Hillary Clinton says GOP reps asked about UFOs, Pizzagate in Epstein deposition

Subscribe to MSNOW Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad-free listening, and bonus content to all of MSNOW's original podcasts, including the chart-topping series The Best People with Nicole Wallace, Why Is This Happening, Main Justice, and more. Plus, new episodes of all your favorite MSNOW shows ad-free, and ad-free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, including Rachel Maddow Presents Burn Order. Subscribe to MSNOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Tonight on All In. I never met Jeffrey Epstein, never had any connection or communication. The Republicans' Jeffrey Epstein investigation goes after Hillary Clinton. I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate. But what about the missing Trump Epstein files? The reality is we are talking to the wrong person today. We are sitting through an incredibly unserious clown show of a deposition. Tonight, what Hillary Clinton said in her deposition and why it only raises more questions about the current president. We're demanding immediately that we ask President Trump to testify in front of our committee. the underhanded tactics DHS used to snatch a Columbia student, and how New York's new mayor got a release just hours later. Plus, Trump's confused case for a war with Iran. But All In starts right now. Good evening from New York. I'm Chris Hayes. Last night, we told you about the bombshell reporting that documents in the Epstein files related to accusations about President Trump himself are missing from the Department of Justice's release of the files. And so today, House Republicans conducted a six-hour deposition of Hillary Clinton. This afternoon, in a performance art center in Chappaqua, New York, former Secretary of State Clinton sat for a closed-door deposition with members of the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee to answer questions about Epstein and the files. The hearing went on for six hours, and in hour five, when they appeared to run out of things to ask. They were asking about UFOs and the Pizzagate conspiracy. No, really. I answered every one of their questions as fully as I could, based on what I knew. And what I knew is what I said in my statement this morning. I never met Jeffrey Epstein, never had any any connection or communication with him. I knew Ghislaine Maxwell casually as an acquaintance, but whatever they asked me, I did my very best to respond. It was disappointing that they refused to hold a public hearing, so I wouldn't have to be out here characterizing it for you. You could have seen it for yourself. I don't know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Hepstein. I never went to his island. I never went to his homes. I never went to his offices. So it's on the record numerous times. It then got, at the end, quite unusual because I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile, bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the Internet. I thought that they asked literally the same questions over and over again, which didn't seem to me to be very productive. And then, as I said, toward the end, you know, there were other questions that were totally off subject. So if they are going to fulfill their responsibilities to literally investigate the investigations, which is what they originally said was the scope of their work, I think they could have spent the day more productively. Can I ask, why was Colleen Maxwell in thank you for the Prophet Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2003? She'd already been mentioned in the civil lawsuit by Virginia Jeffrey before that. Jeffrey Epstein had already been mentioned before. She came as the plus one, the guest of someone who was invited. Thank you, everybody. Thank you all. Now, Hillary Clinton's name does appear in the files. The copious, copious files have been released. And in the many conversations in there about the 2016 election, that's most often how she comes up. But again, she's not accused of any wrongdoing. In fact, as you heard just there, she says she never even met the guy. She never corresponded with him. Right. Unlike, like, say, Howard Lutnick. Right. But both Hillary Clinton and her former husband and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who the committee will depose tomorrow, say they have nothing to hide. they've repeatedly asked to testify about all this in public, live in front of the nation. Republicans are the ones that refuse to let them. I think because Hillary Clinton is notoriously quite good at this. We saw during her infamous 11-hour public testimony before the Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi, remember that, in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election, Republicans wanted to do it instead behind closed doors. It's not hard to figure out why. See, since the Epstein scandal first re-emerged, Trump's number one strategy has been this, been to play whataboutism with Bill Clinton. Now, again, to be clear, Bill Clinton appeared to be friends with Jeffrey Epstein. They clearly had some sort of relationship. He flew on Epstein's private jet multiple times before Epstein first pleaded guilty in 2008. Glenn Maxwell attended Chelsea Clinton's wedding, as you heard there, as a plus one of another invited guest. But like Hillary, Bill Clinton also has not been accused of any wrongdoing. he denies any knowledge of Epstein's