"A flat-out lie"

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. And perhaps most importantly, I'm asking you to approve the Save America Act. To stop illegal aliens and others who are unpermitted persons from voting in our sacred American elections. that cheating is rampant in our elections. It's rampant. I get it. It's five o'clock in New York. I'm Ali Velshi. And today for Nicole Wallace. And before we go on a quick point of order, what Donald Trump just said there was a flat out lie. Of course, that's never stopped him from repeating it, nor did it stop his cheerleaders in Congress from reacting to it with raucous applause during last night's State of the Union address. But it's not their clapping that's worth our focus this afternoon. It's actually their lawmaking. You heard Trump there promoting something that we mentioned with Senator Klobuchar last hour, what's called the SAVE Act, a Republican solution which is in search of a problem, a fix for something Donald Trump made up in the aftermath of his electoral defeat in 2020. Once more, for the people in the back, claims of widespread voter fraud have been wholly debunked again and again and again, year after year after year. And yet the GOP is right now fighting tooth and nail to put something on Donald Trump's desk that could potentially disenfranchise 21 million, up to 21 million American voters in the name of solving a fake problem. To underscore the ridiculous nature of that pursuit, consider what's happening here in Fulton County, Georgia. That's Atlanta. The state election board there is once again wrapped up in review of years old election results thanks to a federal subpoena, search and seizure of related materials. Well, the Republican appointed chair of that board in a conversation with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution podcast says there's a lot of political theater going on. Listen. The Fulton County elections department that is there now is not the same one that was there in 2020. I'd be the last person to say that there was no mistakes in 2020. There was a lot of mistakes. There was a lot of, for a lot of different reasons, You know, you're having an election during COVID. They were hiring people that weren't trained properly. There was a whole lot of absentee ballots. I mean, there's just a lot of issues that happened in 2020. But I've yet to see anything that would rise to the level of a crime or malfeasance or anything like that. It's just a lot of mistakes that were made. But, you know, 2020 is over with. We have had multiple elections since then. Hi. He said, I've yet to see anything that would rise to the level of a crime or malfeasance or anything like that. Thankfully, Favir went on to insist he has not, quote, had any serious discussions with any board members about them wanting to take over Fulton County. However, the broader concern persists. The president of the United States is right now applying pressure on officials at the state and federal level to accommodate his outright falsehoods about widespread voter fraud. And that's where we begin this hour. I want to bring in the director of the Brennan Center's Voting Rights and Elections Program, Sean Morales Doyle. Also with us, Mother Jones National Voting Correspondent Ari Berman and the president of Media Matters for America, Angelo Carusone. Thank you all for being with us. Angelo, just start by framing this because this is truly a solution in search of a problem. If one were to say that there's a voting problem in America, it's the number of eligible voters who don't vote in elections, not the number of non-citizens who vote. so i think of it in saying framing is the right way to set it up because this is part of a continuation a story that trump has been telling for for years now uh going all the way back to his first election in 2016 this idea that there is malfeasance that democrats are somehow you know manipulating the votes that they are the reason they support immigration the way they do is because they get to cheat you know this has been a consistent through line and now that he's in this position of power, he's sitting on top of the right-wing media in this larger echo chamber, and it sort of served two purposes. Either they successfully leverage power and drive this thing through, in which case they've managed to genuinely, you know, suppress a large part of the vote and make it really difficult for people to vote, and therefore maybe even win as a result of that, or they don't get it through, but they spend the next few months undermining the elections, telling a story about all this supposed non-existent cheating that's happening out there, working up their people into a frenzy so that immediately after the election, or even maybe before it, they can either crack down in some way in an elastic effort to sort of seize the election through extraordinary means, or invalidate or hold the results sort of up in the air afterwards so that they can continue to sort of leverage that uncertainty for their own political power. And that's really the framing here. It's part of this larger narrative that Trump has been telling, and we just can't divorce that. The lies are a point here. They're part of exercising political power. And Ari, this is actually the intersection of two Trump narratives, right? Stolen elections and voting, that's not fair, and illegal immigrants, right? It's the idea that, well, with the SAVE Act, we're going to deal with both. Illegal