“Between a rock and a hard place”

Saving Seekers, we hear you! Seeking energy savings, always keep your energy prices under the price cap. With Next Pledge, your energy prices are guaranteed to always stay below the price cap. Satisfy those savings cravings. Check out our full range of tailored energy solutions at eonnext.com forward slash save. Eonnext, we make energy savings work. Next Pledge is a 12 month fixed time trucker tariff with variable rates lower than Ofcham's price cap for standard variable tariffs. Direct W required. TZZ apply. Rural Britain, is there any greater value out there than giga clear full fiber from only 19 pounds a month? It's out of this world. Speed and reliability. Fast upload and downloadiness. Right here in rural tranquility. Saturn's rings. Is that a bull? Gigaclear, faster broadband for rural Britain from only 19 pounds a month. TZZ apply. 18 month contract. Prices may rise during contract. Check availability at gigaclear.com. Hi everyone. It's four o'clock in New York on a Friday. Donald Trump woke up today between a rock and a hard place. The rock came in the form of surging inflation and gas prices. And the hard place is the fool first lady Melania Trump made out of his acting attorney general Todd Blanche, who brushed away the Jeffrey Epstein story as old news earlier this week. First, the crippling economic news inflation surged its highest levels in the United States in two years because of the global energy crisis created by the war with Iran. March saw a record 25% jump in gas prices for US consumers, hovering near $4 a gallon. If you wanted to go on a European vacation this summer, now there's this to worry about. Airports there are bracing for a jet fuel shortage if oil can't pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Over in Ireland, the Irish government had to call in the army today to quell protests over fuel shortages caused by the war with Iran. It is a full scale global economic crisis that might actually be even worse than those headlines and worse than we think because the prices of oil that we track don't fully capture the full scale of this disruption. And there's no sign of relief right now either thanks to the fact that despite the two week truce, Iran is maintaining its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is using it as a geopolitical and economic advantage. On that, the New York Times writes this, quote, Iran is giving priority to a trickle of vessels from countries that either trade directly with it or not viewed as hostile to the Iranian government. It's putting Donald Trump on the defensive. Trump wrote this, quote, there are reports that Iran is charging fees to tankers going through the Hormuz Strait. They better not be. And if they are, they better stop now exclamation point. Susan Glasser writes in The New Yorker that it is a failure on multiple fronts in terms of Donald Trump's objectives, quote, Iran has not only retained control of the Strait through which one fifth of the world's oil and gas supply flows. It now asserts the right to charge millions of dollars in tolls to ships that wish to pass. A new status quo sanctioned by Trump that will enrich and entrench the theocratic government. He started out the war wanting to topple. With Trump's failures piling up, Vice President J.D. Vance is taking the reins. He's going to try to negotiate a high stakes peace deal in Pakistan tomorrow. But MSNOW reports that J.D. Vance enters Sunday's talks, quote, in a precarious position, hoping to negotiate a lasting end to a war in Iran that he never wanted. J.D. Vance has privately voiced opposition to the war for weeks to Donald Trump and top White House aides, even as the president has pursued an aggressive military campaign. That's according to two White House officials. Hanging in the balance of these high stakes talks are the men and women of the United States military. Donald Trump again threatened to escalate with the use of military force if the talks are not successful. He told the New York Post in an interview earlier today, if talks aren't going well in the next 24 hours, quote, we have a reset going. We're loading up the ships with the best ammunition, the best weapons ever made, even at a higher level than what we use to do a complete decimation. Grammatical fix was me. Donald Trump trying to reach a peace deal with Iran, while his political and economic troubles pile up at home, is where we start today. Former CIA director in our senior national security and intelligence analyst, John Brennan, is here. Also joining us, Margaret Donovan. She served as a captain in the Army, serving in the 101st Airborne Division. And later in fifth special forces group, she was captain in the Jagd Corps and is the former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut. She's now visiting lecture at Yale Law. Also joining a staff writer for the Atlantic covering national security, Nancy Yosef is here. Nancy, I'm going to start with you. Just bring me up to date or sort of add your sense of where things stand in terms of all the analysis we've seen over the last 48 hours about how the United States and the Trump administration end this phase of the war with Iran, compared to where we were before it started. So where we are now is that the Iranians are weaker militarily. They've taken hits to their drone capabilities, their ballistic missile capabilities, their leadership has taken hits, but they are not weaker strategically because they retain control of the state of Hormuz. But even though the United States destroyed much of Iran's Navy, what they discovered