- 6 hours ago
The Beat with Ari Melber - Season Episode 132 -Episode 132 englishsub fullmovie⭕️🍿 Secret Engagement
Category
🎥
Short filmTranscript
00:00We have a lot of news to cover on many nights on this and other programs.
00:04We draw on reporting from some of the top newspapers in the country.
00:08Tonight, we will be joined by two of the top journalists from The New York Times.
00:13You know their names and bylines, Maggie Hammerman and Jonathan Swan.
00:16Their bestselling new book, Regime Change, which goes inside this second term,
00:20has been reverberating through Washington.
00:22It is a national bestseller. It is in demand.
00:24We're going to get into the substance, the meat, the reporting on that in a moment.
00:27So thanks to both of our guests for standing by.
00:30Before we get to them, we begin with the very latest in the U.S. hitting Iran
00:34with a series of what are called powerful strikes late today.
00:37A reminder that while many people from Washington to the business community
00:42have sort of priced in and expected full ceasefire to hold,
00:47this is still a very unpredictable situation.
00:50It's retaliation for Iran's attacks on what are commercial vessels in the strait.
00:54That is according to the U.S. Central Command.
00:56The president is in Turkey for the NATO summit.
00:59He has been clashing with allies there, reportedly furious that other countries
01:03did not help him fight the way he wanted, regardless of what many experts said was a failure
01:07to do the groundwork to build the coalition on that war and, frankly,
01:12a range of other international issues.
01:14There's also reporting how people that have been seen as Trump's allies over many years in the U.S.,
01:18including Tucker Carlson, were very much against not only the Iran war,
01:23but the basic expected fallout which we're now living through.
01:28There's a report in that Carlson said, you're going to destroy your presidency.
01:32You won't do anything after this.
01:35If you get into a, quote, regime change war with Iran, it's over.
01:39You will note what many could see as a double entendre there.
01:42That is the title, of course, of the big Habermaswan book.
01:46Now, Trump did not, of course, heed those warnings.
01:49If you are looking at this as just a matter of how the government works,
01:53you could say, fine, the president made up his own mind.
01:56He didn't listen to a political ally or a member of the media.
01:59Of course, there's also a lot of reporting about how many people
02:03who were even aligned with Trump's general agenda
02:05warned about how the way he planned to go into Iran,
02:09the nature of the kind of rushed and emotional
02:14or kind of aggravated assault on this country
02:16without a long-term plan and a plan B, was dangerous.
02:21And the pattern of ignoring expertise or input
02:24is a kind of a pattern of the second-term governing.
02:28Trump does take some big swings.
02:30If you hear his allies tell it, he does what he said he would do.
02:34Whether he wins or not, he started a trade war just like he said he would.
02:38And you could point to examples like that.
02:40But there are many other big swings that falter.
02:43For example, Donald Trump, at tremendous cost to his agenda,
02:47his so-called political capital to Washington, even among some Republicans,
02:50has repeatedly pushed the DOJ to do things that it should not, legally cannot,
02:57and often are not able to do.
02:59So he has a slew of revenge cases that we've been covering,
03:02but very few of them have gotten anywhere, let alone towards convictions.
03:06He also launched, of course, that rushed Doge-Musk effort.
03:10The initiative just shuttered this weekend.
03:13Many estimates say it didn't produce the savings promised.
03:16There was taxpayer money spent on all kinds of other projects.
03:20Talk about the contrast between him and Elon Musk lecturing everyone about government spending,
03:24and then Donald Trump spending your tax dollars on the reflecting pool,
03:29on his vanity projects, on construction at the White House that nobody asked for.
03:33As for the trade war, the Supreme Court basically stopped the key parts of it.
03:38And then there's the profiteering.
03:40This isn't so much about government decision-making as it is the oldest trick in the book,
03:45which is if the people have some power over your money, why don't they just take it?
03:50Our system of government is supposed to have checks and balances for that,
03:53but through crypto and other means, Donald Trump has shown his guile,
03:57his sort of cleverness at a minimum at self-enrichment.
04:01MSNOW has interviewed several Trump supporters who say that they're upset about a range of things,
04:06but especially what is currently the Trump economy.
04:12I feel like it's a recession, man.
04:14I ain't never felt that before. I feel it now. I feel it now.
04:17It's almost like the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer.
04:20Everything in America right now is ridiculous. It really is.
04:25Everything is going up. You can barely afford things.
04:29I think, you know, the way people feel about the economy,
04:32like it looks good on paper, but people are really struggling.
04:36We're joined now by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan,
04:39the White House reporters for The New York Times,
04:41who I just quoted in some of this lead.
04:43They're co-authors of the book I mentioned,
04:45Regime Change Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump.
04:49Welcome to both of you.
04:51Maggie, when you look at just some of what's going on today,
04:54including how President Trump is approaching the world stage,
04:58from matters significant like war and NATO,
05:00to what some would say optional clashes,
05:03like whether to intervene in the World Cup.
05:05What, from your reporting, the many sources you spoke to,
05:08sort of informs or gives us a lens for what we're seeing?
05:12So you mentioned the title of the book as a double entendre.
05:16Ariane, again, thank you for having us.
05:17We'd actually thought of this title long before Trump went into Caracas
05:21to snatch Nicolas Maduro,
05:23because it occurred to us early on in the presidency
05:27that what we were covering was a form of regime change in our own country,
05:31a form of a different kind of American-style democracy.
05:35This was not a Democrat to a Republican marginal policy.
05:39Trump is expanding executive power in massive, massive, massive ways,
05:45sometimes affirmed by the Supreme Court, sometimes not,
05:48but he has taken a lot of big swings.
05:50And in cases like you just mentioned,
05:52for instance, with the revenge prosecutions,
05:54the process is actually intended to be the punishment,
05:57and we talk about that in the book, number one.
06:00Number two, on Iran, he is operating on gut, as you say,
06:05in a way that we really didn't see in term one.
06:08This was a decision that he made,
06:10despite the fact that nobody in his government thought it was a good idea.
06:13He's now angry.
06:14As you say, he didn't make a case to the public
06:17about why they should be with him,
06:19because he believed this was going to end quickly,
06:22based on a feeling, based on his impulse.
06:25And he was very clear about that with people.
06:27And you are now seeing the result of that.
06:31Yeah.
06:31Jonathan, Maggie mentions it,
06:33and the book really makes the evidence-backed case
06:37that, separate from ideology and red-blue,
06:40which we hear so much about,
06:42that the second term under this president
06:45is experimenting with or ramming home
06:49a different way to run the federal government,
06:52that structurally, in terms of where power operates,
06:56how little can really meaningfully be done
06:58at the cabinet or expert level without the president,
07:01at least on his chosen issues.
07:02Can you tell us more about that?
07:04Because it is distinct from so much
07:05of the ideological discourse around Trump.
