F (3:55)

This is what the fake news misses. We've taken control of Iran's airspace and waterways. Without boots on the ground, we control their fate. But when a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it's front page news.

G (4:13)

I get it.

F (4:13)

The press only wants to make the president look bad. But try for once to report the reality.

A (4:24)

Thinskin doesn't get you too far. That was from a briefing he held this morning where he declared that more and larger waves of strikes deeper into Iran are on the horizon, that the United States is accelerating, not decelerating the conflict. And that, quote, we will take all the time we need to make sure that we succeed. Of course, what success looks like is a question that the administration, including Mr. Hegseth, has either failed to or refused to define publicly for the country. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs also told reporters that the US Military campaign will shift inland. Donald Trump's war escalating and expanding as his administration is very much sounding defensive and appearing to have no real plan that they're willing to share with the country is where we start today. Washington Post reporter John Hudson is here. Also joining us, former director of the CIA. Our senior national security and intelligence analyst John Brennan's here. And with me at the table, Paul Rykoff. He's the host of the Independent Americans podcast and the founder and CEO of Independent Veterans of America. How are you doing?

G (5:30)

I am bracing and processing like the rest of the world. But I'm going to come back to what I've been saying to you for months since he got elected. The most important story in the world is that Donald Trump can do anything he wants for the most powerful military the world has ever seen, and nothing is stopping him. Not in that intro, which was very comprehensive. He also hit Ecuador yesterday. He had an entirely New country. And the question is not really what is Trump going to do? Because we know what Trump is going to do. The question is, what is Congress going to do? They didn't even interrupt their weekend for an emergency session when he declared war, waged war on Iran, and six Americans died. They still haven't voted on Iran, and he's already onto another country. So Congress is broken. This is not working. And the question should be, can anybody do anything to stop him or even slow him down? I think that's the question for any elected leader of any party you have on this show, because he's just going all gas, no brakes, and throwing his middle finger up in the rearview mirror as they try to catch up. And he's gonna go for boots on the ground because he said he will believe him when he says it. He telegraphs his punches, he does what he says. And it could be Cuba next.

A (6:35)

Six US Service members have lost their lives. A strike was intercepted above Turkey. We're going to have Senator Blumenthal on in the next block. He said he's never been more afraid of boots on the ground in Iran. What does that mean?

G (6:54)

I don't know. I mean, frankly, I'm tired of the tweets and the posts and the cable news hits from all the senators who say that they're afraid or they're alarmed. The question is, what's their strategy? What is Blumenthal gonna do about it? Like, is there anything he's gonna do to stop boots on the ground for the folks like Elizabeth Warren who say this is an illegal war, then impeach him, do something to slow him down. And this is a pox on both parties. Obviously, the Republicans are in control here, but they're not even gonna get a War Powers Act. Maybe tomorrow, like, Congress is failing here, and I think NATO will likely get involved. We've got a full regional war now. It's not contained only to Iran. And there's no sense that this is gonna slow down. It seems to accelerate. So it's a true test of our very basic foundations of democracy. If Congress can't stop him and our allies can't stop him, what can?

A (7:42)

Director Brennan, let me just ask you, if you were sort of assessing what was happening in this country, as the CIA Director for the UK or for another, what would your assessment be of where things stand here right now?

C (7:57)

I think Paul said it very well. The fact that all of the United States, very formidable resources and capabilities in the military, law enforcement, all across the board are in the hands of someone Like Donald Trump, I think a lot of intelligence chiefs around the globe are looking at the United States and saying things are really broken there in terms of how policy is formulated. It's not. It's just something that Donald Trump decides to do. And so I think it's really quite worrisome. And I think the feeling is it's, we're at a very dangerous point, because as this Trump realizes, I think, that the war in Iran is not going the way he had hoped and wanted. This is a real mess, and how do we get out of this? And it really, aside from the fact that this is such a needless war and such unnecessary death and destruction is taking place, as pointed out, the fact that it's almost like an amateur show, if you really wanted to go forward with some type of regime change, you wouldn't have just had the military operations. You would have been doing a lot of advanced work in terms of coordinating with allies, in terms of reaching into the Iranian military and trying to recruit generals and units and get them to defect as soon as the bombs started to fall, arming and equipping and training, such as the Iranian Kurds and other types of things. So there'd be a simultaneous combustion inside of Iran. As much as I don't think that should have happened at all, in light of the lack of any imminent threat, it just shows that there wasn't any type of strategic planning that went on. And so it's ad hoc ism that's happening. And unfortunately, people like Marco Rubio and others, they know better. But the fact that Donald Trump is leading them all around by the ring in their noses again, I think the Brits and others are looking at us and saying, my God, the world has changed so dramatically because the United States is acting in such an arbitrary, capricious and reckless manner. What is coming ahead of us? And I do think that there are a lot of questions about what the rest of this year and the rest of the Trump administration is going to look like.