abuse. He and Hillary both said they didn't know anything before Epstein pled. In the effort of transparency, I think that he should testify before Congress, and he is doing so tomorrow. Great. Again, it will be behind closed doors because Republicans, Republicans don't want you to see it, which is weird, right? They got their man. There's Bill Clinton. He's going to testify. Wouldn't you want the cameras on? Because his relationship with Epstein, such as it existed, pales in comparison to Trump's lengthy, very public, very well-documented friendship with the late child sex trafficker, a friendship that was, according to accounts at the time, and Trump himself, largely around chasing women. In fact, Epstein once told a reporter he was Trump's best friend for a decade, which explains why Trump has always been so desperate to deflect. Bill Clinton. Nice guy. Got a lot of problems coming up, in my opinion, with the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein. A lot of problems. Oh, yeah. Bill Clinton's got a problem with Jeffrey Epstein. That was over a decade ago. And even if Trump recently has softened his tone towards Clinton for House Republicans, their only real defense is to play the Clinton card. Do you remember this? We were on air when we did this right back in December when they first legally obligated to release the files, like the first thing they did was flood the zone with random photos of Bill Clinton with Epstein and also just random photos of Bill Clinton generally. And it was all just anything to distract from Trump's own ties to the man, which makes sense since we now know that files are missing related to the FBI's own interviews. We think three of them with an Epstein accuser who made unverified claims that she was also assaulted by President Donald Trump back when she was 13 or 14 years old in the mid-1980s. The DOJ denies deleting the files. The White House has said Trump is totally exonerated on anything relating to Epstein. But in the efforts of transparency, it would be very useful to see Donald Trump testify under oath about that allegation, about his lengthy, well-documented, obvious and public friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, about what first or first lady, Melania Trump, who also knew Epstein and Glenn Maxwell socially, as you can see from that photo we've shown a thousand times. She also, like Hillary Clinton, has not been accused of any wrongdoing. So shouldn't we hear from her as well? Or Trump's Treasury Secretary, Howard Lutnick, who publicly lied about his multiple encounters with Epstein, including a visit to his private island along with his family and multiple nannies. Although, to be clear, he left the island with all family members and all nannies. Shouldn't he speak to the Oversight Committee in a hearing dedicated to that relationship? Members of both sides of the aisle have called for full transparency. The Clintons have called for full transparency. It's only the MAGA Republicans are acting like they have something to hide here. California Congressman Robert Garcia serves as a ranking member on the House Oversight Committee. He attended today's deposition with Hillary Clinton. He will attend tomorrow's deposition with President Bill Clinton. He joins me now. Can you give us a little just inside into what that scene was like inside that room? Look, absolutely. I mean, look, I think first, just to be really clear, Secretary Clinton was very forthright today. I mean, she made it very clear she never met Jeffrey Epstein. She never went to the island. She was never on the plane. She was never aware, of course, of his horrific crimes. And she was very gracious to give us her time, even after Republicans broke the rules about sending photos of the actual hearing out to right-wing influencers. She could have ended it right there, but she continued. And she sat there for hours and hours and hours and answered every single question that Republicans had and the Democrats had. We've said from day one that we'll talk to anyone with information. It's pretty clear to us that Hillary Clinton, of course, has no real information to share. She did not know Jeffrey Epstein. She was not aware of Ghislaine Maxwell and her crimes. But we are grateful that she participated. What was bizarre is that Republicans started asking her about things like UFOs and if she knew about UFO activity in this country and completely began asking questions that were not actually germane about Jeffrey Epstein, which kind of shows how serious they are about this investigation. And the one thing I'll say is this. The one thing that the secretary reiterated, which we agree, is she demanded that the media and the public should have been allowed in. And they should have But if they weren going to do that then they should release that transcript immediately And we calling on House Republicans to release the full unedited transcript of Secretary Clinton testimony in the next 24 hours Yeah, I mean, the call for both the Clintons was let's just do it live, right? I mean, let's do it in public. You know, between the redactions, between the files, some going missing, then some coming back, things being pulled. We want to talk to you behind closed doors, but we want to take a snapshot of you that we're going to leak to a friendly reporter. You know, it just feels like there's a lot of weirdness around what's being disclosed and what's not as a sort of uniting theme in the approach here. 100 