07:10Yeah, I mean, it's a very complicated story,
07:13and there are so many elements to it.
07:15But I'll just give you one example from,
07:18you mentioned it in your introduction.
07:21We've all sort of memory-holed Doge.
07:24You know, we've sort of forgotten about Doge.
07:26But for a few months last year,
07:29Trump essentially appointed Elon Musk
07:32as a sort of co-president,
07:34the richest man in the world
07:36who had not divested from any of his business interests,
07:40who was placing people throughout the government.
07:44And yes, he didn't, you know,
07:47a lot of the stuff that he wanted to do didn't get done.
07:50But I'll just give you one example
07:51of something that did get done.
07:53And again, people don't really even talk about it anymore.
07:56It's been, you know, consumed with so many other issues.
08:00USAID, a government agency
08:02designed to help the world's poorest people,
08:06foreign aid, set up by Congress.
08:08They just shut it down.
08:10They didn't talk to Congress.
08:12They didn't talk to anyone.
08:13They just shut it down essentially over a weekend.
08:15Musk did.
08:17Rubio, the Secretary of State,
08:18wasn't even really that involved in that.
08:20He had to take over the remnants of USAID.
08:23Most of its functions have been disappeared.
08:26You know, the sort of the dregs of it
08:29has been absorbed into the State Department.
08:30That's one example.
08:32I could go through, you know, endless examples.
08:35But the macro story is Congress,
08:39an entire branch of government last year,
08:42led by Republicans, essentially just ceded the field.
08:45And so that, as a check on Trump,
08:48just essentially evaporated.
08:50You're seeing a little bit of it now
08:51come back with the Senate,
08:53but, you know, only a little bit.
08:54And the only institution that the Trump team
08:57have really respected and not, you know,
09:00defied or tried to bulldoze
09:02is the Supreme Court.
09:04But at the lower court level,
09:06they've ignored tons of rulings.
09:08You know, people have documented this
09:10in the immigration space in particular.
09:13People have been languishing
09:14in these detention centers,
09:15not getting hearings.
09:17And so it's not just that he's ignoring
09:19or bulldozing norms.
09:21They're actually really stretching the law
09:22in very significant ways.
09:26Maggie, how about that?
09:28Look, at the beginning of his term,
09:30I'll give you another example.
09:32Trump fired a number of inspectors general.
09:35It was actually impossible,
09:36at least in those days initially,
09:38to learn exactly who had been fired.
09:40The government couldn't even give you
09:41a specific example or a specific hard number.
09:44The process, the law,
09:46is that the White House
09:47is supposed to notify Congress.
09:48There is supposed to be 30 days.
09:50And there's supposed to be a reason given.
09:52None of that was done.
09:54Chuck Grassley,
09:55who is normally the senator from Iowa,
09:57normally very much a stickler for process,
09:59did some mild complaining,
10:01but that was about it.
10:03And you saw there
10:04that they were going to do
10:06what they wanted to do.
10:07Inspectors general were a thorn
10:09in Trump's side in term one.
10:10They actually are responsible
10:11for some accountability
10:12and oversight over agencies.
10:15They exist in a rump state now.
10:18And so most measures of accountability,
10:21particularly once post-Watergate,
10:23but not only,
10:24have been eradicated or run over.
10:26And by the time,
10:27as Jonathan mentioned,
10:28the Supreme Court,
10:29the only entity that they really listen to,
10:31catches up,
10:32so much is done.
10:34Like the East Wing has been torn down.
10:36Or I can go on and on,
10:38but those are examples.
10:40Yeah, well,
10:41we can go on and on
10:42because we set aside time
10:43for this to nerd out a little bit,
10:45Maggie.
10:45Thanks, Eric.
10:47Again,
10:47there's so much in politics
10:50that is the noise
10:51and we all talk to sources
10:53and sometimes,
10:54you know,
10:54sources will say,
10:55well,
10:55let me go off the record
10:57and then they'll say something like,
10:59and this could be for any politician,
11:00you know,
11:01my boss is actually really thoughtful.
11:03He's really,
11:03he's really thinking hard about this
11:05and it's really,
11:06he wants to do right
11:07by the American people
11:08and I think,
11:09oh,
11:09we went off the record for that?
11:10Like there's so much crap
11:12and you guys have found a way
11:14to cut through that
11:14and get a lot of real reporting done
11:16through sources
11:17and the relationships you have
11:19and when you mentioned
11:20the inspectors general,
11:21I'm curious,
11:21Maggie,
11:22what your sources told you about
11:23how Trump does zero in
11:25because there's a lot of politicians
11:28in Washington
11:29who couldn't name
11:30a single inspector general
11:32of any agency
11:33and I remember quite vividly
11:35when Trump was talking about,
11:36you know,
11:37Horowitz is pretty good.
11:38He's one of the good ones
11:40and these others aren't
11:41and so that told me,
11:42wow,
11:42Donald Trump,
11:43who plays sometimes
11:44a very blustering
11:45fifth grade level speaker
11:47in public,
11:48had not only figured out
11:50who the DOJ IG was
11:51but had determined
11:52through his own lens
11:53that he preferred those outcomes
11:55to IGs
11:56at other departments and agencies.
11:58So Maggie,
11:58what do your sources tell you
11:59about the layers of Trump
12:01and you've covered him a long time
12:03that still work
12:04where I hear Trump critics
12:07criticize him
12:07on terms
12:08that he would welcome
12:09because he wants
12:10to be a blustery businessman
12:12and there's other things to it.
12:14Go ahead.
12:15It's a great question
12:16and it's actually
12:17a very good example.
12:18One of the things
12:18that Trump said
12:19many,
12:20many years ago
12:21to a writer
12:22who passed away recently
12:23was that he likes
12:24to do things,
12:24I'm paraphrasing,
12:25nice and complicated
12:26so nobody really knows
12:27what's going on
12:28and so what you just pointed to
12:29actually is a very good example
12:31of that.
12:31It's a mixture of factors.
12:34It's not a binary
12:34of he knows everything
12:36or it's nothing at all.
12:38In the case of Michael Horowitz,
12:40this was the inspector general
12:41when Trump was under investigation
12:43in term one
12:43when Trump wanted to see
12:44the DOJ
12:45take certain actions
12:46like prosecute
12:47James Comey
12:48in term one
12:49and so he remembers
12:50the report about that.
12:52He didn't actually recommend
12:53prosecuting Comey
12:55and when Bill Barr,
12:57then the attorney general,
12:58who was hardly a squish
13:00or hardly a lefty
13:02is telling Trump
13:03that this is not going to happen,
13:06Trump was infuriated.
13:08So Michael Horowitz
13:09is a specific one
13:10that sticks out in his mind
13:11but on the other ones,
13:13it's some mix of allies
13:15who have issues
13:16with specific people,
13:17his own personnel advisors
13:19which is a small group
13:22within the White House
13:23who have specific interests
13:25either in the agency
13:26or they have looked at things
13:28in their vetting
13:29of what these inspectors general
13:30have done in the past.
