even though he's trying to put himself right in the middle of it all. You want [11:41] to make it a referendum on the other side. I mean, when George W. Bush ran in 2000, [11:44] in 2000, things were pretty good. And strategically, it was a very tough thing to wrap around [11:52] because things were great and we were arguing it was time for a change. In 2004, things were [11:57] pretty bad and we were arguing to stay the course. But the way that we did that was to say that, [12:01] listen, you may not agree with George W. Bush, but you know what he believes, you know what his [12:05] convictions are, and he's going to stick with it. We're not sure what Donald Trump's convictions are. [12:09] He said he was going to keep us out of forever wars and then he got us into one of the worst ones ever. [12:13] Steve, I keep hearing this not only from Democrats, but from Republicans, [12:18] but from consultants, but from everybody, this issue of forever wars. To that point, [12:24] is Trump's only option, Republicans' only option, like when it comes to Michigan, [12:29] to try to make this about the other side? I think primarily, yes, that is the reality. [12:37] When you have an unpopular war and when you have an economy that isn't working right now because of the [12:42] war for working class Americans, the best path to victory is clearly exposing with facts, [12:47] not with demagoguery, but with facts, the extremism of your opponents. And look, [12:52] I've said many times, and I mean this, if the Democrats had actually nominated normal, [12:57] if they had nominated patriotic, normal candidates, probably we lose all of these close races. [13:03] Haley, Haley Stevenson. Instead, they chose extremists who are unimpressive, [13:07] unlikable, and in many cases actually detest this country. And because of that, [13:12] we're going to expose who they are and win these races. [13:16] Charlie, I'll give you the last word here. For Republicans, you point out, [13:20] especially in rural America, they may not like what Donald Trump has done, but they are traditional [13:26] value Americans and the Democratic Party is having a very tough time arguing that it believes in [13:32] traditional values. Yeah, Democrats have, I've said this for a long time, Democrats have had a [13:38] problem with industrial and rural America and agricultural America for a long time, [13:43] because I thought many times that those folks in those communities felt like the Democrats talked [13:48] down to them and didn't respect their way of life and what they, what they do. The problem right now, [13:54] though, for Republicans is that Donald Trump's policies on Iran, which have raised, helped raise [13:59] diesel prices, fertilizer prices, the tariffs that have hit agricultural America particularly strong, [14:04] have caused many rural Republicans to become disillusioned with the party. And the threat to [14:10] the party right now is that many of these Republicans may just sit it out. I'm not saying I'm going to vote [14:16] Democrat, but they might sit it out. Yeah, and that, that is what Trump's trying to do, [14:21] is rile up his, his base, his supporters and say, look, I may, you know, this is what you're voting [14:27] against. Mark, Charlie? The barbarians coming over the gates, though, I don't think that's [14:31] necessarily the great message that's going to persuade people, though. [14:33] Well, I, I've said, I said I was going to taser anybody who said, we'll see, [14:38] so I won't say that, but you may, you all make very good points. Mark, Steve, Charlie, good to see you [14:43] at all. Republicans thought, and they really did, they had the perfect ad to rescue victory [14:50] from the jaws of defeat in Ohio. In less than 24 hours, it has blown up in their faces. [14:55] My name is Donna Arthur, and I'm Amy Acton's mother. I work to children and family service [15:07] association building one of the first two sexual abuse programs in America. I love my daughter, [15:16] but when I saw her lying about her opponent, it's not easy for a mother to say this, but Amy has a [15:23] serious problem. She is a liar. We are two weeks away from the midterms, [15:28] and that ad is quite the October surprise. Ohio gubernatorial candidate Dr. Amy Acton's [15:35] estranged mother, estranged mother, is urging voters not to vote for her daughter. It seemed this [15:41] morning like the magic bullet Republicans desperately needed to save the Ohio governor's race. Over the [15:47] past two months, the course of this race has totally changed. We'll look now at the numbers from our [15:52] partners at Kalshi. Kalshi's a prediction market where traders can go online anytime to trade based [15:58] on the outcome of the race. So in breaking news hits like this, traders were most likely pricing [16:04] Acton and Ramaswamy's chances of winning. So we're going to go back to August 6th. Ramaswamy was ahead, [16:11] race became essentially tied. But look at what happened one month later on Kalshi. Acton, as you can see, [16:18] the blue line started to take the lead. So what triggered this flip? August 6th, right here, [16:25] is when Ramaswamy released his Ohioans' first data center pledge. Here's where Kalshi says the race [16:31] stands today. Amy Acton, 74% chance of winning. Ramaswamy, only 26%. This ad was supposed to [16:40] backfire against Acton. Actually, as you can see in the last day, it really helped her chances. And [16:48] here's why. Remember her mom called her a liar. Acton's campaign came out and said that her mom [16:55] is estranged because of alleged neglect, abuse and sexual assault by her stepfather, who Acton's mom [17:01] protected. 