percent. I mean, look, first, this is a White House cover up that the American public clearly understand. And the Republican majority on House oversight and the members are clearly involved in it. Their focus on political retribution, on attacking their enemies, they should have allowed the media and the public inside both these depositions. Why not? Why not get the truth out there? Why not allow the public to hear directly what both the Clintons are actually saying? We've said from day one, Democrats have, that we'll talk to anyone. We're looking forward to hearing from the former president tomorrow. We want him to answer questions that we have as a committee. But why not also do it in public? And I think it's because Republicans really have little interest in that. What they want is their own narrative and they want to protect Donald Trump. Who is asking about the UFO and Pizzagate? Can you tell me which of your colleagues? We're going to allow the video to come out pretty soon, hopefully with all of that, without getting specific about the actual deposition. But we had we had multiple members ask questions, the most odd questions about UFOs, about Pizzagate that had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. One thing Secretary Clinton was very clear about, and she talked about this in her opening comments, is she also believes that Donald Trump should also be transparent. I said this today and I'll continue to say it. They have set Republicans a new precedent in hearing from former or current presidents. And so we've now asked and been very clear that President Trump should now appear before our committee and answer our questions for as long as Secretary Clinton and Bill Clinton will tomorrow. He needs to answer questions immediately in front of the committee. And we're not sure why he continues to be protected by the House majority. Well, that brings us to the story that we've all been covering here. We were on our area last night. I mean, about these these files that appear to be missing. First, as someone who has closer access to all this and has followed this very closely and been part of key part of sort of shaking this loose, Is your understanding that there is this individual who accused Jeffrey Epstein of sexually assaulting her? It's a really horrible, grim account. You can read it. It's online. Has also leveled an accusation unverified against Donald Trump that there were multiple interviews about that. Those files are not public right now. They are hidden. Is that all true as far as you understand? It is. I personally went to the DOJ this last week and I specifically looked for those files and I checked the manifest of documents, such as there's an archive that exists of everything that should be in the files that should be released, of course, to the public and to the Congress. And look, we know who that survivor is. We're actually obviously protecting that survivor's and their identity. That survivor made very serious accusations against Jeffrey Epstein and abuse that was very serious. And the FBI chose to investigate it because it reached a level where they felt they needed to get more information. Well, the FBI also clearly followed the allegations made by the same survivor about President Trump. She was a minor at the time, and she made very serious allegations against Donald Trump. Those allegations and the record of her testimony has been removed by the Department of Justice in the release of the files. And the DOJ and Pan Bondi have given us no explanation as to why they are missing and why they are gone. The FBI thought it was important enough to interview this. Of course, she was a minor at the time, but this survivor multiple times. And yet all of that testimony is now gone. There is nothing in our subpoena that we passed last summer that gives Pan Bondi or anyone at the DOJ the power or the ability to withhold those from the Congress. We need to see those immediately. And this is a White House cover up and the largest in the modern history of this country. Just to clarify for people that just know she was a minor when she says this happened. She was not a minor when she spoke to the FBI, which was in 2019, just so people understand that. You know, I saw today and I'm not going to show the headline or anything of some report based on anonymous sources, basically essentially sort of casting aspersions on the on the allegations themselves. Which, again, I just don't know one way or the other. I know nothing about it. I haven't seen them. But it struck me as a little odd that that was coming out when if that is the case, if there's reasons to be very doubtful, if there's ways that the allegations can be cross-checked that dispositively show they're not true, like that's what transparency is for, right? I mean, particularly in this case, under the statute that was signed into law by the president himself. Exactly. And Chris, I mean, look, if the DOJ or the White House wants to somehow discredit a survivor, which, by the way, they have done in the past and they continue to expose them in the files. It's interesting that they left all the testimony that she gave about Jeffrey Epstein that's also available in the archive. That still is in there. But yet they removed all the testimony around the president. The question is why? Who directed that? Why the cover up? And why are they essentially right now, in a way that is clearly illegal, not giving Congress access to those files? I think all those questions deserve answers. Congressman Robert Garcia, who sits on the House Oversight Committee, he's a minority leader there. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Coming up, as Trump's DHS continues to tear families apart, how a fortuitous Oval office meeting got one woman abducted today, released the same day. A crazy story. That's next. As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with the MSNOW newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people. The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this. Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at ms.now slash project 47. There may be fewer masked armed immigration agents in Minneapolis than there were a few weeks ago, though we still get daily reports they're still doing some of the things they have been. But it's not just in the Twin Cities where they're still stalking and grabbing people off the streets. It's also across the country. This is a really upsetting story. Earlier this week, it was the story of Narel Amin Shah Alam. He's a Rohingya refugee from Myanmar who was nearly blind, spoke no English. He came here as a refugee, legally, fleeing essentially a genocide, ethnic cleansing. And then he went missing last Thursday. It turned out border patrol agents in Buffalo took him into custody. They took him from Buffalo police who apprehended him. And when they determined they couldn't hold him because he was a legal refugee, agents dropped him on the other side of town from his home without notifying his family. On Tuesday, police found Shah Alam dead in the street. Today in Manhattan, Columbia University said federal agents gained access to a college residence under false auspices to grab an undergraduate who lived there. Ellie Agieva is a native of Azerbaijan and an online influencer. She's got 100,000 followers. She's been documenting her time as a student for those followers. I don't have something. That's how I got here. I'm just really clear on what I want and what I like. And it can change over time from learning new things and experiencing new things. But I always like to believe 100% in the way I think. This morning, she posted a story showing her in the back of a vehicle the caption, DHS illegally arrested me. Please help. A friend of hers, Saba Barry, told MSNOWD officers went up to a residential building saying they were looking for a missing person. And when the building manager let them in, they grabbed Agayeva. The Manhattan borough president said in a social media post that ICE agents had shown a phony missing persons bulletin for a five-year-old girl. New York Mayor Zoran Mandani, who happened to be at the White House for a meeting with Donald Trump this afternoon, asked the president to have the Columbia student released, along with four other students still facing deportation procedures. Shortly after the meeting ended, Trump reportedly called Mom Donnie to confirm her release. She then posted a news story to Instagram, quote, I just got out a little while ago. I'm safe and OK. I am in complete shock over what happened. Shel Goldberg's an opinion columnist for The New York Times, and she joins me now. First, just the details of this. And I want to just play something, you know, President Claire Shipman of Columbia is out with a statement just giving a few more details around a play and get your reaction to about the false pretenses under which this one was apprehended. Take a listen. Shortly after 6 a.m., five federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security, without any kind of warrant, entered an off-campus Columbia residential building. The agents gained entry by stating they were police searching for a missing child. They made their way to the apartment of the student they were targeting with the same story. I'm at a loss for words. Right. I mean, police, I think it just goes to show how much this is not normal law enforcement, right? Like, police cannot behave this way. And if no other law enforcement agent can, without a warrant, come into your house under false pretenses, come into your bill, impersonate someone else, say that they're conducting a totally different sort of investigation. I mean, I think it just goes to show the utter lawlessness of this organization and also the bizarreness of targeting this particular student. I mean, the very fact that Donald Trump was so, I mean, thank God, Momdani was there. But they also, I don't think that he would have let her, would have released her immediately if they had had any pretense under which they were holding her, right? This is not somebody who even been accused of committing any kind of crime or malfeasance No And I mean I guess DHS says that her you know her visa expired That she missed some classes She missed some classes I mean the other thing about this just because so much of the thing is so much about this like you know, that moment when Trump was like, stand up and say, you stand for American citizens and not illegal aliens. And it's like, OK, let's think about this for a second. There's going to be some missing child in New York City that New York City police need to find. And they're going to need to go to people's doors. And they're not going to be like, we're looking for this missing child. And now you've destroyed their ability to do that because people aren't going to open the door. And like that hurts citizens. Right. The people, you know, the people you claim to be defending. Well, I