is they didn't need a Navy to hold on to the Strait of Hormuz. Just the threat of those remaining ballistic missiles and drones allowed them to retain control, and that has become their key leverage. And so these talks are starting where both sides are trying to achieve very different aims. The United States wants that straight open. Iran wants Iran to remove its nuclear weapons capability, vow to not keep developing its program. And the Iranians are seeking sanctions relief, some sort of new relationship in terms of how it can continue to manage the Strait. The end of fighting in Lebanon, which puts the United States at crossroads with Israel, and the promise of no future strikes. And as you noted, the president saying that that could resume in a matter of days means that we're at a point now where it's not clear how both sides reach a point where there's an enduring secession of hostilities, where both sides can feel that they have gained something, largely because Iran is entering these talks feeling that they have the upper hand. Director Brennan, is there any way strategically, I like the way Nancy sort of separated out military accomplishments on our side that led to military damage inside Iran from strategic objectives. And one of the, I think, ways that Trump has proven to be a political Houdini is that he says 37 things, and then in the end everyone's so confused. But it was never communicated to anyone, by anyone, that said anything publicly, that the single objective was to do some damage to Iran's navy. I mean, that wasn't anyone's reason. Donald Trump told people that help is on the way. That was speaking to protesters. Regime change is something that they've all talked about. The nuclear program is something that they've all talked about. Iran maintains, Iran now has complete control of the Strait of Hormuz, it maintains its nuclear enrichment program. It's got tons of sanctions relief that I'm sure will quickly fund the rebuilding of the military program. I mean, is there any analysis strategically that we haven't exited weaker than we entered? No, I think everybody's confused because Donald Trump himself is confused, and it just shows the real ill-advised decision that he made as far as this war is concerned. Neither side at this point has a winning hand. Iran, though, I think has a spoiler hand at this point because now they have played a card that they didn't play before this conflict started, which is the Strait of Hormuz. And I think it's going to be up to now both sides in a classic negotiation to determine what exactly are they minimally willing to accept from the other side and what are they minimally willing to give to the other side? So for the United States, I think there is a real interest, despite Trump's rhetoric and bluster about military capabilities, I think we want this ceasefire to continue. We also want the Strait of Hormuz to be opened. We want some type of action as far as the nuclear enrichment program is concerned. Whether or not there's going to be some type of Iranian agreement to suspend nuclear enrichment for some period of time, whether they're going to allow there to be some securing of the highly enriched uranium, the one that's already at 60%. And also, I think the United States is going to want to have some type of assurance that some of these other issues that are left sort of unaddressed or unresolved are going to be able to be negotiated and discussed later on. The Iranians certainly, I think, want this ceasefire to continue and they wanted some guarantee that it's not just going to be temporary. And that's where Lebanon comes into this equation. And unfortunately, Netanyahu has his own agenda. And so the real question is whether or not the United States and Trump is willing to tell Netanyahu what not to do. And that means ceasing this wanton bombing and this almost indiscriminate killing that's going on in Lebanon. But also, I think the Iranians are going to want some type of compensation for opening up the Strait of Homoes. Now, we shouldn't allow the Iranians to be able to have some type of toll system in international waters. That would be very bad precedent. But what there could be some type of creative way to say, OK, there's going to be some sanctions relief as well as unfreezing of some assets as a way to compensate Iran for some of the destruction that has taken place, allow them to rebuild. Not calling it a toll system, but the Iranians are going to need money, need some resources. So I can see that, again, both sides are going to have to figure out exactly whether or not, again, minimum requirements on both sides are going to be able to be met that will give enough to each side to declare that they won, even though we know that both sides, in fact, at this point, I think are losers. It's just amazing that we are one way or another going to rebuild Iran at a time when Trump is saying at fundraisers, there's no money for Medicare or childcare or any domestic spending. I want to show you something Director Brennan of the Sue Gordon said on this program on Wednesday. Those allies and partners, the ones who have already started rewiring and making contingency plans. And if you want two really good signals here for Italy's president to deny us when a minute ago, she was kind of a bestie. And for Japan's Prime Minister, who are always very diplomatic and very careful in their criticism to make the comment she has, the world has figured out that we are not who we were and they must make other plans. And while everyone will deal with us because we're rich and powerful and we have resources, it