13:32It is a mix
13:33of different factors
13:34and I think that
13:35if we went down the list
13:36or if we ever even
13:36got a full list,
13:37we would be able
13:38to go through it
13:38and there would be
13:39different reasons for why.
13:40But Horowitz
13:41is an example
13:42of the personalist nature
13:44of how Trump
13:45is approaching
13:46absolutely everything
13:47right now.
13:48the other thing
13:48right and with
13:50go ahead.
13:51I was just going to say
13:52the other thing
13:52that's really important
13:53we should get into
13:54in the book
13:54is the long range
13:56planning for this term.
13:57Yes.
13:59Stephen Miller
13:59had really thought through
14:01what they were going to do
14:03in a few key respects
14:04and one of them
14:05which I think
14:05is very underreported
14:07we get into it
14:08in the book
14:08is stocking
14:09the administration
14:10with a new cast
14:12of lawyer
14:13different types
14:14of lawyers
14:15and you know
14:16many people
14:17would
14:18particularly
14:19left of centre
14:20people would view
14:20the Federalist Society
14:22as you know
14:23sort of Darth Vader
14:24you know
14:24they stocked
14:25the Supreme Court
14:26in term one
14:26people like Stephen Miller
14:28viewed the Federalist Society
14:29as a bunch of squishes
14:30and actually
14:31what they wanted
14:32was lawyers
14:33who were going to be
14:33much more aggressive
14:34in their interpretations
14:35of the law
14:36much more willing
14:37to push the envelope
14:38and not just
14:39in the White House
14:40but across the agencies
14:41so when you stock
14:42a government
14:43with a different
14:43type of lawyer
14:44as you know
14:45you get a different
14:46type of legal analysis
14:48and that allows you
14:49to do far more
14:50than they could do
14:51in the first term
14:52they're not getting
14:53the same sort of
14:54agency pushback
14:55that they were
14:56right
14:57I think you guys
14:58document that in a way
14:59that's very useful
15:00for people who want
15:00to learn how this
15:01really works
15:01there's the old joke
15:03in Better Call Saul
15:03when he wants a lawyer
15:05to go even farther
15:06and he says
15:06you don't need
15:06a criminal lawyer
15:07you need a criminal
15:09lawyer
15:10and
15:11don't take my
15:12word for it
15:13there are
15:14there are people
15:15like John Eastman
15:16who faced
15:17and Rudy Giuliani
15:18who faced
15:19civil and bar
15:20discipline
15:21over whether
15:22they crossed
15:22those lines
15:23and so
15:23that also goes
15:24to another detail
15:25I want to ask you
15:26about Jonathan
15:27on Stephen Miller
15:28where again
15:29the contrast
15:29between the terms
15:30that earlier
15:31the Pentagon leaders
15:32however ideologically
15:33aligned they might be
15:34with aspects
15:35of MAGA
15:36they were still
15:37unnerved
15:37by what you write
15:39was the young
15:40Miller
15:40with his
15:40inexperience
15:41and aggression
15:42reading from the book
15:43you say
15:43they now installed
15:44a Trump devotee
15:45atop
15:46the now named
15:47Department of War
15:48Miller had lobbied
15:50for a like-minded
15:50defense secretary
15:51whose thoughts
15:52about the American
15:52military
15:52and contempt
15:53for by the book
15:55lawyers were much
15:55more in line
15:56with the aggressive
15:56mindset he shared
15:57with Trump
15:58and you know
15:59let's leave out
16:00to the side
16:01Jonathan
16:01the semiotic
16:03politics
16:04of the term
16:05deep state
16:05and just refer
16:07to the fact
16:07that there is
16:08a large
16:09superstructure
16:09of people
16:10in the federal
16:11government
16:12it's supposed
16:12to be that way
16:13and yet you document
16:14that as they
16:15figured this out
16:16they went deeper
16:17into what they
16:18would call
16:18the deep state
16:19to make those
16:19changes
16:20Jonathan
16:21very much so
16:22and the Pentagon
16:24was an area
16:25that they really
16:26saw as
16:27almost an enemy
16:28force within
16:29the government
16:29that in the
16:30uniformed ranks
16:31were full of
16:32in their opinion
16:33never Trumpers
16:35anti-Trumpers
16:36people who were
16:37going to obstruct
16:38the president
16:38so it's been
16:39a very systematic
16:40effort to clear
16:41them out
16:42and it's had
16:43real world
16:43effects
16:44I'll give you
16:45one example
16:46the boat
16:47bombing campaign
16:48in term one
16:50Trump's
16:50you know
16:51Trump was talking
16:51about you know
16:52term one
16:53he would talk
16:54admiringly about
16:55how Xi Jinping
16:56doesn't have a
16:57drug problem
16:57because he just
16:58kills drug dealers
16:59you know
17:00unilaterally
17:01that Duterte
17:02didn't have a
17:02drug problem
17:03Trump is now
17:04doing a version
17:04of that
17:05on the high seas
17:06and what he
17:07has done
17:08is fishing boats
17:10carrying cocaine
17:11traffickers
17:11Donald Trump
17:12has decided
17:13that these
17:14are enemy
17:15combatants
17:16and instead
17:17of doing
17:18what has been
17:19done
17:19you know
17:19interdicting
17:20them
17:20arresting
17:21putting on
17:22trial
17:22treating as
17:22a criminal
17:23matter
17:23they said
17:24no no
17:24this is war
17:25and we're
17:25just going
17:26to kill
17:26them
17:26and he
17:27has had
17:28a very
17:28enthusiastic
17:29secretary
17:30of war
17:31in Pete
17:31Hegseth
17:32in carrying
17:32out that
17:33campaign
17:34and really
17:35no resistance
17:36whatsoever
17:36from the
17:37leadership
17:37of the
17:39department
17:40Stephen Miller
17:41was also
17:42heavily involved
17:42in that
17:43campaign
17:43so you
17:44sort of
17:44see all
17:44those threads
17:45come together
17:45just in
17:46that one
17:46example
