“Trump’s impending deadline for Iran”

Listen to your favorite MS Now shows anytime as a podcast. Enjoy new episodes of Morning Joe, Deadline White House, and the Rachel Maddow show. Every small D Democratic muscle that we have is flexing. Plus the last word with Laurence O'Donnell, the beat with Ari Melbour, The Weeknight, and more. On the go, wherever you get your podcasts. For ad-free listening to all of your favorite shows, subscribe to MS Now Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hi there everyone, it's 4 o'clock in New York with the fate of tens of millions of humans right now on a knife's edge. Because if nothing changes in the next four hours, and Donald Trump falls through on the things he said out loud, his public threat. We may all soon be witness to a military assault so generationally and intentionally brutal that war crimes aren't just possible, but they become US policy. But again, that is only if you take Donald Trump at his word. That's risky. In the lead up to his 8 p.m. Eastern deadline for Iran. In a morning message, wholly unlike anything ever uttered by any American president under any circumstance ever, Donald Trump posted this, quote, A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have complete and total regime change, where different smarter and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen. All caps, who knows? That message, which is in and of itself crazy and contradicts itself over the course of fragments and sentences, did have the impact of sending a tremor across the globe, the aftershocks of which were still registering as we come on the air. First, as it relates to the possibility of a peaceful resolution, the Wall Street Journal cites Middle Eastern officials in reporting this, that Iran cut off direct communications with the United States of America over that post, though talks with ceasefire mediators continue. A state-run Iranian newspaper is denying such reports, although two diplomats from the region tell MS now that the chances of the U.S. and Iran reaching a deal before tonight's deadline today are low, and that the two sides remain far apart in the talks. As embassies across the Middle East urge American citizens there to take care, hundreds of Iranians are assembling at sites of major infrastructure, they're forming human shields at the behest of some Iranian officials in front of power plants that could be the targets of U.S. strikes. A separate Iranian news agency reported earlier that air defenses have been activated over Tehran, with fighter planes flying low over the city. Meanwhile, U.S. Central Command published this video earlier. It's a video of Navy jets taking off from the USS Abraham Lincoln in the region. Again, Donald Trump has created a worldwide tinderbox, and the most optimistic interpretation of all of it is the taco thing, that Trump is simply indulging in a style of negotiation for which he's advocated before. It's also called the madman theory, a geopolitical strategy that elevates unpredictability above other infinitely more reasonable orientations. But whether or not Trump follows through or punts the deadline or finds an off-ramp or strikes a deal, we should be clear-eyed about what is an historic nexus today, a bright red lines that have already been crossed. For the Iranian people to threaten that, quote, a whole civilization could, quote, die tonight. For Donald Trump, who put that in writing and posted it, for the people around him who let him, the president constantly campaigning for peace prizes, crucially for some of Donald Trump's characteristically unwavering supporters, people who hung in there with him after January 6th, after COVID. This afternoon, some of those very same people, some of the loudest ones, are spending the final hours before Donald Trump's promised assault, pleading with Donald Trump. The only way they know how, over the airwaves, here's Trump loyalist Senator Ron Johnson. I am hoping and praying that President Trump, this really is bluster. I do not want to see us start blowing up civilian infrastructure. I do not want to see that. We are not that war with the Iranian people. We are trying to liberate them. So they're the Ron Johnson's, but they're also the Tucker Carlson's conservatives, going so far as to publicly urge top officials at the Pentagon to consider refusing Donald Trump's orders. Should he advocate for the use of weapons of mass destruction? Watch. Unless somebody puts the brakes on right away, we're going to wind up in a place that we can't even imagine. Not just Iran, us and the rest of the world. And so that means, because this is obvious to anyone who's paying any attention, that if you work in the White House, we're in the U.S. military, now it's time to say no, absolutely not. And say it directly to the president, no. In case you're thinking about using some weapon and mass destruction, it's the population of Iran, in whose name we liberated Iran, we killed their religious leader for their benefit. Do you remember that? This was last month. Those people who are in direct contact with the president need to say, no, I'll resign. I'll do whatever I can do legally to stop this because this is insane. And if given the order, I'm not carrying it out. Figure out the codes on the football yourself, because everything hangs in the balance right now. This is not hysteria. This is 100% real. This is not hysteria. This is 100% real. Quote from Tucker Carlson. Now, even if the situation doesn't rise to that