A (9:54)

Director Brennan, I want to read you this. Reporting in the Wall Street Journal. To your point of, I mean, regime change is one of the rationales that's been offered up by Donald Trump. Wall Street Journal is reporting this. The son of Ayatollah Khamenei is the top contender for supreme leader. Quote, the son of Iran's slain theocratic leader is a top contender to replace his father, to steer the embattled Islamic Republic and its worst conflict in decades. That's according to people familiar with the matter. He would likely opt for an even more hardline direction as Supreme Leader. Iranian officials and analysts say this feels like the worst possible outcome. What has already been the loss of American treasure in the form of six lives, that we take someone out who's replaced by someone that the Wall Street Journal says is, quote, even more hardline as Supreme Leader.

C (10:45)

Absolutely he is. And I think he represents a real element within Iranian society, not just the government and the regime, but Iranian society. You know, we tend to look at things through the American prism and point out all the very odious and heinous acts that Iran has committed over the course of the last number of decades, particularly since the revolution. The Iranians look at us and they say, okay, the CIA and the Brits overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh in 1953. We armed, equipped and trained the Savak, which was the Shah's secret police that tortured and oppressed Iranians across the board. We have engaged in different types of bombing activities. We invaded Iraq, we killed Qasem Soleimani, we assassinated some of them. So they keep saying it's eye for an eye and we can go back into history. The big question is, how do we move forward and get out of this cycle of violence and retribution? But the Iranians are looking at us and saying, saying, boy, they're raining hell down on them. Should they just roll over and just give up? No. And I also heard that, you know, the reports that the Israelis say that they're going to kill the next Supreme Leader, obviously it's a, you know, a war on their religion in many respects as well, given the combination of religious and political leadership in Iran. So, again, this is so messy, and again, I'm just aghast that a US Administration engaged in something like this without thinking through the implications, the repercussions, and where we go from here. It is just appalling.

A (12:13)

John Hudson, we've been trying to keep track of what's been publicly stated. Obviously, we don't know what we don't know. You might know some of what we don't know, and we'll ask you about that. But in terms of a timeline, they have said Trump said he could end it in days. We've heard four to five weeks, and we've heard, quote, much longer in terms of why we went. We heard Rubio give the most sort of detailed response when he said, because we knew Israel was going to strike and then Iran would retaliate. We heard Trump talk about regime change, and I think there's at least one Other rationale that's been publicly articulated, Boots on the ground. Caroline Levitt. I'm not going to remove an option for the president that's on the table. Donald Trump speaking to the New York Post, put that on the table. What is your understanding for why they can't have the same answers to the same oft asked questions?

D (13:10)

It's a great question. It's almost as if the administration is shopping around rationales for why this conflict happened. They've also been shopping around objectives for the conflict and then shopping around timelines. All of those things have resulted in different responses that the administration has offered. The only thing that I can assume is that they're trying to see what sticks and what seems to sound the best. I mean, you mentioned Secretary Rubio saying that one of the reasons why the administration did this is because they felt that Israel was going to attack. And if Israel attacked, then that would result in the United States taking in casualties from Iran so that they had to enter first. And that exploded in a lot of anger, especially in the MAGA base, which said it sounds like Rubio is saying the Israelis dragged us into this war. What happened to America first? Not to mention the anger on the parts of the left about that happening. And so then Trump rejected that. It truly looks like Director Brennan used the word ad hoc ism. It's also ad hoc ism when it comes to testing out what sounds right to the American people. And I think that's largely a result of the negative polling surrounding where the public is on the United States getting engaged in another war in the Middle east and the negative reaction that has happened within the MAGA base surrounding a new war with Iran.

A (14:49)

Is this being driven? I mean, I guess you answered my question for me, John. I mean, it's being driven by reaction inside the MAGA base, which has been revolt might be too strong of a word, but the most public and high level rejection of anything Trump has done in 10 years from folks like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, a political civil war between Sean Hannity and Mark Levin or Levine, I don't know how to say his last name on one side and Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens on the other hand. And then there's the weakness, effectlessness that I think all Americans would not like. When Marco Rubio went before Congress and said in closed and open door meetings that we had followed Israel into war, that because they were going to attack, we anticipated Iran would respond and we would be in danger. Is there anything in the mix that suggests a national security person Thinking about US national security, or is this all vibes and whims?

D (15:56)

Vibes is a great word to introduce into this. And I think the most important question was, was there an imminent threat? Because that was the first thing that they put out there. And that would be one of the strongest rationales for going to war. I can tell you from my reporting, based on what's been happening in classified closed door sessions between congressional staff and administration officials, they tried to really drill down on this point. Not when cameras were around, not when you could easily get a televised moment. And the response was no. The administration was not able to say that the Iranians were plotting to attack the United States first. They were not able to say that there was an imminent threat to our US Bases in the Middle east based on planning for an attack. What they rested this on when they were talking to professionals was that Iran's reconstitution of its ballistic missile program itself constituted an imminent threat. A lot of people would say that that's a significant stretch because you're talking about a conventional weapons, which nations are allowed to have that. We might not like that our adversaries have missiles, but it's not what's seen according to international law as a justification to preemptively launch a massive bombing campaign that results in the assassination of the highest rungs of another country's military and political leadership.