74 White House correspondent Shelby Talcott with us, adjunct professor at NYU Stern School of [17:06] Business, CEO of Zero Knowledge Group, Austin Campbell. Austin, we always see in the last two [17:13] weeks the real mudslinging begins. Ramaswamy's campaign now says they're behind this ad. They're [17:19] going to put $4 million behind it. Obviously, today they didn't need to put any money behind it. It aired [17:24] everywhere. At some point, how do we poll? How do we understand how this ad affects the very few [17:33] undecided voters that are out there? I mean, it's extremely difficult this close to an election. [17:39] to have good polling on something like this. Prediction markets might be your best tool for [17:45] estimating the impact, but even those are highly imperfect. And part of that problem is that 30 [17:52] years ago, when you were polling people, you would get response rates in the 30 percent range. And now [17:56] when you poll them, you get a response rate of less than one percent. It's very hard to know if you're [18:02] reaching the people who are seeing the ad and how it's impacting them and if they represent the rest of [18:07] the electorate. So this is a shot in the dark in some ways by the Ramaswamy campaign. [18:12] Well, they need some kind of October surprise. So that is the gamble. Shelby, J.D. Vance yesterday [18:20] said he didn't think anybody knew, quote, what the hell was going to happen in the midterms. [18:26] How much is the administration at this point just saying we're willing to try anything versus having [18:32] a coherent plan that they're sticking with? [18:38] That's really the proposal, right, is try anything. And the reason for that is because you have [18:42] you have so many voters at this point who know exactly who they're going to vote for. And the line [18:48] between those voters who are unsure is so small, just two or three percent in a lot of these races, [18:53] which makes a huge difference. But at the same time, you're seeing the Trump administration, [18:57] their plan is throw everything at the wall. I think I have talked to so many people inside [19:01] the administration who have argued to me that the House is essentially lost and that the president [19:05] would be satisfied if they maintain control of the Senate and win some of these governor races. [19:09] That's sort of the standard that he has put on them at this point. But you're seeing with the [19:14] president every week now, he's announcing a new sort of giveaway. That's their strategy is, well, [19:19] if you keep control of, if Republicans keep control, we're going to give everybody $5,000. If [19:25] Republicans do well, we're going to give these Obama rebate checks. You know what I mean? And [19:30] so that's their strategy, is just give us one more chance and you're going to get more money. [19:34] Yeah. And there was some handout promise to farmers as well. We look at this, [19:38] Ramaswamy was this Trump acolyte. He ran against Trump, then became a campaign surrogate, [19:45] then he was in the administration. And then, Shelby, he seems to sort of have disappeared from [19:49] the Donald Trump orbit. Is that by design of him or design of the Trump administration? [19:54] I think it's a little bit of both. I mean, the president endorsed him almost immediately after [19:59] he ran the governor's race. So he's certainly not separating himself from the Trump administration [20:03] by that regard. But at the same time, he has this different race to run. And a lot of voters [20:08] in this state are not necessarily satisfied, particularly as the months have gone on post-Trump [20:14] endorsement with how the Trump administration has gone. And so I do think that Vivek is trying to find [20:19] ways to still be sort of a MAGA acolyte, because he's not really breaking with Trump substantially. [20:25] Be MAGA, but not Trump. [20:26] But not Trump. [20:27] You know, Austin, you sort of study so much of how voters have made these decisions. And [20:32] you have been at the forefront of understanding that the polls don't always pick up on things. [20:37] And the Washington establishment certainly doesn't. Washington was just absolutely aghast by this ad [20:42] this morning. Oh, my God, how could you do something like this? And this is the kiss of death [20:47] for Ramaswamy. We go back in history and these kinds of ads have happened before where Washington [20:54] is totally aghast. I'm thinking, for example, the Willie Horton ad back in the 80s. Take a look. [20:59] Bush and Dukakis on crime. Bush supports the death penalty for first-degree murderers. [21:06] Dukakis not only opposes the