level, and Americans of all political persuasions and people around the world certainly are hoping that it does not, as we said, a lot of damage has already been done. In the words of historian Timothy Snyder today, quote, Whatever happens tonight, the president by saying such things has already changed the world for worse, has already made acts of mass violence more likely. If we are Americans, he has already changed our country. He has changed us because he represents us. We voted for him, or we didn't vote for him and allowed him to come to power, or we didn't do enough to stop him. These words are America's words, until and unless Americans reject them, end quote. Joining our coverage, retired Army Major General Randy Manor. He served as deputy commanding general in Kuwait and acting vice chair of the National Guard Bureau. Also joining us, writer and editor at Protect Democracy Amanda Carpenter is here. Also joining us, staff writer at the Atlantic video podcast host David Fromm is here. General Manor, I start with you. Your thoughts? Just like you were explaining in your opening monologue, this is very disturbing. The leader of the free world is essentially speaking words that are identical to those of war criminals. It's extremely disturbing, and I will tell you that I think the chances of anything happening at 8 p.m. tonight are close to zero. Why do I say that? Because I think that the right people will stand up to him to say no. These words of your threats against eliminating a civilization are not going to happen. I believe that. I think there will be some way that he will figure out by one way or another not to go down that way. I think even the closest people around him, except for the zealots, are starting to see that we have a president who is quite frankly, perhaps not thinking clearly or straight in acting on behalf of the United States and our people. So I'm very, very concerned about this relative to our military, relative to the world. What does the military do? I mean, Tucker Carlson has a lot of people listening who are active duty members of the military. I mean, they don't live in a silo, or the only person they hear from is Donald Trump. They live in the world, and they listen to podcasts, and they've heard Joe Rogan rail against the Iran War for weeks now. They've heard Tucker Carlson advocate for, if you work in the White House, or the Pentagon, resign or refuse. What do those statements from deep inside Trump's highest profile members of his coalition, what do they mean to active duty members of the military? I think it's more clear than ever before this concept of following, that you're not supposed to follow illegal orders. I have already indications that many targets that were recommended by the Secretary of Defense were rejected by Sencombe that they were civilian targets. It is something where, again, I don't have first-hand knowledge, it's second-hand knowledge, but I believe that people are already saying no to the hierarchy. The Sencombe commander is walking a very thin line where he is trying to do the best he can to implement military objectives as he understands them without getting fired is the best way to put it. In the same way that the Secretary of Defense has already fired several other army, senior army officers during times of war, which is unprecedented, by the way, for no apparent reason. So I don't think the world needs to be concerned, and I'm not trying to dismiss this renegade discussion and this bizarre behavior of our president, but I don't think that anything substantial is going to happen tonight at 8 p.m. I believe that will, the answer will be no. I want to just make sure I clearly understand. You are hearing second hand that Pete Hegceth has ordered strikes that Sencombe commanders have refused? The difference between requesting and ordering, in other words, the idea that infrastructure is being targeted, I think that one about the bridge, this is my personal opinion, that that fell in the gray area, that it is not being used presently by civilians, because it doesn't exist yet, it was under construction, and so therefore perhaps that was one that was permitted. The idea of attacking bridges that are clearly, overwhelmingly for civilian use would be a war crime, and that the planners in Sencombe would not permit that. That is what I'm hearing again second hand. So I believe that there are very subtle pushbacks that are already have been occurring to go after military targets. So it's almost like, instead of this one, this is the target that you should be looking at. And so it's almost like these are not the droids you're looking for using a Jedi mind trick. I hate to be quite so comical about it, but I think that's what's going on is that there is this very quiet resistance to be able to say, let's get this in military lanes, not attacking the civilian infrastructure. I don't know what would happen if indeed the president was to order attacking civilian targets. Let me follow up on one other thing that you said, General, and then I want to bring Amanda and David into this. You don't believe anything will happen at 8pm because as a student of Trump's pattern taco, Trump always chickens out, or because the order to, quote, destroy their civilization, is it something that's translated or why don't you believe anything will happen? Is it because of Trump's pattern of a blocking and blinking? Or is it because what he's tweeted about doesn't translate into operational military orders? It's