'Toxic Mix'

People act like the culture wars started five minutes ago.

Meanwhile, adults have been panicking about books since forever.

Bandcamp, our top ranked podcast about band books, is back for its tenth season.

This time around, we're reading JD Salinger's classic, The Catcher and the Rye.

We're reading the book out loud, covered to cover one chapter per episode.

By the way, we have no clue what's going to happen.

We should have read this book in school.

I don't know why neither of us did.

So you're basically going to hear us dumbling over words,

trying to figure it out as we go.

It's going to be embarrassing, it's going to be chaos.

So if you've never read it before but always wanted to,

or you want to experience it again through a set of new eyes, now's your chance.

That sounds like you're kind of show you already know where to find us.

That's bandcamp.

Band, like in band books.

Not band like tubas and snare drums.

Good evening and welcome to the weeknight on Michael Still with

Simone Sanders Townsend and Alicia Mnendes.

Tonight, a massive red flag for the president,

as anger over the Iran war and rising prices boils over into nationwide

no-king protests.

Trump just keeps putting his head in the sand.

Then a dangerous change of tune the president now seems to be considering

sending boots on the ground to fight his war choice.

Former CIA director John Brennan is at the table to respond.

In breaking moments ago, Eric Swalwell has just sent a cease and

to cease letter to the FBI.

After MSNOW reports Kash Patel's agency appears to be targeting the congressman,

the new details coming up.

But we start tonight with the growing resistance to Donald Trump and his policies,

just seven months before the midterm elections.

Organizers of the no-kings protests say more than 8 million people

participated in more than 3,300 events across all 50 states

and 15 countries around the world.

Demonstrators, including elected officials and community leaders,

chanted defiant messages and carried homemade signs that condemned the war in Iran,

threats against voting rights, and the White House's mass deportation push

among other topics.

We are the voices of the voiceless.

And that's what we're doing here today.

Our voice is being heard.

That's part of our right as an American.

And I'm not just going to stand by and let these atrocities happen.

We're all human beings and oh my gosh, you know,

what's happening in the world is horrible.

And it's all because of one guy who has a stupid ego

and thinks he's above everyone else.

Of course, that one guy spent the day at his Florida golf resort

insulated by Loyalists.

While he can shield himself from the actual protests,

he can not ignore the political realities of his unpopular war

and the economic angst that's causing among Americans.

Just today, a new UMass Amherst poll of US adults put Trump's approval

at 33% that is the lowest point of his second term.

71% say Trump is not handling inflation well,

and 63% say the president is handling Iran poorly.

Speaking of the war, today the president contradicted himself

in a single social media post saying great progress had been made

with negotiations, then threatening retribution

by completely obliterating Iran's power infrastructure

if Tehran does not agree to his terms.

Experts say that might be a war crime.

Iran denies any direct negotiations or underway.

And today, Iranian state media called Trump's proposal

excessive and unrealistic.

Tonight, tens of thousands of additional US forces

are now positioned in the region,

raising prospects of a ground war that is becoming

increasingly unpopular, even within Trump's own party.

Our House for Bubblegum is comfortable with the prospect

of the US and its own brand.

No, we're not comfortable with that.

The last thing we want to do is play troops on the ground

as something I do not support.

Joining us now, Angela Carson, President of Media Matters

and former CIA Director John Brennan,

he is an MSNOW Senior National Security and Intelligence Analyst.

You know what I was thinking about when I was looking at the photos

from this weekend and on all the coverage,

is that the founders were absolutely obsessed

with one particular question.

How do you prevent a president from becoming a king?

And they didn't just mean in title, but they really meant

in behavior.

And so, so many things that they built into the framing

of this country was to prevent just that.

And so nearly 250 years later,

on the birth, the 2050th anniversary of America,

they have this outpouring months before we hit that official 250 of people in the street saying,

no, we do not want a king.

To me just felt, I don't know, full circle for lack of a better term.

And that as a reminder, that it's a democracy,

but only if you continue to fight for it.

Yeah, and I would say that in the backdrop of what's happening with Iran,

it's even more to your point.

Because one of the things, even Abraham Lincoln wrote about this,

that people hated about kings,

was that they had the power to unilaterally bring people into war

without any checks or accountability.

And here, literally, that is one of the biggest things,

is why they wrote the Constitution the way that they did.

I mean, it always feels weird to romanticize it,

but it's real.