immigrants who apparently, according to Donald Trump, he said the cheating is rampant, register to vote, vote, they vote for Democrats. Democrats know that they have to stay in power, So they let lots of illegal immigrants in who then vote and vote for Democrats. It's this weird, stupid cycle. That's right. It's really a twofer for Republicans because it recycles two of their biggest lies, which is that America is being overrun by immigrants. And then those immigrants that are overrunning the country are voting illegally. And therefore, we have to take action to save America through the Save America Act. And of course, there was a lot of things about the Save America Act that Trump didn't say in his speech last night. He didn't say that it could disenfranchise 21 million people that don't have ready access to their citizenship documents. That likely understates the number of people that the law could actually disenfranchise, though, because there's 69 million married women who took their partner's last name who could be disenfranchised by this law because their birth certificate would be different than their married name. He didn't mention the fact that rural voters would have to show their documentation in person at an elections office, having to travel four or five hours to be able to register to vote. The fact that the Department of Homeland Security would get control of state voter rolls, something that states have been very reluctant to try to do. And the fact that many of the constituencies most affected by the Save America Act are actually Republican constituencies, married women, rural voters. And so in the name of, quote unquote, owning the libs, Trump is actually promoting a bill that could hurt his own voters more than anyone else. Sean, it would make me crazy if I work for the Brennan Center, where you think about ways to reduce the friction in voting. So Angelo made two points. One is they could use this as a reason to crack down on elections or they've already said that people have said that they're going to be armed ICE officers outside of polling places. Number two, invalidate the election after the election, after setting the groundwork for this. And three, add friction to a voting process that already has too much friction, right? How do we get from 60% of people voting in a presidential election to 100? It's not impossible. Other countries get to higher levels because you reduce the friction. We're simply adding friction, which will cause some people to say, I'm not going to go. I can't find my birth certificate. I don't have a passport. I'm not paying 130 bucks to get a passport. I'm just not going to vote. Yeah, I think there are absolutely things that Congress could be doing to make our elections better. They could be passing policies and setting national standards across the country for what voting can look like to make it easier for people to participate in our elections and to reduce that friction and those barriers. Instead, they are spending their time considering a policy that would make it, as Ari said, would disenfranchise millions of American citizens, and which, again, is really just a piece of a broader strategy to undermine public faith in our elections and to set up the groundwork for trying to overturn the outcome of our elections. But also, I think Americans should be asking themselves, is this really what you sent people to Washington, D.C. to do? They're not there prioritizing affordability and making your life better. They're there trying to pass a law that would block millions of Americans from voting in service of a lie about non-citizens participating in our elections. I don't really think that was on anybody's top list of priorities. And it should really trouble people that that is where the effort is being spent. And it's now being spent that way for explicitly political reasons. I mean, Trump is saying out loud, we need to pass this bill because it's the only way we can win. Of course, he says that because otherwise the other side will cheat. But I think he's setting up this situation where you can only accept the result of an election if my party wins. And I think the American people should reject that. So, Angelo, America is not a country that requires citizens to carry their proof of citizenship with them. It's just the way it is. Some countries do. Some of them are authoritarian, but some are not. I usually like to point out Estonia, where they've got a national ID. It's digital. You don't lose it. And if you lose it, it's easy to get a new one and you don't pay for it. That's not the case with a birth certificate. If you can't find your birth certificate or your naturalization certificate or your passport, it's super hard and expensive to replace them. And voting may not be the reason why people do that. You can do a national ID if you want. I don't think Americans would go for that sort of thing. But if you were to do it, at least the onus should be on the government to provide that at low or zero cost. That's right. I mean, and that's been mentioned already. There are lots of things you can do to make voting simpler. And it's also worth noting that voting is supposed to be done locally. The mere fact that Trump has managed to even hijack the narrative around this is rather extraordinary because it's not his job. It's not his job. So that should be the first tell that something's amiss here. And there are other clues going on. I mean, there are lots of ways that we can make this