the latter. It's the fact that when he's saying he's going to eliminate a civilization, there is no capability to do that. Even if you use nuclear weapons, which I cannot imagine anybody agreeing with that situation, you could not bring an entire civilization to its knees. And that I just don't think it's going to happen. I am someone who's of the belief from a military point of view, while there could be additional airstrikes of some type on military targets, I do not believe that the president's rhetoric of bring to destroy a civilization. I don't believe that's going to happen. Amanda, let me bring you in and let me add one more voice of dissent. Again, I am not platforming Alex Jones for any reason other than he's a high profile surrogate really for Trumpism and Trump's message. And here he is responding to Trump's post today. But currently Trump with this Iran war and the energy crisis and the PR disaster. I mean, the North Korean dictator doesn't talk like this. He talks like a super villain from a Marvel comic. You know, I've backed Trump is sort of going sideways last eight months overall because it was so much good still being done. But this existential threat to literally the world existing on the extreme end on the lesser bad end is economic collapse. Where it's credited worldwide is just too dangerous. It's too existential. And let me just add this. Marjorie Taylor Greene posted quote 25th Amendment, not a single bomb has dropped on America. We cannot kill an entire civilization. This is evil and madness. Your thoughts today. I mean, it pains me as an American to say this, but we are clearly in madman territory. And that's why you see everyone speaking out for Marjorie Taylor Greene to Alex Jones because it is undeniable at this point. And when you think about it, our best case scenario right now is that our president is a belligerent liar who threatens genocide and war crimes to get his way. I mean, that is the most optimistic reading of the situation. And that's why, you know, on the other hand, I am heartened that people are speaking out to be clear. You know, I do want to put Alex Jones in an entirely different category because he isn't reliable on things. But I do think it helps tremendously that people like Major General Manor on this program are speaking out members of the military who have the credibility who have been in these situations where they have to evaluate what they are truly being asked to do and what their obligation is as Americans upholding the Constitution. I mean, this is extraordinarily difficult for people who are in the military right now to try to, you know, maneuver in some way to stop terrible damage from being done. And so, you know, I think it's just really important to remember that even though we have an out of control autocrat in the White House, we all have agency. We all can do something. And I do think it helps tremendously again that former members of the military are speaking about this because it was not that long ago that Trump was threatening Democratic senators with military experience for talking about why troops may need to resist illegal orders. We are in that scenario today and a lot of people thought they're hysterical, believe they were issuing those warnings at the time. Well, it's a good thing that they did. Perhaps some people needed to hear it. David Fram, let me just add one more piece of reporting. Joe Kent is the deputy to Tulsi Gabbard who quit at the beginning of this war. He posted this reaction to Trump's post today, quote, Trump believes he is threatening Iran with destruction, but it is America that now stands in danger if he attempts to eradicate Iranian civilization. The United States will no longer be viewed as a stabilizing force in the world, but as an agent of chaos, effectively ending our status as the world's greatest superpower. This would upend our economy and shatter the global order. The process is already underway. Yet we still have time to avert catastrophe if Trump finds the courage to pursue serious negotiations rather than reckless rage and destruction. Your thoughts on where we find ourselves at 4.16 p.m. in the east. Here's how it looks to me. Trump is like a man who's got his coat stuck in a car door and is banging on the car to let the coat go. I published today an article in The Atlantic with the timeline of Trump's appeals to the Iranians to let him go because he missed one obvious thing, I think that occurred to every one who's had to look at the strategic problem of Iran since the Carter administration, if not before, which is Iran controls the choke point of the Persian Gulf. If you are going to fight Iran, you have to have a plan for what to do about that choke point. Donald Trump, I mean, I'm sure there are plans in drawers, but Donald Trump didn't have a plan. And he didn't have a plan because he had not got any political permission for this war. He didn't go to Congress and say this is important. He didn't go to the American people and say the price of gas may go up, but it's worth it. He just went ahead and did it without talking to anybody. So as gas prices have risen past $4 a gallon in the United States, diesel prices have risen as fuel prices go up, as food prices go up, as all other prices go up, as the world economy seems to be heading toward recession, he thought, oh, I should have thought about that choke point problem. And he's now appealing to the Iranians to let him go. So he demanded on March 9th on conditional surrender. He