mean, and that's the reason in many cases, or not the reason, but a reason for sanctuary city policies in the first place, right? Like part of it is for sure humanitarianism, but part of it is that, yes, you don't want people who live in your city to be afraid to talk to authorities. You don't want them to be afraid to go to the hospital. You don't want them to be afraid to send their children to school. It's the same reason that, you know, abroad, typically, we don't allow like spies to impersonate journalists because it then basically paints a target on all of their backs. And that's what they're doing. And I think we've seen in many cases, you see this kind of growing rift between police and ICE agents, I think, for precisely this reason. We got to talk about the Mondani part of this, too, because so Mondani has this meeting that they've scheduled because he wants to pitch Trump on some big like basically new big federal housing in the city, like printed of mock daily news posters. And, you know, apparently helped get this one released the same day. And a lot of people are just like, what is going on in this? Do you have a read on this relationship? I mean, I think we both know Mondani is extremely charming. Yes, he is. and also that he has a kind of glamour around him that Donald Trump appreciates. Donald Trump, you know, still has always wanted— I think the job probably Donald Trump would have loved more than any is mayor of New York. You know, what he really wants is the respect and admiration of New York, and he'll never, ever get it. And so—but also, I think it also shows that Mamdani doesn't— Mamdani has done some—has, you know, played Donald Trump better than any other Democrat, He's really done it without groveling, without being, you know, without kind of pulling his punches. He's done it. He's been friendly and civil, but he's been dignified and kind of hasn't capitulated to any of Trump's demands. And I think it shows that, you know, Donald Trump kind of when you when you give an inch to Donald Trump, it doesn't make him respect you more. It just makes him demand more. That's right. The only terms it's plausible to have interactions with him is coming from a place of strength, coming from a place of political support. I also think there's something, too, and I think this will, you know, as we start primary season, Democratic primary season on Tuesday in Texas, we'll be doing special coverage here. But there's something about having a relationship with your base in which they trust you that does produce more latitude in the actions you can take where people are not looking in every moment that you're selling them out. Right. Yeah, no, absolutely. I mean, and I think that, yes, when I think if it had been a different mayor, certainly if it had been Andrew Cuomo, and you would kind of learn that he has this unscheduled meeting with Trump on his schedule, everybody would have been up in arms. Right. Yeah, I think that's a great point. Back to the immigration, just to one more thing here. I mean, we have seen now this is like a new frontier. This is like impersonating cops to, you know, there the amount of lawlessness, lawlessness term you use coming from the agency is so crazy. You've got a U.S. district judge today basically saying he said it ends today about the amount of violation of court orders happening and that he's going to haul in DOJ officials under oath. If any unauthorized detentions, arrests of immigrants came before him, he would order officials to show cause, schedule hearings, and such a move would be a big step. This has really been done during the current Trump administration. There is this rebellion happening in the federal judiciary against what's happening with DHS and the lawlessness that you've called it before. Without even rebelliousness, it's just a sort of a recognition of how intolerable it is that they, you know, kind of defy court, defy the law, but also just defy court orders over and over and over again. And I think there's kind of no precedence for this. And so the justices are basically, you know, many other institutions have kind of capitulated or accommodated themselves to this new reality. What we see is that some justices still. The federal judges. Right. Yes. Yeah. They're not having it. Yeah. It'll be interesting to see how much they can actually alter their behavior because there is this kind of like they keep telling them to stop and they keep doing it. Judges say, no, really stop. Particularly things like what we saw. I think it probably won't end today as much as I wish it would. Yeah. Michelle Goldberg, great to have you. Thank you. Still ahead, Team Trump's confusing pitch for a new war in the Middle East. Next. As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with the MSNOW newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people. The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this. Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at ms.now slash project 47. Today in Geneva, high-stakes negotiations between Iran and the U.S. ended without any deal, just to plan for more discussions next week. Those talks are a last-ditch effort to prevent an American war on Iran, as the U.S. positions just a staggering amount of firepower around the region. There you see the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier heading to the region. A potential war, it should be said, that would be insanely unpopular with Americans. Only 21% favor military strikes on Iran. Nearly 50% oppose it, according to a new University of Maryland poll. People don't want this, especially after Trump bombed Iran last year and bragged that he had fixed the problem. That was the whole point. And here's the thing. No one in power who supports the war can even really articulate exactly why war is a good idea now. They said they were done trying to build a nuclear weapon, yet they're obviously trying to rebuild it. We're not going let that happen. If we obliterated it, we being the United States last summer, then why are you worried about it right now? Because they're rebuilding it. And you can see them rebuilding it. But it doesn't mean you can't rebuild. How exactly would strikes on Iran benefit the American people on the ground in Pennsylvania, for example? It absolutely does. It makes the Middle East safer. But in Pennsylvania? Yeah, absolutely. How so? So, but like, how does it benefit them? Like, does it put more money in their pockets? I'm voting it no. So, and I think we're good. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania saying he'd vote no, not on going to war, but on a democratic resolution to stop Donald Trump from going to war in Iran without congressional approval. Really feels like 2003 all over again, although with a way more half-hearted attempt to sell it. Spencer Ackerman is a creator of the Forever Wars blog, author of Reign of Terror, how the 9-11 era destabilized America, produced Trump. He's been reporting on and writing about the buildup here, and he joins me now. First, I want to get your read, Spencer, and we've gotten a lot of apparent leaks and stories from inside the sort of Department of Defense Pentagon establishment about worries, concerns, like lots of rumblings coming out of that building about this buildup. What is your read on that right now? H.R. McMaster, back when he was a responsible officer of the United States Army and not a lickspittle to Trump, wrote a book called Dereliction of Duty about the Vietnam-era joint chiefs of staff that, while they would occasionally express some concern about the dangers of the Vietnam War, they wouldn't stop it. They wouldn't give their military advice to be, not do this, wind this thing down, and so forth. That's what we're seeing now. This is a purged Pentagon. We're left with the sorts of officers who will salute smartly and do whatever the president says, as we've seen with them, murdering shipwrecked people in the Caribbean and then invading to oust and kidnap Nicolas Maduro. That's what we'll see here. We'll see them going along with it and then leaking about how disastrous it was and why didn't anyone stop him. You know, there's this, it's interesting. When I've been talking to lawmakers off the record, I think there's a little bit of—I don't know if it's delusion. Maybe they're right and I'm wrong. A sense of like, well, they're not really going to do it. This is just transparently leverage. It's a big show of force for leverage for the negotiations. He doesn't really want to bomb Iran. He doesn't want to go to word again. You know, stockpiles of the U.S. military are depleted. It would be—it looks like it would be unpopular. Do you buy that? No, not at all. I think this is going to happen. We've seen how frictionless this has been politically. We've seen how frictionless the military buildup has been. And we've seen even when objections have been coming from American allies in the Gulf, the UAE, the Saudis, concerns from Turkey as well, that it hasn't really impacted the administration's decision making no matter what. This is something the U.S. wants. It's something Israel wants. And it's something that the political class has pretty much decided it can tolerate. So I think we are way more likely to see this end with a military misadventure than we are to see some sort of deal coming out. It's possible the Iranians could surrender. That would be even more dangerous from them because eventually they'll be right back to this position. Well, right. I mean, that's I mean, part of what's crazy about this, right? I mean, we've done this whole history of the there was a there was a deal put in place to stop enrichment, to limit it, to moderate. That was killed by Donald Trump. Then there was the, you know, the bombing, which anyone that questioned whether that actually completely obliterated the nuclear program was subjected to scorn and to insult. And Donald Trump said, you're insulting the proud pilots that flew on this mission. How dare you? And now here you are. Here's Marco Rubio basically saying what the critics of the last strike said, which is, yeah, you didn't really actually solve the problem such as it is. Here's Marco Rubio today. I think it's pretty clear that they have not abandoned their desire to enrich again. They've not abandoned that. In fact, they probably insisted that they have the right to do so. I won't comment on the intelligence picture But I can tell you that there's reason to believe Given the opportunity We return to enrichment one day I mean that was yesterday But I mean again yes that precisely the point What in the Colin Powell is that, right? The desire to enrich is still there. We're talking about capabilities that exist or capabilities that don't. Yes, that's a great point. And we are now at the point in the argumentation for this war that is about, again, again, like desires or that they won't say things. You know, Donald Trump in the