17:48yeah
17:48and there's
17:49so many
17:49of these
17:49stories
17:50that take
17:50up
17:51attention
17:52for various
17:52reasons
17:53you're
17:53reminding
17:53everyone
17:54that the
17:54this is
17:55the first
17:55draft of
17:55history
17:56the long
17:56eyes
17:57of history
17:57might focus
17:58on some
17:58very different
17:59controversies
18:00than sometimes
18:00we do
18:01certainly
18:02what most
18:03nations
18:04would call
18:04the possibility
18:06of
18:08premeditated
18:09war crimes
18:09I mean
18:10you have
18:10the technology
18:11and the ability
18:11to look
18:11to see
18:12the persons
18:12alive
18:13to see
18:14that they
18:14seem to
18:15pose no
18:15threat
18:16and then
18:16to go
18:17forth
18:17and kill
18:18them
18:18in what
18:19is a
18:19violation
18:19of
18:20potentially
18:20the
18:20Geneva
18:20Convention
18:21I mean
18:21that's
18:21big
18:21stuff
18:22Maggie
18:23I want
18:23to get
18:23your
18:24reporting
18:24as well
18:25on the
18:25Epstein
18:26freak out
18:27because you
18:27have so many
18:28details there
18:28that of course
18:29made news
18:29was in the
18:30Times
18:30as a
18:31standalone
18:31article
18:32Maggie
18:32and Jonathan
18:33are back
18:33with me
18:34after a
18:34quick break
18:34we return
18:35in 90
18:36seconds
18:41we're back
18:42with Maggie
18:42Haberman
18:42and Jonathan
18:43Swan
18:43the authors
18:44of Regime
18:44Change
18:45which is one
18:45of those
18:45books that
18:46had many
18:47different
18:47headlines and
18:47excerpts in
18:48the New York
18:49Times
18:49one was about
18:50what seemed
18:51like frankly
18:52a panic
18:53inside the
18:54White House
18:54over Epstein
18:55as they
18:56failed to
18:56control that
18:57story
18:57that was a
18:58big theme
18:58in the first
18:59year
18:59reading from
18:59the book
18:59Trump and
19:00J.D. Vance
19:01who spent a lot
19:01of time on
19:02X
19:02you know
19:03and were
19:04tapped into
19:04a younger
19:05and hyper
19:05online portion
19:06of the base
19:06were very
19:07worried
19:07they urged
19:08the White
19:08House to
19:08change course
19:09and to
19:09force the
19:10DOJ to
19:10release more
19:11of the files
19:11but there was
19:12one major
19:12obstacle in the
19:13path of the
19:13solution
19:14the president
19:15himself had
19:15no interest
19:16in transparency
19:17he wanted
19:17the whole
19:17Epstein issue
19:18buried and
19:19snapping at
19:20anyone who
19:21mentioned it
19:22Maggie what
19:23does the
19:23inside story
19:24tell us
19:26about how
19:28concerned
19:28Trump was
19:29about this
19:30issue
19:30that the
19:31guys
19:31criticized a
19:32lot the
19:32guys obviously
19:33stared down
19:33and come
19:34back from
19:34all kinds
19:34of things
19:35and this
19:36seemed to
19:36be huge
19:37and also
19:38tell us
19:38about the
19:38situation
19:39room
19:40sure
19:41so Epstein
19:41was one of
19:42these issues
19:42Ari that
19:43Trump just
19:44he'd gotten
19:44so used
19:45to his
19:45base
19:46listening to
19:46him
19:47say
19:47what I
19:48say is
19:48true
19:48what those
19:49people are
19:49saying is
19:50not true
19:50and he
19:51just couldn't
19:51make it
19:52disappear
19:52so he
19:53kept calling
19:53it a
19:53democratic
19:54hoax
19:54it was
19:54you know
19:55it was
19:55all
19:55concocted
19:56as we
19:57say in
19:57the book
19:58he didn't
19:59want to
19:59talk about
19:59this at
19:59all
20:00he wanted
20:00it gone
20:01and so
20:01that left
20:02his aides
20:03and we're
20:03not you
20:04know I'm
20:04not defending
20:04this or
20:05saying yes
20:05this was
20:05right
20:06I'm just
20:06saying this
20:06was their
20:07view
20:07that left
20:08his
20:13anything
20:14out
20:14and that
20:15led us
20:15to report
20:16on a
20:17handful
20:18of specific
20:19situation
20:20room meetings
20:21the White
20:22House
20:22situation
20:22room
20:22which is
20:23this you
20:23know
20:23essentially
20:24like a
20:25no cell
20:26phone
20:26sanctuary
20:27where
20:28where wars
20:29have been
20:29planned
20:30and discussed
20:30where
20:31raids
20:32of you
20:33know
20:33Osama
20:33bin Laden
20:34where he
20:34was killed
20:35was monitored
20:36by President
20:36Obama
20:37in this
20:37case it
20:38became an
20:38Epstein
20:38crisis
20:39comms
20:40center
20:40in part
20:41because they
20:42were worried
20:42about leaks
20:43but you
20:44had the
20:44top levels
20:45of the
20:46White House
20:46the top
20:46levels
20:47of the
20:47DOJ
20:47and the
20:47FBI
20:48talking
20:49about
20:49what
20:49their
20:49options
20:50are
20:50there
20:51was
20:51this
20:51remarkable
20:52meeting
20:53that we
20:53wrote
20:53about
20:53in August
20:54where they
20:54were talking
20:55about releasing
20:55a public
20:56facing
20:56website
20:57put together
20:58by the
20:58DOJ
20:58of all
20:59things
20:59Epstein
20:59the question
21:00was
21:01what about
21:02Donald Trump
21:02and things
21:03related to
21:03Donald Trump
21:04and so
21:04one aid
21:05had searched
21:05Trump's
21:06name
21:06and up
21:07popped
21:07this
21:07uncorroborated
21:08secondhand
21:09claim
21:09that had been
21:10public
21:10for a year
21:11and a half
21:11in an
21:11unrelated
21:12civil case
21:13that Trump
21:14allegedly
21:16abused
21:16some woman's
21:17nipples
21:18and the
21:19abuse was
21:20visible
21:20and they
21:20were very
21:21swollen
21:21and looked
21:22painful
21:22and the
21:24aide said
21:24this is
21:25out there
21:25and the
21:26vice president
21:26who wanted
21:27everything
21:27out said
21:28I think
21:29he'd be
21:29fine with
21:29it
21:30he'd been
21:30accused
21:30of worse
21:31and the
21:32White House
21:32chief of
21:33staff
21:33said no
21:33he would
21:34not be
21:34fine with
21:35it