You know, they said Congress is the ones that does this,

not a single person, because they were actually trying to reject that particular notion

that a single person could start wars.

And yet in the backdrop of these protests,

is one of the very things when they meant when they said no kings

when they started the United States.

And I think it's precisely on your point.

And it demonstrates why you're seeing this mass pushback

and not only that you're seeing it,

but that it's growing at a faster and faster clip,

because at that $8 million people number that you cited,

that's more than two million from the last protest

and more than double, almost double the first no kings protest.

That means that there's momentum, that the movement is growing,

that it's not the opposite, it's not stagnant.

It's reinforcing the very thing.

Actually, no kings.

No one should have that much power.

It's bad for all of us.

Yes, and that's, I agree with all of that, a thousand percent.

But I want to share with you two conversations I had this weekend

that center on the points you just made.

And particularly the last point about the numbers.

Because so one conversation was around this idea

that yeah, it was just a million more than the last time.

So that means the momentum is slow because everybody anticipated

and the organizers were very clear about this.

We're not trying to push a number.

What we're trying to do is let give an opportunity for everyone

to participate in and put their voices on the table.

But people get caught up in the numbers.

So you go from seven to eight million and people say,

oh, the momentum is slow.

And the other thing, the other comment from a completely different person was,

yeah, I was there.

They were in New York.

They looked around and they were like,

yeah, but all these conflicting different messages all over the place.

There's no coherent theme.

There's no consistent messaging.

And my pushback on that was, it's all of that.

That's a king touches all of those things from the war.

The director Brennan knows has expertise in to the culture that you have

expertise in to the economy and all the other aspects of things that are going on.

Help address that part of it, Angela, because I think people

look at this and they see the numbers and they go, okay,

they'll eight million, but you framed it, I think, appropriately.

But then they look around, what's the message?

What's the thing that we should be taking away from?

And I'm like, it's everything.

It's all those things that you sit at your kitchen table,

pissed off about every night.

That's what no Kings talks about.

Yeah, it's simple in some ways.

It's not this.

It's not this.

It's not this.

It's not this.

And there may be, and that's probably why you see so many people showing up

for different reasons.

Because to your point, there are so many things bringing them out.

But they all agree, yeah, no Kings.

That's the storyline.

But it's not this.

That's effectively what it is.

And I understand the naysayers, but I think we shouldn't lose sight of it.

And I am one of those naysayers too.

I'm usually the guy that's the bummer at every party and every table.

And so I do play that role.

But I think one thing we shouldn't lose sight of is that it actually was historic.

I think that term gets used too often.

And then I think the news media is doing it.

I remember the tea party and how that was covered.

Oh, I do too.

Okay.

And I mean, that was, and this is a significantly bigger,

more significant, more momentous event.

And if you look at international cars of this,

yeah, they are treating it where the way it is.

Ground breaking, massive.

And I think part of this is looking for some hope

that there's something in America that's still America that maybe will blossom.

And also because it's true.

And the other piece, and the so what?

Because I get that's really what people are getting to.

So what?

And if you're not going, we are dealing with real authoritarianism here.

You're not going to stop it by just shaking your fists.

And it's clearly not happening day to day

from Republicans and people in Congress, right?

That's going to take a real big shift.

That's what the election is about.

You have to build the connective tissue

and the antibodies to fight this every day.

They have a lot of power.

Trump has a lot of power.

We are not on the other end of this yet.

This is not a foregone conclusion

that we remain a democracy.

We have a real big test coming up.

And so to me, the so what?

Is not only that they're putting antibodies into the system.

All that organizing has a long tail.

People go out in their communities.

And we're seeing that.

The so what from the last one

is that more people ran for all of these special elections

than they previously did.

They're running in places.

They did Democrats are running in places.

They typically don't go.

Don't even think about running.

And they're giving a shot at it.

That matters.

That's the so what?

And the second so what is that you started

to see the seeds of this event

being turned into building something

that is more durable

because you had really contested Senate candidates

showing up to organize people to sign them up.

Then that is the next step.

That's how you turn something that's a storyline

into durable political power.

That's what I saw a lot of those candidates.

You saw Michigan representative Mallory McMarrow.

You saw a main governor, Janet Mills,

Graham Platner, spoke at a protest.

But didn't we don't have photos of him.

But he was there.

Haley Stevens and Michigan.

Senator Ed Markey and Massachusetts.