began begging for negotiations on March 21. And his pattern, as I detail in the Atlantic today, is he joins increasingly desperate-looking begging with increasingly fearsome-sounding threats. And the threats are in part a coping mechanism for him to conceal the fact that he's actually begging to be let out of a dilemma of his own making. Because while the Iranians are obviously taking tremendously Iranian regime, taking tremendous tactical damage, the world economy is suffering. And while the Iranian regime is able to repress dissent, Trump can't repress stock markets, can't repress oil markets. The price of Brent crude hit $144 today, meaning still higher fuel prices on the way. So he's actually, for all of his fearsomeness, you need to see this as a pathetic act. He is begging the Iranians, please let me go. And if you don't, I'll do terrible things. But the threats keep escalating, but the deadlines keep being postponed. The original deadline was March 23, then March 28, then April 6, then April 7, and now April 8. And I think it's probably a good guess that Trump will find a way to postpone this again, because bombing Iran in the most horrific, criminal way, it won't solve the problem, which is they have drones on the North Shore of the Persian Gulf. They can stop tankers from coming, and the price of oil is rising and rising and rising. And the world economy, including the American economy, is heading toward recession. I want to see if you agree with your other two panelists that at 8 p.m., nothing will transpire militarily in Iran. But I guess my question for all of you is, what happens at 8.01? I didn't predict that nothing will happen. I'll say that it doesn't get his coat out of the car door. What he needs is a resolution. What do you think he does at 8 p.m.? Well, I have to quote someone who has asked a similar question. I am not an expert in abnormal psychology. So I don't predict what he does. Whatever criminal act he does, it won't solve the problem, which is he either needs by force to clear the Strait of Hormuz, and he has no plan for that and no allies for that, or he needs a negotiation with the Iranians, and he is demonstrating, because despite what he says, he's a terrible negotiator. He lets them see his fear. He lets them see his need. And he thinks that by making these terrible threats, he can conceal the fact that actually he needs the deal instantly, and the Iranian regime does not need a deal instantly. And the Iranians, Amanda, there's no way the Iranians are, I mean, they're capable of understanding that probably four posts ago. I mean, we're wondering what's going to happen at 8 p.m. And to me, this is just one of the most disgusting ways Donald Trump has sought to keep us in suspense and try to take control of the situation by creating so much chaos around everyone that we can't really see what's happening. Now, do I think at 8.01 we're going to go to nuclear war? No, but also I can't let my brain actually imagine that possibility because it would be so horrifying. So I want to say right here, where we have the President of the United States threatening genocide and war crimes to attain objectives in a country that aren't even clear, right? Like in a functioning democratic society, citizens should expect to be able to understand the rules and policies that they live under. Can anyone understand if you actually follow the President's statements, why we are on the brink of some kind of escalation of war in Iran? You can't. Like I've looked at all Trump's statements. He says, you know, we don't care about the Strait of Hormoz. Oh, we have to buy it. We say that we're winning the war. Oh, wait, some planes went down and now, you know, we're escalating a war that we never had. You cannot make sense of the situation. And that is the very problem that we are in. This is why it's madman territory and it has to be stopped. I mean, we do have checks in the system. They need to be used. We have Congress. We have members of the military. And I just, how much more do people need to see in order to understand how bad this can get? We are already suffering the consequences of an out of control autocrat in the White House who is destroying our democracy and taking the economy down with it. Has anyone else looked at gas prices? Yeah. I mean, in his treatment of the military remains opaque to a lot of people out of the military, which I would echo Amanda's gratitude for you, General Randy Manor. Thank you for starting us off and pulling the curtain back on what it means for the military. We're grateful to you. David and Amanda, stick around. When we come back, how Donald Trump got us right here. New reporting today on how he chose to ignore his own military advisors and VP instead choosing to listen to what Bibi Netanyahu told him in a briefing. Former White House National Security official retired Navy Emerald John Kirby will join us for that conversation. Plus, does Congress have the will to do what they have the power and the authority to do to stop Donald Trump? We'll talk to a leading House Democrat on the looming national security threat and questions of corruption within the Trump administration, which have gone unanswered. And later in the broadcast, how Trump's threat to wipe out an entire civilization, essentially a war crime, endangers the American military and serves as a major test for the rank and file. Who, as we've been discussing, were warned about the dangers of following illegal orders. We'll get to all of that and much more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. As Donald Trump turns to social media to make unprecedented and audacious threats against Iran's, quote, whole civilization, we are learning more about how we got here, how we came to the decision to go to the war amid warnings from members of his own cabinet in the room. New York Times Maggie Haverman and Jonathan Swan report this. In the situation room on February 11th, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a hard sell, suggesting that Iran was ripe for regime change and expressing the belief that a joint U.S. Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic. The Times also reports that at one point Trump turned to General Kaine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and said, quote, General, what do you think? General Kaine replied, quote, sir, this is in my experience standard operating procedure for the Israelis. They oversell and their plans are not always well developed. They know they need us and that's why they're hard selling end quote. They want to bring in someone who's been in these rooms for these types of high level discussions. John Kirby's here. He was the press secretary for the Pentagon. He served as a spokesperson for both the State Department and the National Security Council. Before that he was rear admiral in the Navy. Now we are so lucky and happy to say he is an MSNOW National Security Analyst. Welcome to the family. We're so happy to get to talk to you on these occasions. Thank you, Nicole. Good to be with you. I wonder what your thoughts are in reading through this careful reporting from Maggie Haverman and Jonathan Swan to journalists that I'm sure you sparred with over the course of your career. They get to a specific point where Donald Trump has remade national security agencies, including intelligence agencies, in his image. And it's John Ratcliffe as the head of intelligence who assesses the Israeli objectives, at least half of them as quote, farcical. And we proceed it anyway. How does that happen? Well, I think part of the reason it happens is you don't have the normal National Security Council procedures for helping the president and senior officials make policy decisions. I mean, normally in a normal NSC process you've got the deputies from all the security agencies getting together and working through options and that gets presented to the principals of all those agencies. And then you bring the president in and provide the options. And usually there's a more robust debate, which is more inclusive of more people in the cabinet. I was noted in that New York Times piece that, you know, the Commerce Secretary and the Treasury Secretary weren't present for some of these very critical discussions about the effect that this war would have on the global economy. So I get the sense that they aren't running a normal process. And I know that they have decimated the ranks of the NSC. The staff is much smaller than it was. Not that it didn't need to be maybe trimmed a little bit, but it's been pretty well decimated. And they're just not having these kinds of interagency discussions that they should have had to help lead to a better decision. Now, look, part of that is based on the Commander-in-Chief. He gets to decide who's going to give him advice and how he wants that advice presented. And it's not clear to me that this particular Commander-in-Chief really values that inclusive, that more deliberative process that previous presidents have implemented. Let me read a little bit of this reporting that I think brings to life what you're describing. Intelligence officials who had deep expertise in U.S. military capabilities, they knew the Iranian system and its players inside and out. They broke down Netanyahu's presentation into four parts. First was decapitation, killing the Ayatollah. Second was crippling Iran's capacity to project power and threaten its neighbors. Third was a popular uprising inside Iran. Fourth was regime change with a secular leader installed to govern the country. U.S. officials assessed the first two objectives were achievable with American intel and military power. They assessed that the third and fourth parts of Netanyahu's pitch, which included the possibility of the Kurds mounting a ground invasion of Iran, were detached from reality. When Trump joined the meeting, Ratcliffe briefed him on the assessment. CIA director used one word to describe the Israeli Prime Minister's regime change scenarios, quote, farcical. At that point, Rubio cut in, quote, in other words, it's bullshit, end quote, he said. Trump today posted, used the words regime change in his post, and he's been speaking to the Iranian people about staying inside. I mean, he doesn't seem to have accepted the analysis again of his own intelligence agencies on the second two points where they call it, quote, farcical. Rubio translates for him and calls it bullshit. What is your sense of Laura Ingraham's indictment of Donald Trump, where Laura Ingraham said on the air, quote, it's not clear he can take information in? Well, this is the same commander-in-chief who has said on more than one occasion that he knows more than the generals and admirals, and that he trusts his instincts. And I think that's exactly what that piece shows, is that the decision-making process isn't done in a normal way. Now, I was glad when I read the piece, assuming the reporting's true, and I'm certainly in no position to challenge that, that both the