State of the Union said something like they won't say the magic words that they won't get a weapon. They said those words on the day Donald Trump gave the speech. It has been the official regime position, whether you believe it or not, but it has been the official position that they're not going to get a nuclear weapon. I would go a step further and point out that there was a deal between the United States and Iran for Iran to eschew and have a verifiable way of not developing a nuclear weapon. Iran kept that deal. The United States violated it. Yeah, that is well said. Spencer Ackerman, who's writing on this, has been essential. As always, thank you very much. Appreciate it. We've got to stop meeting like this, Chris. This weekend is the debut of Crooked Media on MSNOW. Pod Save America's Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer join me next. We have an exciting programming note. In just two days, we will debut some new programming here on MSNOW. Starting this Saturday at 9 p.m. Eastern, you can catch the premiere of Crooked on MSNOW. It's a new special weekly series that brings you the most talked-about moments of the week from Crooked Media's chart-topping podcast. You see one there right there called Strict Scrutiny? My wife co-hosts that. Also includes Pod Save America and Pod Save the World. And joining me now are two co-hosts of Pod Save America, John Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer. Gentlemen, good to have you on board, both on the show. And I'm excited about this partnership. Let me start with some politics talk on the topic we were just talking about in the last block with Spencer. I still feel like everyone is sleepwalking into this. I mean, just, you know, both the sort of political establishment, the Democratic Party, the Republicans, the Pentagon. Do you have that feeling, too? Like, I just am like, is everyone just this seems like a disaster, both substantively and politically. Am I getting something wrong here, John? No, you're not. I've felt the same way. Dan and I just talked about it. We recorded the pod a couple hours ago. I saw Politico today. An administration source said that their hope is that maybe the Israelis go first and launch a strike against Iran. And then if Iran retaliates against U.S. interests and perhaps kills Americans, then they'll be able to sell the war to the American people because then Iran retaliated. So that is the just insane lengths to which they are going at last minute to try to sell this war, which seems like it's very likely to happen. The polling on this, Dan, is interesting, too. I mean, not just on specifically on the war, which is unpopular, as we just showed, but just even on people's like trust of Trump on this stuff. He's underwater and everything. He's disapproved, but he's underwater specifically in foreign policy. This is a recent poll about from APNORC. How much do you trust Trump's decisions on military force abroad? Just like in a general sense, little to not at all coming at 56 percent, 70 percent, a moderate amount, 27 percent, a great deal. And among independents is even worse. 60 percent say little to not at all. Like, it's not like this is a person who has the benefit of the doubt right now. Yeah, like I heard you and Spencer talking about the parallels to 2003. The big difference between now in 2003 is that George Bush's approval rating was in the mid 60s. He was still riding a wave of national consensus after 9-11. Donald Trump is a lame duck with a 38 percent approval rating. as you mentioned, he's underwater on every issue. People do not trust him to do just about anything. And it's just notable they're not even trying to sell this to anyone. It really does feel like a war that the neocons have wanted for a long time in search of a reason. Right. Yeah. And that other point, the other big difference is like, they really did try to sell that war in 2003. They made an affirmative argument. It was a false argument that there were weapons of mass destruction and they were going to come for But like there's there's no, John, I mean, there's no argument that they can't get they can't get through three sentences. You know, they have some conception of wanting to do it. But it also seems like if they do it, it's a it's a declaration, John, of like a complete unconstrained by public opinion sort of M.O. from here on out. Yeah, they don't they don't care, which is why they're sort of making the case at the last minute by just throwing things against the wall that are sort of obvious lies or that they're not backing up with any kind of evidence like, oh, yeah, the ballistic missiles might be able to hit the U.S. sometime soon. And they still have a desire for enrichment. And they're a week away from this after they told us that they already obliterated Iran's nuclear program when they made the first strike last year, last summer. So, yeah, I think they feel unconstrained by public opinion. I think Trump feels like every time he has gone on one of these military adventures, he lobs in a couple of missiles. He takes a strike. He tries to capture Maduro. And no Americans die. And everyone moves on afterwards. And so it's fine. And so he keeps pushing his luck on this. And the challenge is, like, one of these times his luck's going to run out. And so is all of ours. Yes, it's well said. Well, let's just fly a little closer to the sun. It hasn't melted yet. There are so many sort of such a rogues gallery in the government