That's Multinant and Massachusetts.

There were many others to your point

about the fact that it is politically relevant

in this moment.

I've been thinking a lot director,

Brennan, about what has transpired

since the last no Kings rally in October 1.

You've had two United States citizens

die at the hand of Donald Trump's police force.

And to you now have this war of choice with Iran.

I want to go back to the president's social media posts.

Have you, in negotiations that you have been privy to,

ever seen a commander in chief say

that peace negotiations were ongoing

while simultaneously threatening the nation

in question with physical force?

No, I don't think anybody ever has.

It's clear that there's this toxic mix of traits

that Donald Trump has, which is he's a pathological liar.

He is incompetent on so many fronts.

And he's also deeply corrupt,

which I think is now being manifest,

and manifesting itself in terms of the Gulf War.

That's why you have these wholly incoherent,

wholly inconsistent flailing about,

because, first of all, again,

there was no real rationale for this war.

Secondly, he's trying to figure out

what his next move is,

and he doesn't understand exactly

how he's going to get himself out of this mess.

And thirdly, the Iranians now seem to have

a lot more influence and cards to play,

especially in terms of the straight-of-home moves,

and allowing shipping to get out or not.

And so therefore, I think Donald Trump is trying to present

a false narrative to the American public

by saying, yes, the Iranians now seem more reasonable.

They're trying to negotiate.

But, you know, he has protected himself

for so many years in this cocoon of disinformation.

But the reality now is just penetrating

and taking away that cocoon.

And it's very clear in terms of how the war is going.

Yes, we're decimating the Iranian military.

But in terms of a funny and off-ramp

or getting out of it,

as American consumers see their gas prices rise

when they fill up their cars.

So across the board, which is why,

you know, talking about the No Kings rally,

and let's not forget Bruce Springsteen,

a New Jersey guy, you know, in Minneapolis.

Jersey corner.

Jersey head is in the cat.

But intelligence analysts look for trends.

And we see a trend here.

And we also look for, okay,

if there's a trend of demonstrations of protests,

what is fueling it?

Is the fuel going away?

Or is the fuel increasing?

And both on domestic front and on the international front,

there is more and more fuel

that is feeding those fires of protests and demonstrations.

And what are these protests

looking toward?

Looking toward the November elections.

So again, I think that people

who are organizing these rallies recognize

that there is still several months,

you know, before the November elections.

And they want to make sure

that that momentum is going to continue

and that the people are going to feel as though

that their voices are making a difference.

You, I'm struck by intelligence analysts look for trends.

That's the trend with the protesters

and the people in this country raising their voices.

What is the trend then you see

from this administration?

Well, I see it here.

There are the first light.

Well, you pointed out the 33% approval rating of Donald Trump.

That's a trend.

As a downward trend, as a bad trend,

we see that inflation is going to go up

as a result of increased energy prices

and across the board.

So, you know, I think that the trend is that they are

doubling down in Iran, which is unfortunate,

because if they start to deploy troops

and they put troops on Iranian soil,

it's just going to get worse.

And so it seems as though they're digging more and more

as a way to justify and validate

their initial decision to go in there.

And another trend they see, unfortunately,

is with Israel.

Israel, they're going forward more and more in Lebanon.

They passed a lot today in the Knesset

that they're going to hang Palestinians,

you know, who are found guilty.

But they're not a murder,

but they're not going to hold Israelis

to that same, you know, requirement.

So, you know, it just between...

I mean, two journalists were murdered

over this morning, over the weekend,

between the last 24 to 48 hours.

And the Israeli military, the government,

said that those journalists were connected to Hezbollah

and they were essentially fronting for the regime.

And that's why they had to be taken out.

It feels like a very slippery slope.

Well, Netanyahu and Trump, I think, are fueling

all of the dissension here in the United States

in terms of continuing to move forward in this.

And then on the domestic front,

obviously, the implications, the ramifications

of what's going on in the Gulf are going to be felt here

across the board.

It's not just on energy prices.

It's not a lot of other products.

The global supply chains are going to be affected.

And so the ripple effect is going to be felt for quite some time.

So again, by looking out over the next six months,

you know, toward the elections,

I just don't see things going in a positive direction

for Donald Trump, which I think worries a lot of people

in terms of what might he try to do in order

to prevent the inevitable.

So I'm going to stay with you, Director Brennan,

because I like where you were going on the trends thing.