Secretary of State and the CIA director provided that sort of blunt assessment of the Israeli plans and intentions. That's good, that they felt empowered and able to be that honest with President Trump. I think that's healthy. But again, you're talking about a decision-making process, which is determined by the leader that is not necessarily inclusive and deliberative, and then you end up getting to a point where, you know, the objectives are muddled, and they're not very clearly articulated to the American people. One day it is regime change, the next day it's not. One day it's two to three weeks, and the next day it's, we've won, it's over. I mean, we're all over the map here on the messaging, and that's another big reason why not only have we not necessarily achieved the objectives that we wanted to achieve at this point, but that the American people are generally not in support of this war. Randy Manner, General Randy Manner, said in the last block that Pete Hegseth is recommending targets, and different targets are being recommended that may have less consequences for civilians. Are you hearing anything about Hegseth's conduct and how the men and women of the military are dealing with it? I haven't heard that particular anecdote, so I can't validate that, but in conversations I've had with folks, it's clear to me that the U.S. military, the uniformed leadership, they know the line between legal and illegal orders, and they know where the line is between war crimes and justifiable military targets. And my sense is, and I've known Admiral Cooper a long, long time, and I'm sure that General Cain is in the same mold, that if they're going to recommend a target set to the president and to the secretary of defense, it's going to be a target set that holds water in terms of legality and scrutiny. Now, that doesn't mean that, Nicole, that some civilian targets won't be deliberately hit. It means that if they are hit, they will be able to prove that they were also dual use. In other words, that the IRGC or the Iranian military were also using that facility or that bridge or at least a portion of it. And I'm confident that they're working through that targeting analysis in the appropriate and legal way. Now, again, whether it's executed that way, I think we have to wait and see, but our military leaders, they know where this line is and they know what the danger is of crossing it. What do you think happens at 8 p.m.? I don't know. I mean, I heard the previous segment. I'm not smart enough to make a prediction. I hope that what happens at 8 p.m. is we get some word that there is, in fact, a ceasefire in place and that negotiations can continue. Because honestly, I think that's the only way this war ends in a sustainable way, which is healthy for the Iranian people who continue to get ignored in the discussion here is some sort of negotiated settlement. So that's what I hope happens. But I guess we're just going to have to wait and see. It's possible that the president's social media posts were used to intimidate and to try to propel the negotiation process forward in a way that's more amenable to his liking. Maybe it is a negotiating tactic, but my goodness, I mean, even if it is, even if that's all this was, was a way to try to intimidate. It's a bad look for the United States that we are, that we, that our president is out there saying these sorts of things and advocating what is essentially genocide and war crimes, even if he didn't mean it. Like I said, it sets a bad standard for us around the world and it sends a terrible message not only to our adversaries, but certainly to our allies and our friends. I don't know how many of those we have left, but I take your point. John Kirby, it's a pleasure to get to talk to you today. We're so glad you're part of the family. Thank you for being here. I'm glad to be part of the family too. Thank you. After a break, can a Congress that has decided for itself that the right thing to do this week is to go on spring break do anything, doesn't want to do anything to avert the global crisis Donald Trump keeps posting about. We'll talk to the leading Democrat about what he thinks the answer to that question is next. Analysis by experts you trust video highlights from your favorite shows plus updates on our latest podcasts and election coverage. Sign up at MS dot now. I want to bring into our coverage Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia of California. He's the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee. Congressman, it's great to see you. Good to see you too. I mean, it's insane what's happening today, but we have to understand this is a very dangerous moment and a very dangerous president. You posted this today quote Donald Trump has lost his mind and his threats to wipe out the Iranian people should be taken seriously. He's out of control and his cabinet and those around him must be loyal to the Constitution and invoke the 25th Amendment. He must be removed. What's interesting in all the talk about checks and balances and Tim Steiner has a beautiful post truly written for the history books today about how Trump has already changed us. I mean, to your point, this is a deranged conversation to be having what's going to happen at eight is the madman going to be as crazy as the madman said he was going to be. So you're going to end civilization. The Constitution lacks all that emotion, all the political petulance of our current politics. It's black and white. And I wonder what