will be a transactional relationship that does not give us the strength that we have benefited from and from which the world has benefited, at least for the past 70 some years. How do you assess the damage to America standing in the world? Profound and long lasting. I just returned from Ireland last night. I was caught behind those protests in terms of fuel and I must tell you, every person I spoke to in Ireland, we're just disgusted with what's going on right now in terms of what the United States is doing and the decision to go to war. And they refer to Trump as a madman, a lunatic or whatever. And they see just how needless and senseless this was. And so again, our reputation, I think, across the board has really been, is in tatters now as a result of what Donald Trump is doing, which is just using our military capabilities in such a reckless way. And they really do blame the United States for all of the challenges that they're facing on the economic, political, strategic front. So again, they say, what has happened to America? They see America in a much different light than they had for the past, you know, since World War II, that the United States was the defender of human rights and freedoms and international peace and security. Now they see that we are in fact the instigator of a lot of this instability, as well as the impact on the global economy and how detrimental it is to people around the globe. Margaret, I guess I have a version of the same question for you about the lasting damage of the world seeing an American president willing to post on social media that he would use the military to, quote, destroy a civilization. So, Nicole, this man should not be in charge of the United States military. What he has been posting on social media are the words of somebody who is suffering from a mental illness. If anybody that you knew posted those crazy things online, you would probably do a welfare check on them to make sure they were okay. And yet this man is the commander in chief of our military. There's some irony here that the threshold that we had for starting the war was ostensibly to prevent widespread mass civilian casualties. And yet President Trump's sort of last gasp attempt to negotiate, I suppose, is threatening widespread civilian casualties on a massive scale. So this is somebody who really should not be in charge of commanding troops. I really didn't appreciate the comments that the troops will just sort of hang out until we decide what we're going to do. It kind of seems like maybe we should be using diplomacy and negotiating and maybe 13 service members didn't have to die if we're in the exact same spot that we were in before the conflict, except with less leverage, as your other two guests just explained. So it strikes me as a really unfortunate position. And I get a lot of questions. I know you and I have talked about this, about, you know, do troops follow unlawful orders when he says things like that? How far down the chain of command does that decision have to get made? I have to say that is not something we should put troops in a position to decide. That is on Congress. That is Congress's job to remove an ineffective official within the executive branch. If he is endangering our military or asking people to do unlawful things or acting in ways that indicate that he's no longer competent enough to hold the position. And that goes for Hexeth or President Trump. So, you know, this is extremely damaging to the military. And I think, of course, as the other guests just outlined to our alliances as well. What do you think it is? Is it inertia that keeps people like Marco Rubio and JD Vance? In the room, because you're right. Someone in the world of sports that's posting on social media or entertainment that's posting on social media in this manner, there would be a totally different tone and tenor to the press coverage, right? It would be about conservatorships. It would be about drug addiction. People would, if social media activity were in the same vein for a star athlete or a superstar in any sort of entertainment sphere, the conversation would be totally different. And in some ways, he maybe benefits from the complete power of the office of the presidency. But what is it in your view or in your experience that explains the silence of the men and women who see it as you and I do? I mean, Marjorie Taylor-Green is saying things about Donald Trump more vitriolic than any Democrat I've seen. Yeah, I wish I had the answer to that. I have no idea. I just know that it really should not be up to the troops to try to, you know, parse out what's a lawful order and what's an unlawful, what's a lawful one and an unlawful one. That should be on Congress, that the framers designed the Constitution to give legislators, the lawmakers, the power to fix that. And so whether it's just sort of a thought that the people around him can just keep the lid on things while he sort of spouts off these absolutely crazy things, which by the way, as my co-author and I argued in an article earlier this week, just the threats alone constitute a war crime, the acts and the threats. That's something that we agreed to in the post-World War II world-based order that you don't use civilians as pawns to threaten or to act against. So I'm not really sure what it is if everybody thinks that they can keep the lid on this thing, but I completely agree that any other person there would be serious concern for that person's mental welfare and yet we are allowing him to continue to be the commander-in-chief. Nancy, what sort of latitude does JD Vance have as a