death penalty, he allowed first-degree murderers to have weekend passes [21:11] from prison. One was Willie Horton, who murdered a boy in a robbery, stabbing him 19 times. [21:17] Despite a life sentence, Horton received 10 weekend passes from prison. [21:22] Austin, same thing was used to go after Trump, a relative going after Trump the same way [21:30] the Amy Acton ad has been used in her mother. Does this stuff actually make a difference? [21:36] So I think as Shelby was saying earlier, you're trying to persuade a small group of voters who are [21:44] undecided because this is very unlikely to make a difference with the hard partisans who have [21:49] already made their mind up. Those voting preferences are quite sticky. The marginal people you find often [21:56] vote for reasons that are full of recency bias, the last impression, which candidate they liked in a debate. [22:03] It's more art than science, if we're being totally honest. So the answer is yes, sometimes they can work. [22:10] Politics has been a dirty game, but sometimes they work in unexpected ways. It's not totally shocking [22:15] when you use a high volatility strategy like this. It may actually help Dr. Acton. So yes, [22:21] it can work, but predicting the direction that it works in is harder than people think. [22:27] So leaving open the possibility it could backfire. It could backfire on the Ramaswamy campaign. It can [22:32] actually have the intended effect on the acting campaign. You made your name going back in 2016 and [22:36] looking in many of the same ways Donald Trump was willing to go for broke, right? And there was an [22:43] aspect of both the 26 campaign and the 2024 campaign where the Trump campaign was willing to sort of do [22:49] and say anything. Is that an asset or a liability? I think in the current environment, [22:57] it tends to be an asset specifically because people are angry. The approval rating of both parties [23:03] and the president are all low simultaneously. And if you look at what's happening across the country, [23:10] and this is part of why some of the polls are so hard to parse in close races, is people just want [23:15] change. Incumbents are doing worse than you would expect across the board, both Democratic and Republican. [23:22] And you have people who are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, quite frankly, [23:27] in both parties in significant numbers. So high volatility strategies pay there. Being angry about [23:34] things plays there. And quite frankly, saying what is inside of people's minds, but they are hesitant [23:40] to say, can often be a winning move if you connect with the voters. And that's the big if on this one. [23:47] No, there's nobody who's been better at connecting with voters in that visceral sense over the past 10 [23:51] years than Donald Trump. Shelby, I get the sense from my sources inside the White House and the [23:57] campaigns that there is a let Trump be Trump, but also let every candidate be whatever, every Republican [24:03] gets to be whatever they want to be for the last two weeks. Hence, we're going to see sort of the [24:07] wildness of the Wild West. And we've already started seeing it. There were, there have been [24:12] candidates that have broken with the president. And the president has made some comments. Even Danielle [24:15] Graham in South Carolina broke with the president. And there's been some comments by the president [24:20] online, but not to the extent that I think you would expect historically. And so there really [24:25] is inside the administration. Listen, one of the big things that people who have worked with Trump [24:29] for years always tell me is Trump has a unique ability to do things that everybody thinks are [24:37] impossible and he is successful. And so that's the mentality inside this administration is maybe it's [24:42] not going to work, but if it's going to work, we believe that Trump's going to make it work. So really, [24:46] it is a scenario where he is able to do whatever he wants, but also there's that separation that we [24:52] really haven't seen ever with Trump and when it comes to the Republican Party. And he's still going [24:56] to campaign with these people who are who are breaking with him. Shelby, thank you very much. [25:00] Austin, great having you. It was our first time we've had you. It took us a while to book you, [25:04] but we're really glad. We hope you come back. All right. Thank you very much. Yeah. Where exactly is [25:10] Ilhan Omar. She used to be one of the Democrats' loudest voices, most effective fighters. Two weeks [25:16] before the midterms, she is missing in action. What that says about the fraud case against her. [25:21] I just want to say that from day one of my administration, we've waged an unprecedented war [25:33] on corruption and fraud and we'll not let our country be looted and plundered by thieves and pirates [25:40] and foreign fraudsters and basically scum. President Trump's launching a new $25 million [25:47] anti-fraud campaign in the Oval Office, including a reward for whistleblowers. At the same time, [25:54] federal agents, literally during the press conference, raided several New York businesses [25:58] over suspected Medicaid fraud. Fraud is front and center for Americans right now, whether you're [26:03] Republican or a Democrat. 