21:35but that
21:36was the
21:36end of
21:36that
21:36conversation
21:37about this
21:37public
21:38facing
21:38website
21:38that didn't
21:39happen
21:39so
21:40it was
21:42remarkable
21:43for the
21:44fact that
21:44they were
21:44attempting
21:45very hard
21:45to keep
21:46this very
21:46quiet
21:47and private
21:47and deal
21:48with this
21:48situation
21:48that only
21:49grew bigger
21:50and the
21:51fact that
21:52because of
21:52their own
21:53resistance
21:54that every
21:55path was
21:56blocked by
21:57Trump not
21:57wanting anything
21:58out
21:58this issue
21:59has lingered
22:00and remained
22:01a real problem
22:02for them
22:02politically
22:03which polling
22:03shows including
22:04their own
22:05private polling
22:05that we lay
22:06out in the
22:07book
22:08and Jonathan
22:09when you
22:09look at
22:09that story
22:10in your
22:10reporting
22:12who was
22:12it around
22:13Trump and
22:14the White
22:14House that
22:14figured out
22:15there's a
22:16gap
22:16the gap
22:17between
22:18what they
22:18were willing
22:19to give
22:19up and
22:19the accountability
22:20the demands
22:21of their
22:21base
22:21was too
22:23wide a gap
22:23to bridge
22:23I mean we
22:24ultimately got
22:24the law
22:25because they
22:25mishandled it
22:26so poorly
22:28that's one
22:28of the only
22:29issues where
22:29the Congress
22:30has overridden
22:31Trump on a
22:31bipartisan
22:32basis
22:33right
22:34well many
22:35of his
22:36senior
22:36officials
22:37of Trump
22:38senior
22:38officials
22:39underestimated
22:40the political
22:41potency of
22:42Epstein
22:42and to
22:43you know
22:44to be fair
22:44they had
22:45endured all
22:46kinds of
22:46scandals in
22:47their time
22:48working for
22:48Donald Trump
22:49so you can
22:49see why they
22:50thought this
22:51would blow
22:51over
22:51the two
22:52people
22:52internally
22:53who really
22:53were most
22:54adamant
22:55about getting
22:56Epstein
22:57transparency
22:58and putting
22:59it out there
22:59and trying to
23:00get on top
23:01of this issue
23:01were the
23:02vice president
23:04who the
23:05White House
23:05chief of
23:05staff
23:05described to
23:06others as
23:07a conspiracy
23:07theorist
23:08on Epstein
23:08and Dan
23:10Bongino
23:10the deputy
23:11FBI director
23:11who in
23:12his previous
23:13life as a
23:14podcaster
23:14had talked
23:15about Epstein
23:16and the need
23:16to get to
23:17the bottom
23:17of it
23:17he was very
23:18aggressive
23:19internally
23:19and actually
23:20we report
23:20in the book
23:21there was a
23:22pretty astonishing
23:22blow up
23:23between him
23:24and the
23:24attorney general
23:25Pam Bondi
23:25and then again
23:26him storming
23:28out of the
23:28White House
23:28situation room
23:29after a meeting
23:30with the
23:31chief of
23:31staff
23:32so those
23:32two were
23:33really the
23:33most aggressive
23:34but many
23:35of them
23:36underestimated
23:36it and
23:37you know
23:38the thing
23:38we found
23:39which was
23:40kind of
23:41stunning to
23:41Trump's
23:42aides
23:42was even
23:43this year
23:44in their
23:45private
23:45you know
23:46in their
23:46confidential
23:47memos
23:48from Trump's
23:49chief pollster
23:50it's still
23:51popping through
23:51in their
23:52focus groups
23:52voters are
23:53just bringing
23:54up this
23:54issue
23:54and they
23:55found
23:55Trump's
23:56own team
23:57found that
23:57it ranks
23:58above issues
23:58like crime
23:59and data
24:00centers
24:01and some
24:02really
24:02politically
24:02salient
24:03issues
24:04Epstein
24:04is still
24:05cutting through
24:06from their
24:06perspective
24:07to an
24:07alarming
24:07extent
24:09number one
24:10true
24:11number two
24:12you got to be
24:13really in the weeds
24:13to be impressed
24:14by that data
24:15center comparison
24:16Jonathan
24:17bigger than
24:18data centers
24:19you said
24:20data centers
24:21are big
24:21that's what
24:22we're doing
24:22they are
24:23they're a big deal
24:25yell it
24:25yell it
24:26data centers
24:26are big
24:27they're big
24:28man
24:28they're big
24:30we're over
24:31on time
24:31but Jonathan
24:32on the other
24:33positive note
24:33this applies to
24:34both of you
24:35but I'll give
24:35the question
24:35Jonathan
24:36people talk
24:37so much smack
24:39about the media
24:40and we can all
24:41learn and do
24:41better and take
24:42constructive
24:42criticism well
24:43but what does
24:44it say to you
24:44that this book
24:45at one point
24:46was sold out
24:47on Amazon
24:48I know it was
24:48in back order
24:49hundreds of
24:49thousands of
24:49copies
24:50that real
24:51journalism
24:52reporting
24:53talking to
24:54sources
24:54reporting it
24:55out
24:55still apparently
24:56matters to
24:56people
24:57and obviously
24:57it mattered
24:58because we saw
24:58a reaction
24:59from the
24:59government
24:59in brief
25:00what does
25:00that say
25:00to you
25:01tonight
25:02it's very
25:03it's very
25:04gratifying
25:04for anyone
25:05who believes
25:06in the value
25:07of journalism
25:07that there is
25:08still a real
25:09hunger
25:10I think it's
25:10a hunger
25:11for people
25:11to understand
25:12what's going
25:12on
25:12to put meaning
25:13around it
25:14to really
25:14understand
25:15how the
25:15country's
25:15being run
25:16and we've
25:17been
25:18overwhelmed
25:18by the
25:19response
25:20to the
25:20book
25:21yeah
25:22Jonathan
25:22and Maggie
25:23again congrats
25:23on the book
25:24I mentioned
25:25we and other
25:25outlets
25:26draw on the
25:27times and
25:27your reporting
25:28for all kinds
25:28of stories
25:29great to have
25:29you directly
25:29here I'll show
25:30the audience
25:30one more time
25:31regime change
25:31inside the
25:32imperial presidency