easier and simpler. But I should also note that on the flip side, instead of investing and thinking about that, they've done something even more dangerous and insidious. And there are clues. If you look at the State of the Union, who was there? Nick Shirley. This is one of these crops of investigative influencers that he was largely responsible for creating a target on Minnesota back by producing viralized content that the administration said well see that Look at all that. We have to go in there and crack down on this. They're doing this with votes, too. They're going to take that exact scenario that you set up, all of the basic administrative discrepancies, the gaps that exist, the real things that we could fix, and actual not fraud or malfeasance, just general day to day. People are busy. The economy is bad. You don't have time to get your document, you know. And they're going to take that vulnerability and they're going to scandalize it and sensationalize it. We're going to deal with a drumbeat of people just like that being validated by the federal government and then reverberated and amplified through this massive right-wing echo chamber to create a hysteria around voting and around this idea of voter fraud, when in fact it's exactly what you just said. Basic, I don't have my document. I don't have my birth certificate. Like it actually just I lost it. It evaporated. It got wet. I mean, there's a million reasons for it. And that system, the fact that he was there is a clue to what we can expect going forward. Ari, help me out with this, because as journalists, we want to fact check stuff. But this is so nonsensical that I don't know what we're supposed to do. As I say, the number of Americans who are registered to vote who don't vote in a competitive presidential election is 40 percent. That, to me, strikes me as the problem that we should be dedicated to solving. My math on the number of non-citizens who register to vote is 0.0000005, five zeros followed by five. I might be wrong, but it's that kind of a number, right? These things are not close to equivalent. This is a non-problem that Donald Trump, but he used the words, the cheating is rampant. So how do journalists of good conscience counter this? Well, we just have to try to keep pointing out the facts in a fact-free age. because you're right, every single study that's looked at it from studies done by Sean's group, the Brennan Center for Justice, to all the audits that have happened at the state level have showed how incredibly rare this is. Utah just did a review of its voter rolls and didn't find a single non-citizen who was registered to vote out of 2.1 million people on their voter rolls. And of course, it doesn't make sense why someone who is here legally or illegally would risk fines, prison deportation to cast a ballot. But Trump has been obsessed with this issue ever since he lost the popular vote in 2016, where he blamed it on 3 million people voting illegally in California. We know, of course, that was a lie. But the more he says the lie, the more his own supporters believe it. And of course, now they're saying, oh, you need an ID to get on a plane, need an ID to buy liquor, not understanding that voting is a constitutionally protected right, unlike buying liquor, unlike flying on a plane. And the number of people that are going to be affected by this bill is so much greater than that. This is not a voter ID bill. This is a show your papers bill. It's going to affect millions and millions and millions of Americans. And that's the key. Because, you know, Sean, in Minneapolis, Somali American citizens are now carrying their passports with them because we've created a world in which ICE detains you if you don't prove your citizenship on the spot, except there's no law in America requiring you to prove your citizenship on the spot. Citizenship is not a, it's not a thing that you're supposed to carry with you in the United States. So it's not, I think Ari's point is really important. This is turning us into a past papers, a past papers, please country. Yes, this is absolutely a show your papers requirement. The references to voter ID in last night's speech and that we're frequently hearing from Republicans in Congress are a red herring. They're a misnomer. That's not what we're dealing with here. We are dealing with a show your papers requirement. It is a sad state of affairs. I myself carry around a picture of my passport with me these days. Wow. But only half of Americans have a passport. Correct. And there are 21 million Americans, according to research that we conducted along with vote writers in the University of Maryland, don't have ready access to these documents. Do you know where your birth certificate is if you don't have a passport? If not, you wouldn't be able to register to vote under this law. We as Americans should not accept a situation in which we have to prove our right to exercise constitutional rights by showing our papers over and over and over again in person just to participate in our elections. This is absolutely an un-American policy and it is part and parcel of a broader strategy to undermine our democratic approach to governance. The thing that makes elections different in 2026 from every year before is that for the first time ever, the primary threat that we are facing to our democracy is coming from inside the White House. It's coming from the executive branch of the federal government. We've never had to deal with that before, and