89% of Americans think corruption in the government is widespread, [26:08] up 30 points in the last 20 years. It's a political Rorschach test. Democrats see the Trump [26:13] family profiting off the government. For Republicans, it means health care fraud and Democrats enriching [26:19] charities and what Somalis took from our government, meaning us. Nobody better exemplifies what [26:25] Republicans mean by fraud than Rep. Ilhan Omar. She's Somali, accused of marrying her brother, [26:31] subject to multiple criminal investigations, and now she has literally disappeared. There might be a good [26:36] reason for that. The DOJ might have a lot more on her than we know. Our sources over the past week or [26:42] so have indicated that the investigation in Omar is far broader than initially thought. Any good [26:48] lawyer will tell you the first thing you do when you're in trouble is shut up and don't say anything. [26:54] When the Congresswoman's home was raided by the feds earlier this month, she took to social media [26:59] saying Trump will not silence her. But now Omar isn't even showing up to rallies organized in her support. [27:06] Representative Omar said she wanted me to tell you she loves you and thank you for your outpouring [27:12] support today. Showing up here this afternoon calling her office and posting on social media. [27:18] Alan Dershowitz, the great one, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, author of Why I Quit the [27:24] Democrats and so should you. Counselor, if you were advising Ilhan Omar, would you tell her to go to [27:31] ground? I would tell her to call me or a good lawyer and be quiet and allow a lawyer to handle the case. [27:38] She's in deep trouble. I've had a lot of experience with search warrants done against government officials [27:46] and before a judge, a particular D.C. judge, signs off on a search warrant in Washington, D.C. at the [27:53] home of a member of Congress, there has to be something very, very substantial in the affidavit. [28:00] This is not the normal case of a judge just signing off. And so I suspect there's a lot more than we [28:07] now know publicly. I sure hope so, because she's a horrible, horrible human being, a horrible member of [28:15] Congress, a horrible anti-American, anti-Semite, anti-Israel. Well, tell me how you really feel. [28:22] Well, I really feel that way and I hope she has to go to jail. Look, the statute of limitations may [28:29] be over on some of her criminal conduct, but not on her fraud in becoming a citizen. If in fact she [28:37] or her father or the two of them together conspired to change the date of her birth in order to [28:44] ease her road to American citizenship, she can be denaturalized and then deported. She may not be [28:54] able to be criminally charged. Even that's not beyond the realm of possibility. You have to look [28:59] whether she did or recent. A couple of quick things on this. Our reporting is that there was DNA [29:06] collected from a number of family members to prove some kind of, as you point out, or broader [29:13] conspiracy. And you made the issue of whether she could be charged criminally or not. Here's [29:18] President Trump in the Oval Office today on just that point. Roll the tape. Sure. [29:21] If there is a problem with Ilhan Omar's age, could she be deported? [29:26] Well, she could be. She could also go to jail. I mean, she could also go to jail. You know, [29:31] they keep talking about deportation. No, she could go to jail. This is just my opinion. I think she's a [29:37] sick, a very dishonest person, but who hates our country. Because the president is talk like this, [29:45] because the president is the president, there is going to have to be some bar met if this [29:52] administration doesn't want to be accused of targeting her simply because of her politics. [29:58] What in your mind do they have to prove so that it is clear to the American people [30:02] that they would be, she would be charged no matter who she was or who she didn't like? [30:07] They have to prove that she lied in her application or that somebody lied on her behalf [30:12] in the application. Now, if she continues to lie, if she continues to give her birth date wrongly, [30:18] even though she did it in the past, and the past may be beyond the statute of limitations, [30:23] this may constitute what's called the continuing crime. And so the statute of limitations [30:28] may be satisfied. She's in deep trouble. We don't know how deep the trouble is, [30:34] but at the very least, if it turns out that she lied or that her citizenship was obtained through fraud, [30:43] whether it's her fraud or her father's fraud, she has great vulnerability to being denaturalized. [30:49] You just said something that I think is really important, because a source told me [30:54] that the judge reviewing the search warrant application spent six hours going through [30:59] the application before signing off on not only her house, but more than