I always love the intelligence piece,

the spy side of this equation.

That's what called Director Brennan a spy to his face.

Yeah, we're all friends here.

But here's the deal.

That trend concept, you talk about it domestically.

What trends do you see internationally?

What trends do you see in Iran that we should be either concerned about

or pay more attention to when you're looking at our allies

and how they're responding when you're looking at the other pieces out there

that seem to take a back seat to Iran right now like Ukraine.

The movement of Russia that's playing seemingly both sides.

I think Putin is punking the hell out of Trump,

but that's easy to do.

Either do is give him an award or say nice things about him

and you get your way, he'll give you a billion dollars plus.

So, but what trend lines do you see?

Well, in Russia, the trend line is very positive.

The price of oil has gone up.

Some sanctions have been relieved on Russia.

And also, Trump has allowed now Russia to provide oil to Cuba.

On the Gulf, I see the Iranians becoming more and more defiant.

They're hunkering down.

They are ready for a long fight.

They recognize that all they need to do is to survive.

And they have endured the blows of the first few weeks of this conflict

and now believe that they're in it for the long haul.

As far as our allies and partners around the globe,

they see that the United States is no longer to be trusted the way it had been

for the past 75 years since World War II.

That reliance in the United States and knowing that the United States is going to be a real advocate

and proponent for global peace and security, for human rights,

for democratic movements, for alliance and partnerships,

as opposed to just dismissing the significance of NATO

and tearing up different types of treaties and other types of things.

So, I think that the trend line in the globe is that the United States now

is no longer seen as this force for good globally,

which is why I think a lot of countries are going to be hedging their bets

with Russia, China, and others.

Director Brennan, we have more questions for you.

Hope you'll stay.

Angela, we're going to see you a little later in the hour.

Thank you both so much for getting us started.

We want to discuss the growing likelihood that the President could put boots on the ground

despite bipartisan disapproval of such a move.

And later, Republicans decide to own the partial government shutdown

after refusing to support a Senate-backed plan

that would have funded most of the Department of Homeland Security.

Congressman Roger Krishnamurthy is going to join us.

You're watching The Weeknight.

Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day

with the MS now Daily Newsletter.

Analysis by Experts You Trust.

Video highlights from your favorite shows.

Plus, updates on our latest podcasts and election coverage.

Sign up at MS.Now.

The New York Times reports there are now more than 50,000 U.S. troops in the Middle East,

roughly 10,000 more than usual.

This as the President decides his next move in the war,

including putting boots on the ground,

which is an option he did not discuss last night.

Are you considering still putting boots on the ground

and what you do?

That was not going to come up.

I just have lots of alternatives.

We have tremendous numbers of ships over there.

We don't need them all because of the power.

Joining us now is Rachel Van Landingham, retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and Judge

Advocate General. She's now a professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles.

Former CIA Director John Brennan is still with us.

Professor Van Landingham, good to have you with us.

The President's continued threats to quote,

obliterate Iran's power infrastructure.

Does that constitute a war crime?

Thanks for having me, Alicia.

Not per se, because I would hope that the President's overbroad,

bombastic statement would be filtered by the military professionals who have

obligation to follow the law of war.

And they would only strike targets after they've done an appropriate analysis

regarding the effect on civilians.

And that's the biggest issue here, right?

Is that yes, these can be what's considered a dual-use target,

because these power plants do provide support to the war sustaining

capability of Iran.

But by taking them out, how long are you going to take them out?

We're going to use temporary measures,

like we've done in previous wars,

or we're going to completely destroy them.

And what will be the immediate effect on civilians,

on civilian hospitals, on civilian homes, etc.

And so I would hope that was in a threat to commit a war crime,

because I do have a belief,

faith in our military professionals,

that they would filter that order to do it lawfully, at least I hope so.

Director Brennan, I want to keep Iran on the table for additional conversation,

but I want to add to that Cuba.

Because I think we're looking at a moment where the president has already made a choice

to engage in war with Iran, and now is bloviating and posturing and making noise

about potentially going after Cuba.

Let's listen to the president on Cuba being next.

I'm starting to mention that Cuba will be next.

Where did you mean by that exactly?

Cuba.

Yeah, Cuba is going to be next.

Cuba is going to be, Cuba's a mess.

It's a failing country.

Are they going to be next?

Within a short period of time, it's going to fail.

And we will be there to help it out.