we should take that very seriously. And the reason we've never had to deal with that before is because, as has already been said, the president has no constitutional role in running elections. It is absolutely emphatically not his job. I think we have the tools to fight back against this, but we need to take it very seriously. And so, Angelo, the House was very fast to pass this thing with the support of one Democrat. The Senate seems to not be as quick to want to deal with this. Do you think the Save Act is going to become a law? I don't think so. I really don't. And I think it's going to be the conversation and the anchor for this narrative over the next few months. I think they're going to do the best, but I think there's some real practical things, including money, as has already been discussed. A lot of this affects Republican states or Republican majority states. And there's nothing in the SAVE Act that actually funds all the requirements that they're doing in the first place. Correct. Yes. So that's the challenge here. But I do think it's going to serve as an anchor for a conversation and be a cudgel against Democrats and against the integrity of our voting system right up until election day. Which is a good point, because one might think it needs to become a law to become effective. But in fact, in Donald Trump's world, it doesn't actually need to become a law to to effectively dissuade people for voting or add friction to it. Thanks to you three for a great conversation. Sean Morales, Doyle, Ari Berman and Angelo Caruso. All right, when we return, we are learning more about the whistleblower report about Kash Patel's use of FBI jets and how his use of those planes delayed the FBI's investigation into Charlie Kirk's assassination. We'll get to that story next. Also ahead for us, one thing we didn't hear from Donald Trump last night is what he's planning to do with the Pentagon's massive military buildup around Iran, as fears grow that a potential American strike against a country of 93 million people could trigger a much wider war. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Stay with us. 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. Cash Patel's frequent use of his government jet has raised many questions during his time as FBI director, but now we're learning more from a whistleblower about how his jet use is actually hindering operations of the agency he leads. My colleagues Ken Delaney and Carol Lennig first reported yesterday about how that whistleblower alleged that Patel's use of an FBI plane to go to Florida, delayed the FBI evidence team in getting to a mass shooting at Brown University in December. There's a second FBI plane that Patel was holding for another team. The evidence team ended up having to drive nine hours through the night. Now, in a letter to the Government Accountability Office, Senator Dick Durbin reveals more mismanaged investigations due to Patel's jet use. Durbin writes that, according to the whistleblower, quote, in the immediate aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk, the FBI's shooting reconstruction team was asked to fly to Utah to aid the investigation and process the scene. However, the team's deployment was delayed by at least a day because of a bureau plane and pilot shortage caused by the director's personal flights. Durbin says that the whistleblower made those disclosures after Kash Patel's taxpayer-funded trip to the Olympics, where he was spotted celebrating with the U.S. men's hockey team in the gold medal game. When asked for a comment, an FBI spokesperson denied the whistleblower's account. I want to bring in senior investigative reporter Carol Lennig and former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI and national security and intelligence analyst Michael Feinberg. Welcome to both of you. Thank you for being with us. Carol, tell me a bit more about this reporting because we've heard dribs and drabs of criticism of Kash Patel's use of the plane, but this is the first time we're going into territory where it says maybe investigations were hindered because of it. That's right. You know, we've been doing a lot of reporting at MS now, based on very good, reliable sources with firsthand knowledge, that the FBI director likes to travel a lot on his plane for reasons that FBI agents find concerning. They don't love his choices, to go visit his girlfriend when she was singing the national anthem at Penn State, to go to hockey games, to go to wrestling competitions, etc. This time, we have a whistleblower, and my colleague and I have additional sources who confirm that Patel's travel in Florida, to Florida in December, actually compromised or delayed the investigation of a mass shooting at Brown University. All of our viewers will remember that in December, there was a shooter who had opened fire, killing two people and wounding nine other students at Brown University. And on that day, an emergency evidence team from the FBI based in D.C. and in Quantico, Virginia, planned to fly right that night to or that afternoon to the shooting to help recreate the scene, collect critical evidence. And as you know, that shooting suspect went on a manhunt and was not found for five days. And in between, he killed another person. Be that as it may, the FBI has denied that this compromised the investigation in any way. Patel was in Florida on a jet and apparently, according to the whistleblower, ordered that the other available jet be put on standby for a team that would not normally respond to a mass shooting. And so the evidence collection team drove through the night on December 13th and through a snowstorm from Virginia to Providence, Rhode Island to begin the collection Wow Michael I want to play comments that Kash Patel has made Once was in 2023 when he wasn in government The second time was in May of last year once he was the FBI director Let listen to what he had to say about private jet travel I not the defund everything guy I just saying Chris Ray doesn need a government funded G5 jet to go to vacation. Maybe we ground that plane. 