a dozen other targets. [31:07] What does going through six hours of an affidavit mean in terms of the amount of evidence [31:14] that the government has already collected? [31:16] SEN. BERNIE SANDERS , I can tell you that search warrants generally are issued in 30 seconds. [31:22] I have seen it happen. I clerked for judges. I was, you know, experienced in this. And judges will [31:28] generally look at a search warrant, read the name of the affiant, look for a couple of sentences, [31:33] and then sign it. Six hours of review means that there was a lot there and a lot to digest [31:42] by a judge who was not sympathetic to the government here, and a judge who was probably [31:47] sympathetic to the defendant. And yet he found probable cause. Now, probable cause is not a high [31:52] standard. It's not like proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But for a sitting member of Congress in their [31:59] home in the District of Columbia, it's a lot higher than for a drug suspect or even a murder suspect. [32:06] Well, yeah, the judge knew who they were signing off on. Counselor, it's good to see you. [32:11] Thank you, as always. Thank you. [32:12] Yeah, back to now, to that poll showing 89% of Americans think corruption [32:17] is widespread. It cuts two ways, or many ways. Tonight, the New York Times just posted a news [32:24] story that a billionaire wanted a Trump pardon. His family gave Alina Habba a $50 million deal, [32:30] writing Julio Jara Veltuni, a prominent Venezuelan, was seeking clemency. He got it not long after his [32:36] daughter gave Ms. Habba a lawyer close to President Trump an extraordinarily lucrative job. [32:42] Habba denies any wrongdoing. She's been doing that a lot lately. Corruption can mean something [32:47] other than a $50 million job offer. It's the rich getting richer and all of us being left behind. [32:53] Speaking of $50 million, Kylie Jenner wore a $50 million bra at the Victoria's Secret fashion show [33:00] this weekend. The aristocracy in America is real and increasingly out of touch. But one person who [33:07] might actually get it is the richest man in the world, Elon Musk. Yesterday, Musk announced he is [33:12] giving one share of SpaceX to every child in America through a Trump account. Whether it happens or not, [33:17] we don't know. But given the benefit of the doubt, Musk posted next year, I will give one of my SpaceX [33:22] shares to every kid in America. This will be the first of many. This would mean around 72 million [33:27] children in America and each get a share currently worth around $146. One share a big deal? Maybe not. [33:34] But it could be in 16 years. Put this in perspective. If every kid was given a share of Tesla when it IPO'd [33:41] 16 years ago, and the same thing happens to SpaceX as it did to Tesla, every share of SpaceX will be worth [33:49] $40,000 or more. Don't get me wrong. It's amazing what Musk is doing. Now for the irony. Musk giving away [33:59] over $10 billion in stock to American kids means he gets a massive tax write-off. In basic terms, he would get [34:07] to take billions of dollars in tax deductions without ever spending a dollar. Musk can now live tax-free for [34:14] years. So even when billionaires do the right thing, they still get a far better deal than the rest of us. [34:22] So maybe the joke is really on us. First wrote about this in War Notes, your chance for an inside [34:28] look at the show every day. Some of our initial thoughts right at 1230 Eastern. We're getting more [34:34] people signing up every day. Don't get left behind. Warnotes.com. And I'll see you on social media, [34:39] at Leland Vittert. Trump says he wants to end the war with Ukraine, maybe without Ukraine. So [34:47] how exactly is that going to work? Ukraine has to want to settle this war. Zelenskyy has to want to [34:58] settle this war. And if he doesn't, I think it's going to be a very bad thing. Look, we have given [35:04] tremendous amounts to Ukraine. We've got nothing back other than high diesel. It's hard for them to be in [35:13] the same room. I don't care how it's done. President Trump today threatened again that he [35:20] may try to negotiate an end to Russia's war with Ukraine without Ukraine. Trump wants the deal done [35:27] because he needs Putin's help with Iran and may be willing to trade Ukraine or at least some parts of [35:32] Ukraine for it. Yikes. Washington now is losing its mind. The alternative, though, is just more war. [35:40] Congressman Adam Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, is here. Congressman, [35:45] I think you and I probably agree on a lot of parts of this, which is that pushing back against [35:51] Vladimir Putin and not letting him win here and embolden him is imperative. At the same time, [35:59] if the Ukrainians are not willing to cede any of their territory and make a deal, [36:04] what is the alternative? Well, at this point, I mean, Putin's not willing to cede anything. He's not [36:10] willing to stop his war. He's put nothing realistic on the table. And I think the mistake that Trump has [36:16] made from the start of his administration is he's putting the pressure