constitutional issues you think are getting lost in all this. Well, first of all, I think people need to understand is we have someone who's completely unfit for office right now sitting in the White House with the ability to launch war who is now threatening to essentially nuke or destroy an entire country and people. So from a constitutional perspective, we are in a crisis. And I think the moment first and foremost requires Congress to be in session. And the idea that Mike Johnson let Congress out that everyone is back in their districts and he won't open the doors of the House floor so we can actually have a war power resolution, a debate that we're not marching on the steps right now of the White House. And we're not demanding that he is removed from office by his own cabinet, which they have a constitutional responsibility to do is where this country is at right now. It's crazy that we are not taking stronger action against this president. It is crazy the Republican Party, including his Senate and members in Congress are saying absolutely nothing. And we have a president threatening to destroy an entire population of people in a war that we have no clear mission. We have no idea why we're still there. And the president is out there saying crazy things over the weekend on Easter today and get the Republican Party and the Speaker who control our government are doing absolutely nothing. When you learn through the New York Times, pretty careful reporting there inside the situation room that the cabinet was ambivalent, the vice president was opposed and the intelligence leader described the Israeli objectives as quote farcical and the chairman of the joint chiefs said it is typical Israeli they oversell. Rubio translated for Trump and called it quote bullshit. What do you make of the things that he says at all? I mean, how much attached from his own national security officials? Do you think his public statements are? Well, it's clear that President Trump rather than rather listen to Ben Nyan Yahu and Israel that he does to his own people or to his own advisors and the public that are actually struggling. Gas is skyrocketing. People's healthcare costs are going up. And we're right now in a war in Iran because the prime minister of Israel essentially got the president to join in an attack. There is no national security purpose. There was no imminent threat in front of us. And that has been laid out by military leaders, people in the intelligence community. There is no reason for us to have gone in there with no actual mission or plan. And now we are seeing now we are seeing right now what happens when you actually don't have any type of mission, no involvement from the Congress, no input from the American public. And the president right now seems to essentially be tweeting out, putting out on true social whatever he wants. And we're out here reacting, not in D.C. without any sort of Congress as actually being the check and balance that it's supposed to be in the Constitution. I hope that the Republican Party understands how serious the moment is and that we've been dragged into a war that we should not be in. Several people who have been on this hour think that both Trump's pattern, I think in the markets they call it taco, Trump always chickens out, as well as whatever guardrails remain in the military mean that the threats he's issued are not what will pass at 8 p.m. But what do you rule in the category of possible in about three hours and 15 minutes? I think that Trump has lost his mind. He's not capable of being the president and he should be removed using the 25th Amendment immediately. Separate of that, I don't trust anything that that manner the people around him actually do. He has proven to be the most corrupt person to ever be president, the most criminal person to ever be president. He could care less about humanity or the destruction of of another country. And so I think at this moment is it is up to also the good men in our military, men and women that serve this country, those in leadership to not take orders to destroy and kill more people. And we have a responsibility, not just his cabinet, but those that are guarding our security and the security of so many around the world to also do the right thing. I think many of us are encouraging and and there are a lot of conversations happening across our military as well about ensuring that we do not take this bait, that we are not led to a horrific disaster by Ben Menendez and Donald Trump, and that we actually do the right thing. And that we stand for humanity, that we actually turn back this horrific moment in time that we're in, and that we come together as a country and recognize that we have somebody completely unfit and unprepared to be president. And that's got to be dealt with immediately. Congressman Robert Garcia, thank you for your time today. I want to bring Amanda and David back into this conversation. I have to sneak in a quick break first. We'll all be right back on the other side. It's giving war crime. You can't do that. Americans can't do that. We're better than that. We don't just annihilate people because we can and, you know, make a grab for the money and the oil. And that's what we've done in Venezuela. And that's what we're doing in Iran. It's a voter in Georgia today for that special election to replace Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene. Amanda and David are still with us. They've been kind enough to stick around. I mean, David, from the piece