15,000 every time it takes off. This is on. We're not the guys running around on private jets. And somebody maybe in Congress should ask for how many flights on a private jet Director Comey took or my predecessor, Director Wray, took and how many personal trips they took. OK, so be that what it may, he's come out in the past against the FBI director using private flights, but he has said that he's compelled to use for security reasons, he's compelled to use a government jet for his personal travel. So help us make sense of that. Yeah, that's probably one of the few statements Kash Patel has made since his swearing in that is 100% accurate. There are certain security requirements that entail he must use a government jet for his travel. But any sensible FBI director, certainly anyone who has served during my lifetime or during my career, would know that that means you travel personally sparingly. Being the director of the FBI is not a part-time job. It's not a hobby. It's not a side gig. If you're doing it right, just like being a line-level FBI agent, it is going to consume your life for the duration of your tenure. If you are not willing to put frolics and detours on hold during the time that you are serving your country and dedicated towards keeping our civilians safe, then maybe you should think twice about whether you're the right person for the job. Carol, what does oversight look like in this instance? Is this just a whistleblower complaint? Does it go anywhere or is there some role? Because Cash Mattel said in those comments in 2025 last May, he said maybe Congress should look into all the trips my predecessors, Jim Comey and Chris Ray took. Is there a role for Congress here? Notwithstanding the fact that Congress doesn't take up all its responsibilities that it could, but what does oversight look like? Well, I mean, in a normal time, Congress would be asking for why these flights are so expensive, and if Kash Patel is reimbursing the government for the ones that are personal in nature. You know, I want to, in normal times, an inspector general would also look into this matter. It is not a partisan matter. It's a waste, fraud, and abuse matter, a question of expenditures. In normal times, the newspaper and media reporters like myself would be able to obtain through a Freedom of Information Act request the details of what these expenditures were and when Kash Patel was reimbursing them. But to Mike's very good point about traveling sparingly, the first time an FBI director in history was ever fired by a president was by President Clinton, and it was FBI director Sessions. The reason that he was fired was there was a pattern found by auditors that he had basically taken a lot of personal trips and created the image that these were for business by setting up meetings that seemingly had a government purpose. And many FBI agents that we have spoken to, many sources in law enforcement that we have spoken to about this kind of travel that they are outraged about, are saying essentially that these meetings are a fig leaf, that these are a cover, and they are really disturbed by this travel. We will continue to report on this, but that is what the oversight would normally try to dig into. Michael, to that point, the New York Times has done some reporting about the fact that on his trip to Italy, where he celebrated with the hockey team, there were a handful of meet and greets. And then there were hours of downtime, private meals and so-called cultural activities. I think that's what showed up on the internal schedule that the New York Times obtained. So this fig leaf idea, I guess my deeper point is, are FBI agents mad that he's using a private jet? Or is it is it indicative about something else? Is it is it something else that this behavior signals? It's indicative that he is not about being the FBI director because he feels he has a debt and a responsibility to the country, but more that he wants to be an FBI director because of the power and perquisites that it gives him in terms of being able to live this sort of jet-setting lifestyle. He claimed that he went to Italy in order to examine how the Italians and the international community were handling security for the Olympics so that there could be lessons learned when the United States holds the Olympics or when we hold the World Cup. Now, the FBI absolutely does things like that, but I am unaware of it ever being the director. It is the assistant director over the critical incident response group. It is the commander of the hostage rescue team. It is somebody who actually has a real job at the FBI that involves providing security and intelligence for mass events. Cash Patel is not that person. If anybody out there believes that he was really in Italy for work reasons and not to knock back beers with the USA hockey team, then they have a severe gullibility problem. Carol, it's interesting