negotiator? Is he, you know, phoning home to Trump or does he actually have authorities here? I don't think that's really clear. I imagine that he is going in, given the President's signal, doing everything he can to try to strike a deal such that the U.S. military doesn't want to be engaged anymore. The fact that he's going into this as a known opponent of the strike, I think, also plays a role in how he will be seen by negotiators. And so we will see over the course of the days. I also think we shouldn't think of these negotiations as just over the span of one day. This could be weeks and weeks of negotiations. These are complex deals that need to be reached out, very, very specific issues. And even then, it's not clear to me how enduring that kind of agreement will be. Will it hold up for the next month, the next year? I wanted to add really quickly about the tweet because I think it's worth noting that that tweet, in addition to all the comments that were raised earlier, really played into the Iranian regime's hands. The Iranian regime could say to the people, do you see this? This war is not about liberating you. This is about an attack on us. And it gave them leverage to say that we are here to defend us. The United States, this is not a call for you to go to the streets. This is not to liberate you. This is to attack all of us. And I think that's an important point to note as we talk about the impact of that social media post. Right. Trump made clear that his target was not just the regime, not just the current population, but his aim was to, quote, destroy their civilization and take it back to the Dark Ages. Incredible, incredible wake. And as you said, thank you for joining us to try to make some sense of it. Director Brennan and Margaret Stick around. Still ahead for us. Why Melania Trump's surprise reigniting of the blame that is the Jeffrey Epstein scandal happened. There's still more questions and answers, but we'll go through all of them. We'll talk about why that surprise event yesterday is being met with anger on the part of some of the survivors. Also ahead for us. We'll look ahead to the shattered coalition that once was the mighty MAGA movement. Later in the broadcast, Trump looks like he's got nowhere else to go openly fighting with those most loyal supporters. The ceasefire teetering and the economy cratering. What does an autocrat do when that's the case? Some of those plans for tightening his grip on power are already in place. Expect them to kick into high gear. We'll explain what that looks like. We'll get to all that and more. And Deadly White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Eonnext, we make energy savings work. Next pledge is a 12 month fixed time track of tariff with variable rates lower than Ofcham's price cap for standard variable tariffs. Direct debit required. Tees and seas apply. Simone Sanders Townsend and I have known each other for more than a decade, tussling over politics and policy when she worked in the White House and I reported on it. And now we're friends and colleagues and on our podcast, Clock It, we are positioning ourselves at the intersection of culture and politics. Clock It is where we talk about what we see and hear in the news so you can start to clock it too. Clock It with Simone Eugene. All episodes available now. I want to bring into our conversation and coverage former assistant and special agent in charge at the FBI and National Security and Intelligence Analysts for all of us. Michael Feinberg, Director Brennan and Margaret are still with me. Director Brennan, I want to follow up with you on something Margaret said in that last block about what the world saw in terms of what Trump's own MAGA coalition members have described as, quote, Trump going insane. That was Marjorie Taylor Greene. Other members said worse. Megan Kelly, Tiger Carlson, Alex Jones. Again, people who have been not just supporters and backers and cheerleaders, but sycophantic adherents to MAGA and everything it has ushered into our politics or describing him as unwell. What does that do in the eyes of our allies and adversaries? Well, I think it raises their concerns and their deep worries that if in fact, as somebody who is not well mentally is unstable and basically is the equivalent of a madman or lunatic. And as Margaret said, someone who is the commander in chief of the US military and all of those capabilities is very, very worrisome. And it's clear that Donald Trump is getting increasingly unhinged. But the things that he's doing now is leading to these divisions within his base and to paraphrase William Shakespeare and Hamlet as something is increasingly rotten in the Trump administration and in the MAGA base. You know, we know that it's been always deeply corrupt, but it is ironic that this war that was initiated by Trump was hoping that there was going to be fissures within the Iranian regime as a result of this. Ironically, it is the exact opposite. Is fissures right now and increasing fratricide within this MAGA sphere and within the Trump administration. And I think his continued use and increasing use of profanities, I think is just a reflection of his deep angst and worry himself. He doesn't know how to get out of this mess. And whether you're talking about the Epstein mess, whether you're talking about Melania, goes out and gives this press conference reportedly without him knowing in advance. And the Iran war and all of its ramifications and implications. This is a real mess of his creation. And that's why I think we're seeing these these reckless tweets, you know, going after