We'll be there to help our great Cuban Americans,

who were thrown out of Cuba.

In many cases,

their family members were mutilated and killed by Castro.

El Cuba is going to be next, yeah.

What I find curious, aside from the ignorance of a statement like that,

because it's void of any conscience regarding sending men and women of our military into harm's way,

even in a place like Cuba, 90 miles off our shores.

How protective of Russia, sir, is are they of Cuba?

Because you sit back and you look at the three players in the Russia in the Russia sphere,

Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba.

Venezuela, take off the top, but you'll leave the substance of the government in place.

Russia probably okay with that.

Iran, okay, Russia's helping Iran, giving them intelligence about our movements

and where we are and what we're doing, right?

And that has emboldened Iran to your point in the last segment.

And now Cuba's sitting here and given the history and the arc of Cuba and this relationship

to the United States and the fact that we've been trying to take Cuba off the chess board

since the 1950s, how protective do you think Russia would be?

Will they cut the deal and say, all right, you could take out, take out, put the nephew in and cut

whatever side.

Let me just say, part of the reason you're asking this question is because Russian oil is

headed or currently at the shore of Cuba.

I mean, it was the one exception because today repeatedly, Caroline Levitt and the press briefing

said, our sanctions policy has not changed for the hard to the seizing of the oil going to Cuba.

So oil is at the center of all of this in so many respects, but there's also the politics

of business for Trump that goes beyond the oil.

The idea that now this is a feather he can put in his cap because the way he says that,

I took Cuba, nobody else could do what I did it. But how do you see it?

Well, Russia certainly doesn't have the leverage that the Soviet Union had during the

Cuban Missile Crisis Fair. And so Russia is not going to be able to challenge the United

States if we decide to move into Cuba. Like Trump says, and it's going to take it over.

But it could be negotiations behind the scenes between the Trump administration and the Putin

administration. In terms of if we do this, we'll let you bring in the oil. But also we want to

make sure that we're able to put our imprint on Cuba. And we know that Donald Trump does not

want an independent Cuba where democracy is going to flourish. He's going to want something that's

malleable. It corrupts Cuba going back to the days of Batista. So that is the casinos and other

types of things. So again, Donald Trump is a deal maker when it comes to things like that.

And so I could see him engaging with the Russians about this is what our plans are as far as

Cuba is concerned. And you'll get your cut somewhere either here or somewhere else. But

you're right. I mean, there's so many different pieces to this multi-regional chess board.

In terms of Ukraine, Russia, there's Iran, Russia, there's Cuba, Russia, there's Venezuela,

whatever else. And I don't have any confidence that Donald Trump is a good chess player. Putin

and President Xi of China, they both are.

No, the president did an interview. I believe it came out today where he said he just said the

the quiet part out loud. We're talking a lot about oil. He said in Iran, I think we just might

take the oil as though you can just roll up and take it. I think he's looking for a Venezuela

situation. I hear a willing participant in the leadership of that country to just

give the rights away. And I just don't think that situation is happening in Iran. But here's

the thing, the president says a lot. And I think it's hard to parse through what is true and what

is not true. Listen to Caroline Levy today during the White House press briefing on trusting Donald Trump.

I know the president insists that negotiations are underway. As you just mentioned,

he's also said that Iran has agreed to most of the 15 points. We just heard from Iran again,

they're saying no negotiations are taking place. They're calling the proposal extensive

unrealistic. So how do you swear that? What did how do you explain that discrepancy between the two?

I think the American people are smart enough not to take the word of a terrorist regime that has

chanted death to America for 47 years out their word. And I hope the journalist in this room are

wise enough not to take an Iranian regime that is repeatedly lied about our country, about our

values, about everyone in this room, frankly, for nearly five decades.

She goes on to say Professor Van Landingham and that press briefing that you know the president is

an American. He's the highest-ranking American and really just leaning in that folks should trust him.

But unfortunately, we have to be skeptical of everything the president says. Frankly, everyone

at a podium, their represents his administration says because at every single podium,

someone has lied. They've told us a lie and now they're asking the American people to just believe them.

It's frightening because at first I thought Caroline Levin was talking about our regime

I'm being lying for a while. Like I wait a second, she's talking about the Iranians because

President Donald Trump has not been honest with the American people time after time, year after year.