as we watch these images of Cash Mattel celebrating. He's been under some scrutiny. I don't know if he feels really secure that there are a whole bunch of, you know, appointees in the government who are under more scrutiny than he is. But it is it's a little surprising. The tenor of this is surprising, given the fact that that folks are focusing on him. What does that reflect? Is he just does he feel that he's not vulnerable to anything? That's a great question. You know, my colleague Ken and I reported at the latter part of 2025 that there were discussions inside the White House about removing Kash Patel as FBI director, that the president was taking conversations about that and considering it. And, of course, later we had various spokespeople denying that that ever happened. But what we've heard since is that Patel is basically safe, quote unquote, and that the administration has concluded that there is no reason to remove him, at least before the midterms, that they don't want the president to be in a situation of appearing to have made a mistake in his selection of FBI director. Patel has been an incredible ally of the president, a stalwart supporter, advocate, and cheerleader. He never fails in that regard. And that's something that administration sources tell us puts him very high up on the quote-unquote protected list. It's very different than the first administration, as you'll remember, when Trump actually removed the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who had to seem to have a knack for wanting to fly on private jets with questionable reasons and and fig leaf business meetings. Carol, thanks for your great reporting on this. We appreciate that you and Ken. Carol Lennig and Michael Feinberg, thank you both for joining me today. When we return, Donald Trump's as yet unrevealed plans for Iran and the giant problem he's creating by walking away from the deal that stopped Tehran from building nuclear weapons. We'll get to that after a short break. The U.S. military deployed on the streets of America. Whole communities targeted for removal. There was tremendous anxiety as they saw neighbors and friends being taken. And when accountability finally came knocking, the burn order to cover it all up. I never believed that America would be doing this. A stain on this country, one that we said we would never repeat. Rachel Maddow presents Burn Order. All episodes available now. Donald Trump's State of the Union address went on for about 90 minutes even before he mentioned Iran. And when he did, as the New York Times puts it, Trump only spent three minutes talking about it, largely repeating his vague talking points from recent days, doing very little to explain why he had amassed the largest amount of U.S. military firepower in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. End quote. All right. Trump's lack of a coherent explanation was made worse by an accusation that Iran is again pursuing a nuclear program that Trump said in the same speech has already been obliterated by the United States. And you wouldn't know it from his address alone, but a much larger attack on Iran, a country of 93 million people, comes with a long list of questions and possible consequences. And even though Trump claims that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff believes action against Iran would be, quote, easily won, end quote, Axios reports that behind the scenes, General Dan Cain, the only military leader briefing Trump in recent weeks on Iran, has actually been advising Trump and top officials that a military campaign against Iran could, quote, carry significant risks, in particular, the possibility of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict, end quote. Imagine that possibility of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict. I want to bring in good columnists and geopolitics analysts, Bobby Ghosh and Paul Rykoff. He's the host of the Independent Americans podcast and the founder and CEO of Independent Veterans of American Guys. Good to see you both. Thank you very much. This is our no hair segment or no hair on your head segment of the day. I'll grow a goatee for the next one. Bobby, let's talk about this for a second, because Donald Trump trumpeted his Venezuela successes last night, Which is weird and instructive because Venezuela, we only took out one person. We didn't actually, there was no regime change that occurred in Venezuela for the moment. Venezuela and Iran are not the same thing. Iran is a big, populous, armed, influential country. And a lot farther away from where we are. Iran is, to compare with Iraq, the last Middle Eastern disaster, Iran is three times larger. It has a much larger, much better trained, better equipped military than Iraq did. And for several years now, it has been anticipating war with either Israel or with the United States. Now, it did go to war with Israel for a brief period last year, and it took a shellacking from the Israelis. But it made no difference to the actual political status quo in Iran. The regime remained Everything about the Iranian political landscape remained unchanged Short of putting American boots on the ground and taking a risk that is much larger than the risk that we took in Iraq I don't see that situation changing. Trump is not saying he wants regime change in Iran. He's dancing around it. He's not really saying it. But he's not even really saying what he wants. He wants a deal. He says he wants a deal. He's putting pressure