that, you know, we wait every two to four years to have a lot of visibility into is the judgment that the voters will render, right, on the idea of involving America and another war in the Middle East. And from every poll, we're just 8% of Americans support putting boots on the ground to the most positive poll for Trump. I think that the number of people that call for Trump, I think shows about 26 to 29% support what has happened over the last 38 days. I have not seen a poll, though, where that number of about 29% that support where we are right now goes up if it goes on longer or becomes more dangerous to the military or to the country. What does that mean in terms of where the country is just completely detached from where its president is? In January of this year, the Iranian regime massacred thousands, maybe tens of thousands of its own people who had risen up to defend basic freedoms like the right to wear your hair the way you want. And the president of the United States, we know he's a buffoon. The Iranians may not know that said help is on the way. And that was the good and generous America that the world looks to in times of crisis. And when everything's go wrong in the world, people do look up and say, where is the United States? And one of the things that Americans are often baffled by is that the world can get so angry at the United States, when there's real trouble. People look to the Americans for help as the Iranians did. And instead, where we are now is months later, the United States is bombing everything in sight. Trump is proposing to escalate to attack the very people that he promised help to back in January and talking about the annihilation of their civilization without any regard for civilian casualties. And this is still a generous country that wants to help. It's not. It doesn't go abroad doing international limitless rescue. But it wants to be seen as that woman so powerfully said as a country that is a force for good in the world that applies high standards to itself when it uses its great military power. You know, there's a lot to, I think, Fred about and despair. And I think you started us off on the perfect note, Amanda, in describing what it is that characterizes our leader. He is describing himself and projecting an image of a madman onto the country and onto the world. But every single week brings a new political low for him, a new floor, a new bottom, a new political event that has never happened before. And on the pro-democracy side, I know you know this better than I do, the hallmarks of successful sort of teetering democracies that ever crisis are ones that one stay united, that the pro-democracy side sort of makes friends and coalitions in uncommon places. And two doesn't let despair and fatigue intentionally caused by the autocrat numb or overwhelm them. On those measures, how are we doing? Well, you know what I look at? I think the race that's happening in Georgia and the footage you played of that woman is a reason for hope. Like, certainly, that is a district that is very Republican, obviously elected, MTG, one of Donald Trump's formerly most notorious defenders. And when you look at that woman's manner, I mean, she really seems aghast about what is happening as are many people in Donald Trump's base. And then you see people like Tucker Carlson and others sort of saying, well, other people have to stand up and tell Donald Trump, no. And, you know, we do have to grapple with the idea of like, well, why are we in this situation? It is not only because Donald Trump. I mean, there was things like Project 2025 and Joach that explicitly sought to purge the government of experts and civil servants who would tell the president, no, when he went too far, who would exercise some constraints on the president. And so when you see people like Senator Johnson and other Trump allies saying, you know, we don't want this, we've gone too far, I think there's a huge temptation to say, I told you so. I told you this is going to happen. And that I want to ask people to reason set impulse, because right now we need people who understand how bad it is to feel welcome saying no. And I think that's a really big ask. I know it's hard for me to do sometimes. I will fully admit that. But we're now at a place, I mean, we're talking about a madman president threatening war crimes and genocide to get his way. And even if it's just a joke, even if he doesn't mean it, how can you unring that bell? It will not be unrun for the terror cells around the world who dismiss the president's words as just words. Because think about it, like most of our diplomacy is just words. That is how we do business in the world. We can't really turn back from this. And if nothing happens tonight, great. Maybe we can extend the talks, but we are still in uncharted territory. It's already gone so too far. And if people like MTG and Tucker Carlson and even Alex Jones have some sway with the yes men and women in that administration and can get them to walk out, say no, exercise some kind of checks, I'll take it. Yeah, me too. Amanda Carpenter, David Fram, you're such good sports. Thank you so much for spending the whole hour with me. Still head for us. We'll get reaction from one of the lawmakers who told soldiers that they should refuse any illegal orders. The next hour of deadline White House starts after quick break. Stay with us. Rachel Maddow's original series, including Rachel Maddow presents burn order. Subscribe to MS Now Premium on Apple podcasts.