And so going back to his escalatory, deescalatory rhetoric, right? He's trying to have it both

way, saying we're negotiating, we're getting close to the end of the conflict, but I'm going to

send more troops there. I'm sending ground troops there just to keep my options open. Well,

as director Brennan alluded to accurately earlier in this show, you don't escalate to deescalate,

right? Usually escalation means going one way up. So if we're ratcheting up the pressure

by sending ground troops, which really is a, used to be a line in the sand for Congress, Congress

could stop this right now. If Congress said we're not going to fund this and we're going to pass

legislation to say, stop, Mr. President, filibuster proof, legislation, which they're not going

to do, right? But putting more American troops in harm's way, yet he says this is going to be

over soon. I would watch what he's doing versus listening to what he's saying. And he is putting

more troops in harm's way. He's cut and claiming that we may seize oil, which then again,

may be a legitimate military objective, but American soldiers and service members are going to die

in that attempt. American service members, special operation troops, incredibly well,

well trained, right? Our elite, if he sends them in to go after nuclear materials,

we're going to need a heck of a lot more than just the 50,000 in the area. So I do think this is,

we're not sure, it's a dangerous time, we're not sure who we can trust. And it's, yeah, we can't,

of course, we can't trust the Iranians, but show us that we can trust the folks in this

administration. That's what I would like to see. Oh goodness gracious. Retired air force,

Lieutenant Colonel Rachel Van Landingham. Thank you. Director Brennan, thank you very much.

We have some breaking news to get to. Congressman Eric Swalwell has just fired off a cease

and desist letter to FBI Director Cash Patel. After learning the bureau is preparing to release

files related to a decade-old investigation that found he did nothing wrong. More details in just

a moment, this is the week now.

Washington Post reports that Congressman Eric Swalwell has sent a cease and desist letter to

FBI Director Cash Patel demanding the FBI agree to not release decade-old files of Swalwell

and a suspected Chinese intelligence operative. The FBI never accused the Congressman of criminal

wrongdoing and a House ethics pro took no action after its investigation. Now look, we know that

even talking about any of this is giving some air time to MAGA conspiracies, but we think it's

very important to talk about it in the context of what Donald Trump is doing. The retribution

he is exacting across the country. According to MSNOW reporters, there is grave concern among

career FBI and DOJ officials about what appears to be an effort to smear the Congressman.

Swalwell, a fierce Trump critic is running to be California governor. Joining us now, Michael

Feinberg, F former FBI Assistant Special Agent in charge and MSNOW National Security and Intelligence

Analysts and Angela Corson is back with us at the table. Michael Feinberg, I want to talk about

that concern among career FBI and DOJ officials about what appears to be an effort to smear the

Congressman. You have this from the New York Times about their concerns specifically about

the files in the order from the administration. Supervisors advise the agents to lightly

redact the records. To obscure some sensitive information, told them the files would be shared

with senior administration officials in Washington. This is the part I want you to react to.

The order from FBI leadership has alarmed some career investigators, partly because the files

are extensive and contain a significant amount of classified material and private information.

Do you share the concerns of folks who both worry that this is a smear and worry that

sensitive information could be leaked in the process?

I think a good part of why I resigned almost a year ago was because of this very concern.

A stated desire on the part of cash Patel, aided by his deputies, to essentially turn the FBI's

reservoir of information and its investigative tools into what is essentially an opposition

research file for the MAGA movement. The FBI should speak in indictments. It should speak

in criminal charges. It should not be engaged in selectively releasing information about individuals

who were never charged with a crime. The minute it does that, it unlearns all the lessons that were

learned by trial and error through painful mistakes and public scandal that had finally remedied

in the aftermath of the church committee in the mid and late 70s. This is a step backwards,

not just for the FBI, but for the entire American polity.

Michael Feinberg mentioned the church committee. It was under J. A. Cooper's FBI from 1956 to 1971

where they ran this program that's known as Cointail Pro. It was a surveillance program. It was a

secret surveillance program that ended in 1971 because people found out about it. A surveillance

program targeted political figures, civil rights leaders, dissenters of the government, not because

they broke the law, but because they were on the wrong side of the administration.

When it became public, the program ended because everybody said, oh, this is crazy.

The difference now is that this FBI under Cache Patel is doing this right out in the open.

It's not secret, Angelo. They're not operating in the shadows. They're being loud and proud about

what they're doing in the targeting. And frankly, the reason as to why.