on them to get a deal. But the outlines of that deal are not clear. He says he wants a nuclear deal. But we had a nuclear deal that he pulled us out of. He's now or his people who represent him on television are suggesting that he wants a better deal than the one that Obama got. What does a better deal mean? He's saying that the Iranians must say they don't want a nuclear weapon. Iranians have said that over and over again. They've come out and said, we don't want a nuclear weapon. Do we believe them? That's a different question. But if we just want them to say it, they've already said it. The previous deal went beyond that. It allowed the International Energy Agency, the UN watchdog of the United Nations, It allowed them to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities to make sure that they didn't get well. And they certified it. The IAEA certified it that Iran was living up to what they committed. Well, and Iran did, from time to time, break its promises. And the IAEA was able to point that out. And the world was able to bring pressure. So there was a deal. To the extent of the understanding of that deal, that deal was working. Trump pulled us out of it. He wants a new deal. he won't say what that new deal should be. So, Paul, this is where a veteran becomes important because we like to think wars and interventions and things like this, this pressure tactic to get a deal are like video games because we use planes and we use drones and it's all going to be fine. This is more complicated, right? As we said, this is a sophisticated country with a brutal regime, but they've got a lot of tools at their disposal and they've got a lot of allies. yeah there's a dangerous thing happening in this country right now ali and it's the rise of a new generation of chicken hawks people who think the war is easy people who are going to sell you that this can be cleanly without human cost that everything will be over very very briefly it sounds like the echoes of rumsfeld and so many others who sent me to iraq and after venezuela trump's got this you know full head of steam i think he actually has convinced many people that It can be surgical. It can be done without any American casualty. But the reality is it's much more complicated. He was supposed to be the no regime change guy. Now he looks like the regime change guy every week. And keep in mind, he's already hit eight countries just in this year. I've got the list. It's Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, somewhere in the Caribbean. We don't know where exactly. Syria, Nigeria, Venezuela. And he wants to hit Iran again. He probably wants to hit Mexico. After today, he might want to hit Cuba. He also wants to continue to deploy troops domestically, and he might want to invoke the Insurrection Act. The most important story in the world, and especially coming out of last night, is that Donald Trump can do anything he wants for the most powerful military the world has ever seen, and nothing is stopping him. Last night, it wasn't about making a case. It was about checking a box. He doesn't care what Congress says. There's no guardrails, and he's all gas, no brakes. And right now, it looks like he's looking for a reason to hit Iran, and that could come at any minute, or there may not even be a reason. He wants to hit Iran and he may hit Iran no matter what. Guys, hold on for a second. I want you to stay there while we take a short break. We'll be right back. All right, I'm back with Bobby and Paul. Bobby, the Venezuelan diaspora, particularly in America, really sort of applauded the idea that Donald Trump had gone in and taken Maduro out and I think wanted a little more change than they got. They didn't want the same government to be in place. This is a similar problem with Iran. There are a lot of influential Iranian expats in America who would really like to see regime change in Iran. Venezuela is a lot easier to deal with than Iran. We didn't get that. So whether or not you like regime change, it's a very hard thing to do. And if Donald Trump goes halfway into Iran, but we don't get regime change, that's going to be unsatisfying to a lot of people. Exactly right. Because more than likely, if there is a change in regime in Iran, the next lot would be even more hard line than this lot. It's hard to think of it, but that's the most likely outcome. The Iranian diaspora is more divided than the Venezuelan diaspora. There are elements of the Venezuelan-Iranian diaspora that would cheer on an American military intervention. But there are many in that diaspora that don't want military. They want support for the opposition. Yes. They want Trump to keep his initial promise. Remember, this all starts. To protect the protesters. That's right. This all starts with Trump saying he wants to protect the protests and the protesters. He's not talking about them anymore, really. There are many in the diaspora who would prefer that to a military option. They know that a military confrontation with the United States and Iran will wind up creating a— They've seen what happened in Iraq. You would have enormous damage to the country, huge numbers of innocent civilians killed, and at the end of it, no real resolution, possibly no real regime change. So a lot of Iranian friends of mine who live outside of Iran are not cheering on a military action by the United States. They would rather diplomacy. They would rather pressure through international. These things are slower. They may be