25:33of Donald
25:33Trump
25:34you can get
25:34it wherever
25:34books are sold
25:35thanks to
25:36our guests
25:37let me tell
25:37you what's
25:37coming up
25:38HBO's Larry
25:38David
25:39uniting with
25:40Jimmy Kimmel
25:41in a
25:43now recorded
25:45satire
25:45that also
25:46includes
25:46the late
25:47Rob Reiner
25:48but they
25:48came together
25:49about something
25:49they wanted
25:50to talk
25:50about
25:50which is
25:50our
25:51founding
25:51history
25:51and mocking
25:53Donald Trump
25:56who can
25:57attack
25:57universities
25:58even the
25:58free press
25:59silencing
26:00anyone
26:01who dares
26:02to criticize
26:03him
26:03ah come
26:04on
26:05that could
26:05never happen
26:06that's what
26:07you think
26:09revisionist
26:10history
26:10we will show
26:11you more
26:12of that
26:12it just
26:12aired on
26:13HBO
26:13you'll see
26:13it for the
26:14first time
26:14on MS
26:15Now
26:15tonight
26:15but up
26:16next
26:16Trump's
26:17attorney
26:18general
26:18nominee
26:19running
26:19into
26:19unprecedented
26:20opposition
26:21from
26:22DOJ
26:22veterans
26:22that's
26:23next
26:28Donald
26:28Trump
26:28is trying
26:29to install
26:29the kind
26:30of
26:30loyalist
26:31to permanently
26:31run the
26:31justice
26:32department
26:32in a manner
26:33that would
26:33have been
26:33completely
26:34dead on
26:34arrival
26:35in most
26:35terms
26:36and yet
26:37here we
26:38are
26:39Todd Blanche
26:39was Donald
26:40Trump's
26:40personal
26:41criminal
26:41defense
26:41attorney
26:42he has
26:43in his
26:43short
26:43tenure
26:44as acting
26:44attorney
26:45general
26:45had a
26:45slew
26:46of
26:46crises
26:47of his
26:47own
26:48competence
26:48his
26:48professionalism
26:49his
26:50honesty
26:50and
26:51he tried
26:52that
26:52sweetheart
26:53deal
26:53to give
26:54Donald
26:54Trump
26:55a tax
26:55benefit
26:56by
26:56self
26:56dealing
26:57which
26:58Senate
26:58Democrats
26:58now
26:59say
26:59they
26:59want
27:00to
27:00press
27:00as part
27:01of
27:01Blanche's
27:01confirmation
27:02hearings
27:02Blanche was
27:03also behind
27:04the
27:04basically
27:05aborted
27:06plan
27:06to hand
27:06out
27:07your
27:07money
27:07to
27:08convicts
27:08including
27:09people
27:09who may
27:10have
27:10attacked
27:11the
27:11Capitol
27:11on
27:11Jan
27:126
27:12now
27:13Blanche's
27:14hearing
27:14is
27:15next
27:16Wednesday
27:16Senators
27:17Warren
27:18Schumer
27:18and
27:19Wyden
27:19have
27:20already
27:20teed
27:21off
27:21the
27:21battle
27:21writing
27:21to
27:2211
27:23affiliated
27:23companies
27:24under
27:24the guise
27:25of a
27:25so-called
27:25legal
27:25settlement
27:26that
27:26administrations
27:27attempted to
27:27decree that
27:27Trump and
27:28his family
27:28and their
27:28business
27:29empire
27:29face zero
27:30consequences for
27:31a range of
27:31financial crimes
27:32or misdeeds
27:33the original
27:34document from
27:34AG Blanche
27:35claims
27:35that the
27:36IRS is
27:37forever
27:37barred and
27:38precluded from
27:38prosecuting or
27:39pursuing any
27:40and all
27:40claims from
27:40Trump's tax
27:41returns
27:41now that
27:42itself is
27:43legally
27:44unheard of
27:45and suspect
27:45it may be
27:46that if
27:47this attorney
27:47general has
27:48the power
27:48to do
27:49that then
27:49a future
27:49attorney
27:50general has
27:50the power
27:51to undo
27:51it just
27:52like an
27:52executive
27:52order but
27:53a lot
27:53of this
27:54is new
27:55turf
27:56meanwhile how
27:57does the
27:59relatively
28:00respected set
28:02of DOJ
28:02alumni view
28:03Mr. Blanche
28:04poorly
28:05we can
28:06report that
28:07in a rare
28:08move over
28:091,200 veterans
28:12of the Justice
28:12Department are
28:14opposing Blanche's
28:15nomination
28:16this goes
28:17like so many
28:18stories today
28:18well beyond
28:19ideological
28:19grounds
28:20this has
28:20to do
28:20with whether
28:21it is
28:21even
28:22proper
28:22and valid
28:23to have
28:24the nation's
28:24top law
28:25enforcement
28:25officer
28:25be this
28:26much of
28:26a personal
28:27loyalist
28:27to the
28:27president
28:28they say
28:29Blanche
28:29degraded
28:30the DOJ's
28:31independent
28:32career staff
28:33including
28:33demonizing
28:34career employees
28:35meaning the
28:36nonpartisan
28:36people who
28:37uphold the
28:38rule of
28:38law
28:39I'm joined
28:40now by
28:40Emily Bazel
28:41on New York
28:41Times Magazine
28:42legal writer
28:43welcome
28:44thank you
28:46there's a
28:47connective tissue
28:48from this
28:48story to
28:49what I was
28:50just discussing
28:50with the
28:51book authors
28:52about how
28:53some folks
28:54inside the
28:54administration
28:54realized for
28:55what they
28:55wanted to
28:56do they
28:56had to
28:56find
28:57extreme
28:57sometimes
28:58even
28:59you know
29:00invalid
29:00or
29:01ethically
29:01dubious
29:02lawyers
29:03because one
29:04of the
29:04first steps
29:04in government
29:05is sometimes
29:05getting things
29:06signed off
29:06internally
29:06it would
29:07seem that
29:08Blanche
29:08is a far
29:09cry from
29:10the first
29:10term
29:11attorneys
29:11general
29:11your view
29:12of this
29:12opposition
29:13towards him
29:14well I
29:15mean it
29:16is remarkable
29:16to have
29:171200
29:17former
29:18lawyers
29:19from the
29:20justice
29:20department
29:20speak out
29:21collectively
29:22in this
29:22way
29:22and what
29:23you're seeing
29:23is the
29:24nonpartisan
29:25ranks
29:26the career
29:27rank and
29:28file
29:28attorneys
29:29saying
29:29this is
29:30not the
29:31right guy
29:31and a lot
29:32of them
29:32are people
29:32who worked
29:33with him
29:34either in
29:35New York
29:35when he
29:36was at
29:36the
29:36southern
29:36district
29:37U.S.