Fairx Lawwell was a go-along, to get along, and was a Democrat that Trump liked. He would not

be being targeted by the FBI. That's right. And I think that there's a couple of things to consider

here. One is that back then, that was shame was still an instrument of change. So if you could

get information out into the public, people would then respond accordingly because shame actually

mattered. That period is obviously gone. Especially as you know it, they don't care. But there's a

through line. And there's a piece of connective tissue because as you noted, it didn't stop until

there was reporting about it. And then they had to react because it got out there. That's what's

happening here. We shouldn't lose sight of that. You know, one of the reasons that Swalwell sent

that cease and desist letter is not just because of the reporting that the information was being

collected. That wasn't enough to actually take some type of action to seek a new referee, a new

mechanism change. It was the reports about the fact that that Cache Patel was planning to release

the information that he instructed the FBI to collect, that triggered this ability to say,

okay, maybe public shame doesn't work because that's part of the, you know, the feature is the bug

here to do that thing. But we can then go to another referee, the court. We can get some type of

action. We could try to get some type of action to prevent this mechanism from happening. And I

think that's the key to consider is that one of the through lines is the importance of actual

reporting and journalism in order to trigger some type of accountability event.

Yeah, it's interesting to me, Michael, when you're looking at the story with Cache Patel

and the Swalwell effort and this continued weaponization of institutions against individuals.

And to the extent that it gets rebuffed by a court at some point, they always try to find

another door a window to creep back through and through to get it all wrapped up again. And that's

that's the Swalwell story. And I think this will end the way all the other stories have ended.

And that is with a big nothing burger because there's no there there. That's been proven

a time and time again. The other side of this is what we now see coming up where Donald Trump

is already beginning to weigh in again to try to shape the outcome before it actually occurs.

And that is on what the Supreme Court is going to be engaging him this weekend. That's birthright

citizenship on Wednesday. The court is set to hold hearings on the president's desire to prevent

anyone born in the American in America from automatically becoming a citizen, birthright citizenship.

And so regardless of the parents' immigration status, this he wants to make the case.

We saw rolled out this past weekend at the NRCC fundraiser, Donald Trump sort of laying the ground

for this. And letting the folks know that it's time, those Republicans don't guess what,

guys, it's time for you to put a new crime bill on the table for Republicans to pass a tough

new crime bill that imposes harsh penalties for dangerous repeat offenders cracks down on rogue

judges. We got rogue judges that are criminals. They are criminals. What they do to our country,

the decisions that they hand down hurt our country. Now this comes a few days after Chief Justice

John Roberts made the point or warn that personally directed hostility is dangerous and has got to

stop. So clearly that shot from Rod Roberts landed across the president's bow.

You now have the president setting this up, trying to get the Congress to move with a new crime bill.

How do you see that narrative sticking? Do you see that prospect? And what could be the impact

from what the judges here this weekend on this Wednesday, do you think?

Well, I would take slight issue with describing what Roberts did as a shot across the

mile. If it was, it was the shot fired with the least velocity in the history of weaponry.

That's probably true. If you read his statement, he doesn't attribute these comments or sentiments

to anyone. He dances around it. He doesn't say this is coming from the president. He makes it sound

as if it's being formed out of the ether through some mysterious process none of us can understand.

John Roberts' decision, granting Trump essentially absolute immunity from anything remotely related

to an official act, a decision which is completely unmoored from the original text or meaning

of our constitution or any of the documents that the founders read when drafting it is exactly

why we are here in the first place. So I'll be honest, I'm really torn between watching John

Roberts squirm at a problem of his own making. And on the other hand, wishing he would get a

little bit more backbone and stop issuing these vague defenses and come out and actually say

what everybody knows is happening. Or well talked about it being a constant struggle to see

what is right in front of one's face, we all see it. Those with a megaphone, like the chief justice,

have an obligation to describe it. We have way too many opportunities to invoke George

Wallet just to want to say. This is very, very true. I know we've got to go, but

Barthritis citizenship, Angela, it seems like they don't think we can Google or at least pull up

what the history of this country was when, I don't know, they literally debated this thing and they

said it's not just about formerly enslaved people. That's right, they're not going to do that,

but it's the two line with the cash tell thing. This is just chum in the waters. I mean, they're doing

everything possible to deal with the poll numbers you talked about at the beginning of the show.

Right, Michael Feinberg and Angela Corson, thank you guys very much. In just a moment, folks,

mega voters are starting to turn on the president, going so far as to call him a liar over the war

in Iran. That's next on the week.