frustrating. But in the case of Iran, they have had some effect over time. It got us the 2015 deal. It got us the 2015 deal. You could also say that the sanctions regime has weakened the Iranian government and has a direct contribution to the protests. Correct, because the currency has collapsed. That's right. Paul, Donald Trump did make a reference to 32,000 protesters who had been killed, but he did say many weeks ago, we've got your back. That's a serious thing. When the president says we've got your back against a regime that is killing its own people, there are some people who say, why don't you back that up now? We've gone out. We've been killed in the streets. We keep sending waves of people out. There's more protests in Iran now. It's a tricky situation. Yeah, and in some ways it's already too late because a lot of those people have bullets in their backs. I mean, they've been killed. They've been slaughtered by the thousands. We don't even know how many. Look, I think it's important to remember everybody understands that this regime is bad and that having them out would be a good thing. The question always has to be what happens next? What is the plan for what happens afterward? We didn't have a plan in Iraq. We still don't fully understand the plan in Venezuela. So who's going to rule Iran? What is the security situation going to look like? and very central to any case for war that any president should make, is what is the cost at home? How many Americans could die here? Is it 1,000 allowable? Is 10,000 allowable? Because if you think we're going to go into Iran and lose no Americans, you're absolutely delusional. But I think he thinks that. I think he thinks that, Paul. I don't think General Cain thinks that, but I think he does. And that's the danger. Yeah. That's the danger of his president. He's a person who doesn't understand the personal cost. And I always say this, look, if you're not a chicken hawk, why isn't your son going? Barron Trump's of age. He can enlist tomorrow. He can put his own family skin in the game like so many others because he doesn't look at it through that prism. And when you do, then the stakes become very different. He has an obligation to talk about the financial cost, to talk about what it would cost at the VA if this goes sideways, and human cost because he's giving the Americans the idea that this will be quick and easy. And that is almost never the case. Also, we have to remember that Iran is a regime that's capable of striking outside of its own borders. Venezuela wasn't like that. Iran has proxy militaries and militias and terrorist groups all over the Middle East. You don't have to have American boots on the ground in Iran for Americans to be in harm's way. We have bases. We have civilians. There are tens of thousands of Americans, hundreds possibly, all over the Gulf area, in oil rigs, in oil installations, in Dubai, in Riyadh, all over the Middle East, there are tens of thousands of Americans, civilians, who would come directly in harm's way. Yes, we're now beginning to ask people to leave the region. Not all of them are going to be able to leave the region. Then there's a question of American business interests in all of those regions that could be hurt. Iran has ways of hurting America that Venezuela never did, and frankly, neither did Iraq. And so for anyone to suggest that No blood will be shed as long as we are shooting from a distance, sending missiles. Or in a plane or something. Or shooting from high altitude. They don't understand the Iranian way of war. The Iranian way of war is not the American way of war. Iran has tried, let's not forget, to assassinate people in this city. Correct. In New York City. That's how far their reach is. So Americans are going to be in harm's way in parts of the world that we haven't really thought through yet. Guys, thanks very much for your thoughtfulness on a topic that I hope the president would devote this sort of thoughtfulness to. Bobby Ghosh, Paul Rykoff, we appreciate your time. When we return, a landing spot for our top prosecutor fired by the Trump administration and a sign that there are still big law firms unafraid to run afoul of Donald Trump. That story after a quick break. In an age of law firms capitulating to the Trump administration, one has a high-profile new partner, and it's perhaps a sign that they're not afraid to do things Donald Trump might not like. Maureen Comey, the daughter of James Comey, who was abruptly fired by the Trump administration without cause, was named a partner at Patterson, Belknap, Webb, and Tyler today. And not a bad get for them. In her former role as the United States, the assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan, she helped prosecute massive cases against Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Sean Combs. She spoke to the New York Times in an interview this week and had this to say about her former workplace, quote, quote, what we've seen over the last year is a complete destruction of the space between politics and the Department of Justice. She added that a series of norm shattering events in the department had made all the clearer just how important a robust defense bar is to stand up to government overreach, end quote. She's currently suing over her dismissal, arguing that she was fired for being the daughter of James Comey. We'll stay on that story. Another break for us and we'll be right back. Back tomorrow. 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.