29:37attorney's
29:37office
29:38or when
29:39he was at
29:39the justice
29:40department
29:40because so
29:41many people
29:42have left
29:43the justice
29:44department
29:44so many
29:44lawyers
29:45thousands
29:45of them
29:46so that
29:47is a lot
29:47of the
29:48people
29:48signing
29:49this
29:49letter
29:49and I
29:50think
29:50you know
29:50as Maggie
29:51and Jonathan
29:52were describing
29:53based on
29:53their incredibly
29:54important
29:55reporting
29:56Trump wanted
29:57different kind
29:58of lawyers
29:58this time
29:59around
29:59right
30:00he wanted
30:00people who
30:01would say
30:01yes
30:01and so
30:02he picked
30:02his own
30:03former
30:04personal
30:05lawyer
30:05who has
30:06been willing
30:06even to
30:07sign off
30:07on this
30:08idea of
30:09you know
30:09effectively a
30:10civil pardon
30:10for Trump
30:11and his
30:11family
30:11and his
30:12businesses
30:12by saying
30:13that the
30:14justice
30:14department
30:14will never
30:15investigate
30:16any financial
30:17misdeeds
30:18by any
30:18of them
30:21and Blanche
30:22has had a
30:22really tough
30:23go of it
30:23I mean
30:24there's so
30:24much
30:24normalization
30:25or people
30:26say sane
30:26washing
30:27of various
30:27things
30:28nobody
30:29that I've
30:30seen
30:30thinks he's
30:31doing any
30:32kind of
30:33good or
30:33serviceable
30:34job
30:35conservatives
30:35who identify
30:36with his
30:37agenda
30:37would rather
30:37they had
30:38someone who
30:38was frankly
30:39more credible
30:40he has
30:41very little
30:41experience
30:42at this
30:42level
30:43he's a
30:43lawyer
30:43but he
30:44has this
30:44and that
30:45I think
30:45has shown
30:47in how
30:48he talks
30:48and his
30:49inability
30:49to get
30:50these things
30:51done
30:51even the
30:51rollout
30:52of the
30:52tax deal
30:53and the
30:54so-called
30:54criminal
30:54fund
30:56those were
30:57bad ideas
30:57on substance
30:58many people
30:58say
30:59they claim
31:00to have
31:00dropped it
31:00but the
31:01rollout
31:01and the
31:01way he
31:02presented
31:02it
31:02and all
31:02of it
31:03was really
31:03terrible
31:03take a
31:04look at
31:04some
31:04of his
31:04moments
31:07why is
31:08there objection
31:09to sending
31:10ICE officers
31:11to polling
31:11places
31:12illegals
31:12can't
31:13vote
31:14we see
31:15our most
31:16activist
31:16judges
31:18that we
31:18lose to
31:20every single
31:21day
31:21there's a lot
31:22of ways
31:22that we can
31:23work within
31:23that to get
31:24some of our
31:25cases where we
31:25want them to be
31:26if he chooses
31:27to nominate
31:27somebody else
31:28and asks me
31:29to go do
31:29something else
31:30I will say
31:30thank you very
31:31much I love
31:31you sir
31:32we are not
31:32moving forward
31:33with the fun
31:34period
31:34not moving
31:35forward ever
31:36correct
31:37oh
31:38there's no
31:38more fun
31:39then
31:39is there
31:40any way
31:40that you
31:40could put
31:41this in
31:41writing
31:42I'm not
31:42committing
31:43to putting
31:43anything
31:43in writing
31:44I'm going to
31:44set it
31:44over and
31:45over again
31:48the final
31:48point just
31:49amateurish
31:49he was putting
31:50it in writing
31:51in the sense
31:52that saying
31:52it to
31:53congress
31:54where false
31:55statements
31:55are a crime
31:56is more
31:57legally binding
31:58than if he
31:58wrote it
31:59on a post-it
32:00that it just
32:01seemed like
32:01one of those
32:02amateur things
32:02on top of
32:03what I
32:04mentioned
32:04which was
32:04the ethics
32:04and the
32:05honesty
32:06issues
32:07do you
32:07think he's
32:08fit to be
32:08attorney general
32:09do you think
32:09he'll have
32:09a rough
32:10confirmation
32:10hearing
32:11I mean
32:12this is
32:12really up
32:13to the
32:13small number
32:14of Senate
32:14Republicans
32:15who have
32:15been willing
32:16to challenge
32:17the president
32:17in some
32:18way
32:18right
32:18people like
32:19Tom Tillis
32:20who are not
32:21running for
32:21re-election
32:23we'll see
32:24there was a
32:25theory that
32:25Trump was just
32:26going to leave
32:26Blanche in
32:27place as the
32:28acting attorney
32:28general for as
32:29long as
32:30possible
32:30rather than
32:32daring the
32:33Senate not
32:33to confirm
32:34him
32:34but you
32:35know
32:35I have not
32:36heard of a lot
32:36of organized
32:37opposition among
32:38Republicans who
32:39obviously control
32:40the Senate
32:40so we'll see
32:42we will see
32:44Emily Bazelon
32:45thanks for joining
32:46us as always
32:47I promise this
32:48and we are going to
32:49show it to you
32:50Larry David
32:51going at Trump
32:52with historical
32:53fiction
32:54in that new
32:55show
32:55this is coming
32:55up next
32:58what if he
32:59was a
32:59deeply corrupt
33:00con man
33:01a pathological
33:02liar
33:03who preys
33:03on people's
33:04prejudices
33:05are you
33:05positing
33:06that our
33:07electorate
33:08is a
33:08collection
33:09of dupes
33:10that would
33:11be swayed
33:12by such
33:12a scoundrel
33:13yes
33:13Mr.
33:14President
33:20we just
33:21went through
33:21July 4th
33:22Independence Day
33:23and a special
33:24one
33:24with it being
33:25250
33:25and so
33:26Americans
33:26celebrated that
33:27if you follow
33:28news and
33:29politics
33:29you know
33:29that the
33:30president
33:30tried to
33:31involve himself
33:31in some
33:32of that
33:32but this
33:33is larger
33:34than any
33:35one
33:35political
33:36project
33:37indeed
33:37when you
33:38look up
33:38at the
33:38fireworks
33:39and you
33:39look around
33:40and think
33:40about what
33:40unites us
33:41as a
33:41country
33:42sometimes
33:43we can
33:43use our
33:44history
33:44to broaden
33:45our
33:45perspective
33:47other
33:47times
33:48we look
33:49back at
33:49history
33:50and wonder
33:50well
33:51did it
33:51work
33:51does our
33:52system of
33:53government
33:53these
33:53famous
33:54checks
33:54and balances
33:55and guardrails
33:56do they
33:56even work
33:57and that
33:57brings us
33:58to something
33:58that is
33:58funny
34:00with comic
34:00Larry David
34:01going at
34:02Donald Trump
34:02something he's
34:03been doing
34:03for years
34:04but has a
34:05deeper
34:05kind of
34:06historical
34:06constitutional
34:07point
34:07embedded
34:08in the
34:08comedy
34:09of course
34:10we know
34:10Larry
34:10from
34:11Seinfeld
34:11and Curb
34:12and many
34:12of his
34:13co-stars
34:13have been
34:14on this
34:14very
34:14program
34:15but his
34:15new show
34:15which we've
34:16mentioned
34:16he teamed
34:17up with
34:17Barack
34:17Obama
34:18to do
34:18and it
34:19draws on
34:19the
34:20founding era
34:20and other
34:21periods
34:21in history