Some young mega men are growing disillusioned with the president over the war in Iran.

30-year-old veteran Joseph Pollett told Politico at this weekend, CPAC conference quote,

he's lied about everything. If you go into a war where there's no end game,

how is it going to end? There's no clear objective. War time alienation among young conservatives

is just one piece of a growing generational divide inside the GOP, which is stirring up real concerns

about the party's future. Samantha Kassel, a 27-year-old Republican strategist, told the New York Times,

quote, I think that mega is dying. I do. Between March 4th and March 16th, we've had a number of

folks in this universe of great prominence express their concern on the trend lines.

Let's take a quick listen to the Manosphere podcast host and what they had to say.

It just seems so insane based on what he ran on. This is why a lot of people feel betrayed,

right? He ran on no more wars and these stupid senseless wars. It feels like there's this war

machine and then our soldiers are put into these spaces and they're just there to serve in America

that they believe in. It just feels like it's causing a lot of pain and fear. Americans can't

think of what you don't care. They don't care about what's happening in Iraq. It's from

with a thumb enough to do it. They've been trying to get America to do this,

forever. And then they found a guy stupid enough to do it.

They found a guy stupid enough to do it. And the thing about it is he's right.

And so many ways that they now all these forces where you take the money piece,

you take the folks who were always kind of hyped up and wanting to deal with Iran militarily

who are now inside the bubble, inside the president's ear, bringing those forces together.

Guys like this who were sold to build a goods in the last election of how this president

was going to govern, what he was going to do, he was going to cut prices because Joe Biden

increased the financial burden on every American in the country. Even though that's not true,

but I'm saying it in their perspective, and it wasn't true because he started to alleviate

that in a lot of ways. But for those folks now, this is coming home in a very direct and personal

way. And here's the other piece that I think is interesting. They've got young sons and daughters

who with the drum beat for draft could get caught up in this in some other way as well.

It's actually crazy. When the Fox News poll came out last week that also showed erosion of Donald

Trump's numbers. And to be very clear, what we're talking about is erosion. When you hear the

the Manel Spear podcast guys, Andrew Schultz of it all say, oh, I mean, nobody wants this war in Iran,

they want health care. That is erosion. And one could argue, okay, this is just online.

But I think that Fox News poll last week also indicated that this is more real.

In that political reporting, they had a quote from the president of the Ohio College Republicans.

And this is what he said. He said, Trump and Republicans in general are going to have major

issues in the midterms in 2028. If we can't wrap this up in a relatively quickly amount of time,

that is, that's just that online. The president of the Ohio College Republicans is on campus talking

to other young Republicans, other young would-be voters, actual voters. And that's a direct thing from

the ground. And so do I think a lot of people are going to, all these young men are going to walk

away from Trump and vote for Democrats this fall? No, but I think that they could not vote.

I think that Donald Trump's margins, if we talk about a landslide election, he won that election

in 2024. He won by not that much, okay? Like, yes, the battlegrounds, but if you look at the

actual number of voters, it wasn't a huge, huge castle. So it is enough for this erosion.

Can't we'll make a difference in the midterms? It'll make a difference in 2028.

It's just so interesting to me too, the folks we're trying to keep the number of Naga alive,

right? To not go anywhere, there is another hour of the week and eight straight ahead.

We'll be talking with Congressman Rajak Krishnamurthy,

as Republicans abandoned Washington in the middle of a war and a partial government shutdown.

We're going to speak with one of the organizers of the flagship No Kings protests in Minneapolis

this weekend, Randy Weingarten. Stay with us.

People act like the culture wars started five minutes ago. Meanwhile, adults have been panicking

about books since forever. Bandcamp, our top ranked podcast about banned books, is back for its

10th season. This time around, we're reading JD Salinger's classic The Catcher in the Rye.

We're reading the book out loud, covered to cover one chapter per episode.

By the way, we have no clue what's going to happen. We should have read this book in school. I don't

know why neither of us did. So you're basically going to hear us dumbling over words,

trying to figure it out as we go. It's going to be embarrassing. It's going to be chaos.

So if you've never read it before, but always wanted to, or you want to experience it again

through a set of new eyes, now's your chance. That sounds like your kind of show you already know

where to find us. That's banned camp. Band, like in banned books. Not banned like tubas and snare drums.