people and the use of these profanities again, talking to people that I just came back from a trip. They really are very concerned that here is the commander in chief of the and the chief executive of the United States that is a raving madman. And what does this mean as far as global peace and security? It is deeply, deeply troubling. Yeah, Michael Feinberg, a lot of these conversations, including the ones I have here are around the political implications of that. But it's abundantly clear that the old expression, you know, when America sneezes, the world catches a cold means that the world is watching Trump's own prominent TV regular allies question his stability, his sanity, his competence and his motives for starting a war with with Iran. I wonder and the minimum the military are seeing it as well. I wonder how you assess our vulnerability in this moment. I think it's higher than at any other moment, certainly that I was in government, just to sort of carry on with director Brenner Brennan's Hamlet theme. You know, Trump is very much of the mind that his thoughts be bloody or nothing worth. His rhetoric has become unhinged to a degree that we never saw during his first administration or even during the first few months of this administration. And what that's resulting in is not just only the antagonistic attitude towards people who want to attack us, heightening sensitivities and heightening threats at the very time we should be trying to deescalate them. But it's also giving our allies pause. As my other guests, as the other guests know, the United States intelligence community is incredibly reliant upon reporting from its allies, particularly the five eyes nations. And when they see the leader of the United States act like somebody who has come completely mentally unhinged, it creates an immense amount of reluctance on their part to share the most sensitive intelligence because they have no idea what's going to be done with it. If I'm great Britain or Australia, and I have information on something going on in Iran or I have information that could help the United States target something that might be a legitimate military target, I might still pause if the president is actually threatening something that might be nuclear war. Margaret, there are three stories this week. I've been covering Donald Trump for 10 years. I'll study my brain when I'm dead. But there are three things, three stories since Sunday that I've had to check. You know, we've all been sort of trained to look out for deep fakes. I had to check. One was the open the fucking Straits of Hormiz tweet on Easter Sunday from Donald Trump, who plays a character that cares about the faith community and faith leaders posted that on Easter Sunday. I had to check when I first saw Melania Trump denying things that I'd never heard alleged about her when it came to the Epstein crimes and the Epstein investigation. And I checked the story that came out today about an arch that Trump was about. I mean, it feels like he's jumped ahead over satire and is doing things that are so weird. And I just wonder if you think this moment is one that America can recover from? Well, it's we're like in a post reality world, right? Like you have to constantly check and make sure that what you're seeing is real. And you have to couple that with sort of Trump's, the president's apologists who say, well, this is just rhetoric. This is just a negotiating track tactic. Who also can't reconcile that position with this FAFO culture or that he means what he says and you'll find out. And so I do want to build off of something Mike said that I think sort of answers your question or doesn't answer your question. Unfortunately, do a little bit. Other countries don't know what we're doing. They can't trust the commander in chief. You're not alone in, you know, checking to see what's real and what's not and whether or not this is a deep fake. But that becomes really dangerous in an international dynamic where other countries are worried about something like collective self defense. For example, we invaded Iran based on ostensibly intelligence that they had weapons that could cause mass civilian casualties. They didn't outright threaten the United States. We have weapons that can cause mass civilian casualties and we have outright threatened another civilization. And so maybe people in America have normalized this and have known like, well, let's just give it a few hours to see if somebody's going to explain that that was just him saying something crazy after dark when he got on a social media. I don't think that we should be able to count on and I don't think we should ask the rest of the world to take that approach and you may find yourself in a scenario. We may find ourselves in a scenario where other countries act preemptive self defense against us. That is actually one of the reasons why threatening civilians is considered prohibited under international law. It's not just the acts. It's the threat because the threat itself can cause other people to act in reaction to that. And again, if you compare the threshold that we had for attacking Iran versus what the president has done, you just hope that there's a lot of diplomacy going on behind the scenes to assure Russia, to assure China, to assure any other country that may be thinking, maybe I should intervene because the US is about to do something really crazy. But we have a completely gutted State Department and we have Marco Rubio doing like 15 different jobs. So it's kind of hard to assume that that sort of back room diplomacy is going on to, I guess, sort of explain away the craziness that is playing out on a world stage. So I don't know that I have a great answer for you other than, yeah, we're in a post-reality world and I don't think we should expect the rest of the world to live in it with us. But good news, the Constitution provides a way to fix that. We can remove somebody who is no longer competent from being in that job. It's an amazing moment. It's so great to have all three of you to talk to about it. Director John Brennan and Margaret Donovan, thank you for starting us off. Michael sticks around. We'll be coming back. Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse or accused Melania Trump of shifting the burden onto the victims saying they have done their part. And it's time now to hear from others. We'll get to that reporting next. Satisfy those savings cravings. Check out our full range of tailored energy solutions at eonnext.com forward slash save. Eonnext, we make energy savings work. Next pledge is a 12-month fixed-term trucker tariff with variable rates lower than off-chance price cap for standard variable tariffs. Direct debit required. Teas and seas apply. Simone Sanders Townsend and I have known each other for more than a decade, tussling over politics and policy when she worked in the White House and I reported on it. And now we're friends and colleagues and on our podcast, Clock It, we are positioning ourselves at the intersection of culture and politics. Clock It is where we talk about what we see and hear in the news so you can start to Clock It too. Clock It with Simone Eugene. All episodes available now. I think we were expecting to hear from a lot of different voices. Melania was not on the radar, I would say. I mean, it's a masterclass in the art of deflection, right? And so yet again, we should be talking about Pam Bondi. We should be talking about what is Todd Blanche going to do. And I think we really, it are just completely caught off guard and trying to figure out, you know, what our next move is. But that the the burden needs to be on the DOJ. The burden needs to be on the FBI. We have an FBI. We have a DOJ. They need to do their jobs. That was Epstein survivor, Danny Bensky, on Melania Trump's surprise address to the nation yesterday, where Melania Trump denied what she called lies about her having close ties with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. It's not clear to anyone what lies or what reports Melania was referring to. In a press conference, it still seems to have come out of nowhere in terms of what's publicly known, and that her husband claims was some elements of it were a surprise for him too. But regardless of the reason behind it, Danny Bensky and other survivors are warning today against anything that shifts the burden onto them. More than a dozen survivors put out a statement shortly after Melania Trump spoke. Quote, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have already shown extraordinary courage by coming forward, filing reports and giving testimony, asking more of them now as a deflection of responsibility, not justice. Survivors have done their part. Now it's time for those in power to do theirs. Joining me at the table, host of Politics Nation and president of the National Action Network, the Reverend L. Sharpton. Michael is still here. Michael, the thing that is interesting about the lie, I mean, everything is interesting about what Melania Trump did. She responded with such granular specificity to allegations that I cover this story every time there's a development, and I had never heard any of the allegations about her or against her that she seemed to be responding to. But the survivors are actually, they were on Capitol Hill and Pam Bondi didn't even turn around and look at them. Their statements are in the Epstein files and Donald Trump has made sure that they don't all get released in any manner that is speedy or fully transparent or respectful of their personal information or addresses. I mean, the survivors isn't the opaque part of this and Melania Trump must read enough news to know that. It's the men who carried out the crimes and knew about it. Yeah, and this is going to be odd for me to say as a former FBI official, but it's not just the men and in this case, at least one woman who carried out the crimes that bear responsibility. They obviously bear responsibility alone for what happened to the survivors years ago. But in terms of just the messy aftermath, and I realize how inadequate to the occasion the adjective messy is, but in terms of just this sort of weird quagmire we find ourselves in now, it's entirely Trump world's fault. They're the ones who spent, you know, months if not years beating the drums that the full story was not out there. Then they got the reins of power, have every document that could tell that story in their possession. Pam Bondi seemingly misspoke or dissembled when she said she had a list of clients that she then claimed she didn't have. They dilly-dallyed on turning over all the documentation. When they turned over certain documents, it turned out they did not redact the necessary names of the survivors. There were other documents that may have implicated those close to the administration or in the administration that they did not turn over at first. This would be a Keystone cops type episode. Were it not causing wounds to real people in real life? Yeah, I mean, Rev, what? She also made some comments about her own email, which has been released as part of the release of the Epstein files to Glyn Maxwell. She sought to sort of rebrand it or recharacterize it and said this