34:22to basically
34:22make jokes
34:23but the
34:25newest episode
34:25if you haven't
34:26seen it yet
34:26just aired
34:27on HBO
34:27we're airing
34:28a clip
34:28here on MS
34:28Now
34:29for the
34:29first time
34:29has this
34:30biting critique
34:31of Trump
34:32through the
34:32lens of
34:33the first
34:33president
34:33Washington
34:34and a
34:35Larry David
34:35character
34:36who's
34:36raising
34:36questions
34:37that
34:37may be
34:38dismissed
34:39in the
34:40fabric
34:40of our
34:41founding
34:41documents
34:42feel
34:43newly
34:43relevant
34:44right now
34:47I stand
34:48before you
34:49today
34:49as your
34:50president
34:50to announce
34:51that I
34:52shall not
34:53be seeking
34:54a third
34:55term
34:57in order
35:00to ensure
35:01the success
35:03of our
35:04fledgling
35:05democracy
35:06I believe
35:07that no
35:09man
35:09should serve
35:11more than
35:11two terms
35:12as president
35:13and I hope
35:15that future
35:16presidents
35:17will follow
35:18my lead
35:19what if
35:19some future
35:20president
35:21doesn't follow
35:22your lead
35:23and runs
35:25for a third
35:25term
35:25there are
35:27remedies for
35:28that
35:28the congress
35:29can pass
35:30a constitutional
35:32amendment
35:32that would
35:34prohibit
35:34that
35:34well what
35:36if there's
35:37some
35:37in office
35:38some
35:38narcissistic
35:39who doesn't
35:41follow the
35:42constitution
35:42then the
35:44congress of
35:45the united
35:45states
35:46and the
35:47united states
35:47supreme court
35:48would not
35:49allow it
35:51what if
35:52the supreme
35:53court
35:53is a bunch
35:55of yes
35:55men
35:55and congress
35:57is a bunch
35:58of
35:58who care
36:00more about
36:00party
36:01than
36:02country
36:03i can't
36:07even
36:07fathom
36:08the existence
36:09of such
36:10men
36:10but
36:11to further
36:12ensure the
36:12success
36:13of this
36:14grand
36:14experiment
36:15i would
36:16suggest
36:16that after
36:17every
36:18presidential
36:18election
36:19there be
36:20a peaceful
36:21transfer of
36:23power
36:23anyone who
36:23would accept
36:24the results
36:24of a free
36:25and fair
36:25election
36:26is a
36:27sociopath
36:28a man
36:29like that
36:30could even
36:30foment
36:31an insurrection
36:32rather than
36:33just admit
36:34that he
36:34lost
36:37he could use
36:38the presidency
36:39to enrich
36:40himself and
36:41his family
36:43he could send
36:44troops into
36:44american cities
36:45to terrorize
36:47and even kill
36:47american citizens
36:49he could attack
36:49universities
36:50even the free
36:51press
36:51silencing
36:52anyone
36:53who dares
36:54to criticize
36:55him
36:56are you
36:56suggesting
36:57that the
36:57president
36:58would take
36:59the time
36:59to challenge
37:01anyone who
37:01dare make
37:02fun of him
37:03as if he
37:04were a big
37:04baby
37:05a big baby
37:06i don't see it
37:08what duly elected
37:10president would do
37:11such a thing
37:11an insecure
37:12lion
37:13hole
37:17there you
37:18have it
37:18you'll notice
37:19congress and the
37:20supreme court
37:20took some of
37:21the strays
37:21the jimmy
37:23kimmel cameo
37:24is particularly
37:24apt
37:25and we also
37:26saw of course
37:27the late
37:27rob reiner
37:27there
37:28playing
37:28president
37:29washington
37:29it shows
37:31us
37:31that comedy
37:32satire
37:33free speech
37:34all of it
37:35is what we
37:36need to get
37:36through this
37:37period
37:37even if
37:39the joke
37:39with jimmy
37:40kimmel
37:40is that
37:41this imagined
37:42future
37:42president baby
37:44would react
37:45so stridently
37:46to us
37:47exercising
37:48what are
37:48of course
37:49our foundational
37:51rights
37:52we'll be right
37:52back
37:57maine's race
37:58for united states
37:58senator was
37:59upended after
37:59this news
38:00that the
38:00democratic
38:01nominee
38:01graham platter
38:02was accused
38:03of sexually
38:04assaulting a
38:05woman he
38:05dated five
38:05years ago
38:06platter denies
38:07the allegation
38:08and released
38:08a video
38:09statement
38:09about taking
38:10time to
38:10reflect on
38:11his path
38:11forward
38:12the accuser
38:13spoke on
38:14the record
38:15to politico
38:15saying she
38:17absolutely
38:17believes she
38:18was raped
38:18top democrats
38:19and other
38:20candidates have
38:20now withdrawn
38:21their endorsements
38:22pushing platter
38:23to withdraw
38:24his candidacy
38:25you can see
38:25top democrats
38:27from in and out
38:27of the state
38:28mayor mom
38:28donnie and
38:29others
38:29bernie sanders
38:30added his voice
38:32to the group
38:32this afternoon
38:33the dscc
38:34says it won't
38:36invest the main
38:36center race
38:37if platter
38:37remains on
38:38the ballot
38:38and main
38:39voters have
38:39begun to
38:40react
38:43it's too
38:43bad because
38:44i thought
38:44he was
38:45going to
38:45do good
38:47but i'm at
38:48the point
38:48where i'm
38:49starting to
38:49change my
38:50mind
38:50and i think
38:51a lot of
38:51people are
38:52doing that
38:52now
38:53taking a
38:54second look
38:54it's time
38:55for us to
38:55pull together
38:56and either
38:57find a new
38:58candidate
38:58or support
39:00him
39:00if he's
39:01dropping out
39:01let's rally
39:02together and
39:03find somebody
39:03who can
39:04beat susan
39:05collins
39:08democrats
39:08have viewed
39:09this as a
39:09state where
39:10they could
39:10definitely
39:11take a
39:12republican
39:12seat
39:13collins
39:14has been
39:14main
39:15senator
39:15for nearly
39:15three
39:16decades
39:16she faces
39:17in that
39:18sense
39:18the uphill
39:18battle
39:19that many
39:19long-time
39:20incumbents
39:20have had
39:20at a time
39:21when there's
39:21people seeking
39:23generational
39:24change
39:24and she
39:26has proven
39:27to be
39:27a vote
39:27for a
39:28MAGA
39:28supreme
39:28court
39:29even
39:29while she
39:29always
39:30promised
39:30main
39:30independence
39:31one
39:32polling
39:32firm
39:32is
39:33already
39:33testing
39:34replacements
39:34for
39:34Plattner
39:35including
39:35the primary
39:36opponent
39:36and other
39:37main
39:37officials
39:38time is
39:39limited
39:39Plattner
39:40has to
39:40withdraw
39:40by this
39:41Monday
39:42for the
39:43critical
39:43step
39:43of
39:44democrats
39:44to be
39:44able to
39:44put a
39:45different
39:45name
39:45on the
39:46ballot
39:46if you
39:47have the
39:47old
39:47name
39:47of someone
39:48who
39:48later
39:48dropped
39:49out
39:49it
39:49shows
39:49confusion
39:50in a
39:50close
39:51race
39:51that alone
39:51could
39:52make
39:52all
39:52the
39:53difference
39:53we
39:54will
39:54stay
39:54on
39:55this
39:55story
39:55and
39:56be
39:56right
39:56back
Comments