here that I always feel like every show there's like nine things that happened with personnel in the Trump administration that we didn't get to. And one of the stories that we have not done is that Kash Patel flying on a private jet to the Olympics, which, you know, there's a million reasons why it was so messed up. aside from the fact that it like toxically tainted this like beautiful, awesome triumphant victory where the men and women both won. And then he's in the locker room and then Trump makes this stupid piggy sexist joke that has now like, you know, sort of put a cloud over everything. But Dan, I do have to get your reaction to a brief defense from his girlfriend, Alexis Wilkins, who, uh, who like all of us is a podcast is, is doing podcasts because that's what everyone does. It's 330 million podcasts in America. Uh, And here she is defending Kash Patel for going to the Olympics. I want to get your reaction. Take a listen. What do you think Elon Doge's opinion would be on spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash during beer with hockey players? So I really am not going to dip too much into this because this is kind of my whole point. But what I will say is the Bureau has long been in charge of providing security for the Olympics. and that's what was happening. So I think that we should be probably more concerned with the fact that, you know, the Democrats were trying to spend millions of dollars to see if mice can be transgender and the fact that that has stopped. Dan, that was security provision you saw in that locker room. Yes, that is, he'd do a great job. He was definitely securing that beer he was chugging, incredibly awkward, as he does in every public setting Cash Patel's ever been in for his entire life. I mean, you're right. This is the sort of scandal that in a different administration would be dominate the news for weeks, would be the end of this person who'd have members of the party calling for them to resign, and yet it's just one more beat in a parade of horribles happening. We got the first primaries of this very packed midterms coming up next week. We're going to do special coverage here on MS Now. Texas is the sort of big state. There's a few states, North Carolina, I think Arkansas and Texas on Tuesday, if I have that correct. Are there things you're looking for? The two big, the sort of big marquee races, John, are the two Texas Senate contested primaries on both the Democratic and Republican side, which are very high stakes. What are you looking for? The one thing I've been watching so far is the early vote in Texas. And, of course, it's tough to know from the early vote, like, which candidate is winning. But when you compare how Democrats are voting versus how Republicans are voting, Democrats are just blowing the doors off the early vote, not only in comparison to the Republican Party, but in comparison to how Democrats have voted in past elections. I just saw that in Star County, which is like a small county in southern Texas, very heavily Latino county, there were 10,000 early votes on the Democratic side. There was like, which is like, you know, a couple hundred thousand percent higher than it's ever been. There's been like a few hundred votes in past, right, even in the 2024 presidential primary. So just unheard of voting in Texas right now. You know, I think Republicans are voting, too. But I just think that the turnout is, especially on the Democratic side early, so far is pretty impressive. Also, I think, you know, that race has gotten pretty nasty in some ways between James Tallarico and Jasmine Crockett, Dan. But it's also I think there's a there is an argument that like contested races create a lot of investment and turnout, which is maybe not the worst thing. No, I think it's a really good thing in Texas in particular. Like, obviously, we're going to have to come together and unite behind the winner to have a chance here. But think how long it's been since there's been an exciting Democratic primary at the Senate level in Texas, a state where we have Democrats have not won a Senate race for 38 years. And so the fact you're seeing this turnout, 160 percent of the early vote turnout from 2022, just it speaks to the enthusiasm that Democrats have. And, you know, these races are getting people engaged. And that's the upside of these primaries for sure. Yeah, I think I think that's a thing to keep keep eyes on. Jon Favreau, Dan Pfeiffer. Great to have you gentlemen both. Thank you. Thanks for having us. Crooked on MSNOW premieres Sunday at 9 p.m. Eastern. Be sure to check it out. Right now, stay tuned because after Hillary Clinton's deposition today, Jen Psaki will be speaking with two members of Congress who were in that deposition. I'm going to look forward to it. We'll be right back. That does it for All In. You can catch us every weeknight at eight o'clock on MS Now. Don't forget to like us on Facebook. That's Facebook dot com slash on with Chris. Subscribe to MSNOW Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad-free listening, and bonus content to all of MSNOW's original podcasts, including the chart-topping series The Best People with Nicole Wallace, Why Is This Happening, Main Justice, and more. Plus, new episodes of all your favorite MSNOW shows ad-free. And ad-free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, including Rachel Maddow Presents Burn Order. Subscribe to MSNOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Thank you.