is what life in New York was like in those days. I guess she was making the point that she and Donald went to parties with Epstein and... I mean, I don't know what that point was. What circles did they run around in? It's not very clear what that was and nor what motivated her coming out. But if she was going to take a stand, which could be good, then she should have taken a stand also saying that the accused and people that were in the files should be the ones to come forward and testify to Congress, not the victims. And she should question why Pam Bondi's fighting to come forward. I think she would have made a great moral statement if she had said that I think Pam Bondi and anybody in the administration, anyone that works for my husband and me, being a she's first lady, should come and put their hand on the Bible at Congress and testify. I don't understand how you make a strong moral statement by saying the victims ought to come and answer questions when the victims have answered questions after questions, 20 years after questions. And as you said, they came to the Congress and the Attorney General Bondi not only wouldn't meet with them, turned her back while they stood when they was asked to stand by members of Congress. But it really was a missed opportunity if she was trying to give a moral statement or there must be other motives that we're yet to know. But the politics of this, Todd Blanche this week with Jesse Waters over on Fox News said this is old history, this is ancient history we're moving on. Well, obviously the memo didn't get to the, well, I don't know if she's on the East Wing since there's a ballroom. But she is that memo to get to her because she revived the story and it raised more questions and answers at the end of her statement. It's crazy. Michael Feinberg, thank you so much for being part of our coverage today. When we come back, we're going to ask you about what you've been doing all week long. You've had the big conference. Everybody who is anybody and wants to be anybody more than they are right now has been there. You have been their host. You got an early look and who could help lead the country out of this moment. We'll talk about that next. I think that, look, the American people have a right to expect that anyone who wants to run for office and be a leader, that it can't be about themselves. And what they want for themselves, it's got to be about the American people. And that's how I think of it. And I am thinking about it in the context of then, you know, is who and where and how can the best job be done for the American people. That's how I'm thinking about it. I'll keep you posted. I'll keep you posted. This is from Vice President Kamala Harris answering the Rev's question, $64 million question. Is she running? She's speaking today. The National Action Network's 35th annual convention. We're back with Rev. What did you sort of pick up from her? I think that she was clear. I think in her heart of hearts, she's wrestling with it. Yeah, she made that clear, right? Yeah, and she certainly didn't dismiss it, but she didn't affirm she would do it. The crowd, we had over 2,000 people in the program. It's a great crowd. And they were cheering on. And I think that she's weighing it. I think prudent enough not to make a judgment based on just a crowd or two. But she did. People need to remember she got more votes than any presidential candidate in history other than Donald Trump. She got more votes than Biden or Obama did. And so it's hard to not think about it if you're her. And with people urging her on, so I think she's going to be very deliberate in her decision. Everybody has been there this week. Just take me through the highlights and lowlights. Well, we started Governor Shapiro, who was very well received. We had Westmore from Maryland. And Westmore was very well received. He's very good. We're going to have some. We also had Ruben Gargale, who really surprised me and Housey. He's a big campaigner. He's on the trail. He was excellent. And tomorrow we'll have Senator Cory Booker. We'll have and I think I'm interested in this. Senator Kelly, my Kelly's coming. And I think that it's going to be very interesting to see. We've had them all. It's hard to even remember. And we finished tomorrow. And I think that the fact that they don't fear standing up, not only to Trump, but on issues that Trump has tried to demonize, voting, the whole issue of DEI, every one of them have answered it. And I think that that indicates that if one of them ends up being the nominee, they will not shy away from taking it on. I don't see any of them trying to appease Trumpsters by saying, I'm giving up some of the base. And by coming to our conference, ending up itself as a statement that I'm going to be inclusive. Whether they agree with National Action Network or me on everything or not, I'm going to have a big 10. And I think that's important. That's important. And smartest voters in the coalition. Who did your members like the most? I would think did extremely well. I think Westmore of course did well. But they didn't dislike anyone. I've had people, we've been doing this for years now, every cycle since 2000. And I've had some that you could hear people and maybe even boo. Nobody got booed and nobody got the old kind of thing. So I think so far we'll see what happens tomorrow. All right. It's great. It's a really important event. And I love the sneak peek. Saving Seekers, we hear you. Next time, track a tariff with variable rates lower than often's price cap for standard variable tariffs. Direct debit required. Teas and seas apply.