on Ukraine instead of putting [36:21] the pressure on Putin. Putin is the one who started this war. The idea that somehow Ukraine could choose [36:27] to end it is ridiculous. Putin wants to grab a bunch of territory, and he's losing territory right [36:33] now. He's being pushed backwards. And the cost of the war is very, very high for Russia. So, you know, [36:39] I think putting pressure on Ukraine is the wrong way to go about it. The pressure needs to be put on [36:43] Russia. Okay. And to be fair, if you watch what Trump did, not what he said, [36:48] he put a lot of pressure on Russia economically and isolated Putin. And Putin, as you point out, [36:56] is losing in large part because of American help. That begs the question, what is the right amount of [37:03] help? If Zelenskyy keeps saying, we're unwilling to give up any territory, [37:09] should the U.S. just fund this forever and give Ukraine whatever it asks for? [37:12] Well, look, I mean, the U.S., I mean, Trump hasn't been putting much in the way of money [37:16] in there recently. I mean, Ukraine is building their drones. They're building a lot of what they're [37:21] using against Russia. So, you know, look, I think what we ought to do is, again, we ought to put [37:27] pressure on Russia and force them to the bargaining table and to actually- [37:33] Well, according to Trump, they're coming to the bargaining table, right? [37:35] No, but they haven't. I mean, 20 months they've been saying that. [37:40] And Russia has put nothing on the table and they continue to bomb civilian targets. They continue a [37:45] brutal, brutal war against Ukraine. So, no, I think we should support Ukraine as long as Russia [37:52] continues this brutal war against them. And it's not just us. I mean, during the Biden administration, [37:59] the 54-nation coalition that was supporting Ukraine, Europeans have stepped up a lot in the [38:03] last couple of years. Okay, so here's Zelenskyy talking about his conversations [38:09] with American negotiators in Norway today. First of all, we really discussed security guarantees, [38:16] and I'm thankful to American side that they underlie again that it will be strong. Yes. And we have [38:22] different propositions. And we spoke about, you know, that NATO and Article 5 and Article 5 like, [38:29] there are different kinds of security guarantees. We're two weeks away from an election, [38:34] Congressman. I don't know about you, but when I travel America and talk, especially in, [38:39] and I'll call it swing states, swing districts, whatever it is, Ukraine does not really show up on [38:45] anybody's, uh, bingo card. Yeah, no, look, it's certainly not a top issue in the election. Um, [38:52] but it is a top issue in terms of international politics. I mean, Putin is a threat to Europe. Um, [38:58] and we ought to be siding with the democracy. We ought to be siding with, with, with the country [39:02] that was invaded. Right. I, I, I, I don't disagree with your sovereignty. I, I don't disagree with you [39:08] that standing up to Vladimir Putin is something that America is stronger when it's doing and [39:13] America is stronger in the world when we are standing up, you call it sovereignty. I just say [39:17] when, when America is leading, America is better and the world is a better place. But if Democrats [39:23] take the House, standing up for sovereignty is, is not really a policy. It's an idea. You likely going to [39:30] be chairman of armed services. What does that mean Democrats do? Yeah, well, it means we push for [39:36] continued support for Ukraine. Um, yeah, we've put money in the budget the last couple of years to [39:41] support them. You know, I think we continue to do that. Um, we continue to pressure the Trump [39:46] administration to help Ukraine and not support Russia. And look, there's a broader issue here. [39:50] I mean, Trump's affinity for, for the brutal dictatorship in Russia, I think is a problem. Um, [39:57] you know, I think he has shown over and over again that he likes Putin. Um, that he, [40:02] says he does. Right. Then he sort of aspires to that type of leadership. [40:06] Eh, really? Come on. Yeah. Well, I mean, look, he's got ICE agents running all around all, [40:13] all across the country. Oh, come on, come on. He's not obeying the law. I mean, [40:19] The ICE agents are not the KGB or the FSB, whatever they call themselves now. It sounds silly when you say [40:24] that. Yeah. Well, you know, Trump has also targeted media members who say things he doesn't like. He's [40:31] kicked them out of the White House. He's sicked the FCC on them. Obama, Obama issued search [40:36] warrants on media members he didn't like. Ah, look, I think Trump has taken us to a bad place. [40:41] But back to Ukraine. Look, I think we need to support Ukraine, because if we don't, um, Russia [40:47] gets stronger and that's bad for U.S. interests. You are, you are right about that, um, that when the [40:52] world gets stronger, uh, America is not seen, uh, as a leader anymore. It's a bad thing. Congressman, [40:57] it's good to see you as always. Thank you. Uh, we'll see you back in D.C. after the election.