A (17:42)

Director Brennan, what do you assess to be Iran's capability to sustain its current level of strikes against American military installations, against America's allies, against I guess what we used to call soft targets in places like Dubai? What do you assess their capabilities to be to keep that up or accelerate their offensive?

C (18:07)

Well, there's no doubt that their capabilities are being degraded by the massive and overwhelming demonstration of US Military power. But they're going to be opting for whatever capabilities they have, whether it be drones or whether it be other types of attacks. They see this really as a matter of survival. Why should they hold back then on anything they have? And I do think the next order is going to be terrorist attacks. They probably don't have things sort of off the shelf that they can launch. But who's to say that they don't have, in fact, capabilities and operatives or whatever in different parts of the world? They could launch mortars or engage in IEDs or other types of things. So as I think their missile inventory is going to be decreased in terms of capability, size, they're going to opt for other types of things. And they see that this is, you know, time really is on their side because they're going to continue to withstand the barrage that they are facing. But again, they see this as, you know, all out war. And so why should they hold back when Israel and the United States are not holding back on their side, using their capabilities, Iran will resort to whatever capabilities they have remaining.

A (19:12)

What do you hear when you hear Trump and Caroline Levitt leave boots on the ground in Iran on the table? What does that look like?

C (19:23)

To me? It sounds like they don't know what's going to happen in the future. And I think increasingly they're recognizing that they're not going to be able to achieve their objectives with just this aerial bombing campaign. There's just no way that's going to happen, whether they're talking about on their regime change or nuclear program, whatever else. But it's clear that the Trump administration propaganda machine is in full, full, you know, sway right now. And it's really quite worrisome when at a time of war, if you have a dishonest administration that is, you know, fueling the disinformation out there, misrepresenting the facts, that is really, you know, dangerous. And this is where it is up to Congress. I agree with Paul, that need to find a way to try to rest from the administration then this narrative that they are misrepresenting, again, the facts not only in terms of the, the cause of the rationale for the war, but what is actually happening. And I do think that, again, the future is really quite fraught and uncertain, which is why I think they don't want to take anything off the table because they don't know what their next move is. And by all accounts, there is no real good interagency process that's going to be bringing to the fore the expertise, the intelligence, the strategy that is really necessary to get out of this message, which is really going to be tough to do.

A (20:49)

Yeah. Mark Mazzetti was here yesterday and made the point. I asked about the NSC process and he said that there's no reporting that suggests there was one. To your point, to all your points. Director John Brennan, John Hudson, thank you both so much for starting us off. Paul stays with us. When he and I come back, we'll talk with a senator who was briefed by the administration and left alarmed and talk specifically about what we're talking about right now that Trump could be planning to put boots on the ground and soon. Also ahead for us, Cash Patel's politically motivated purges of the FBI new exclusive reporting. We're bringing you here for the very first time around the pattern of these firings. What our team has uncovered with their reporting is proving dangerous for American national security. The one and only Carol Lennox joins us on her new reporting. Plus, a remarkable move late this afternoon by House Republicans on the Oversight Committee. They have voted to subpoena Attorney General Pam Bondi for the Justice Department's mishandling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. And later in the show, Trump explicitly saying today what we've all been afraid he would do, urging Republicans in Texas to cancel their runoff election and saying that voters should no longer have a choice. All those stories and much more when Deadline Whitehouse continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

B (22:09)

Why have I asked my electrician I found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster Nibbles in our yard for me? Because I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires, I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet Nibbles after his untimely end.

C (22:22)

Huh?

B (22:22)

Nibbles gone too soon. May he scurry in peace.

G (22:26)

Hey, sorry about your pet, but I just wire stuff.

B (22:29)

Nibbles would have loved you like a brother.

G (22:31)

Connecting homeowners with skilled pros for over 30 years, Angie. The one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com

E (22:39)

this is a Monday.com ad the same Monday.com helping people worldwide getting work done faster and better. The same Monday.com designed for every team and every industry. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com that your team will actually love using the same Monday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Yes the same Monday.com Tyler Redich here

A (23:10)

from 2311 Racing game night's fun until someone spends five minutes lining up one shot.

E (23:15)

Chalk.

A (23:16)

Breathe. Rechock. Still aiming while they figure it out. I fire up Champa Casino. I can spin anywhere, anytime. And there's always a new social casino game every week. Spins happen way faster than that shot. Waitings for amateurs play now@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba.

C (23:33)

No purchase necessary. VGW Group Void where prohibited by law. CTNC's 21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino.

A (23:41)

The United States Senate right now is voting on advancing a War Powers resolution to try to force Donald Trump to stop the strikes against Iran. I want to bring in Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. He serves on both the Armed Services and Homeland Security committees. I want to start by asking you about that vote. Tell us how you expect it to go.

H (24:04)

I'm sad and angry, Nicole, because I anticipate that the Senate will fail to approve the Iran War Powers Resolution that would impose constitutional restraint on the president. United States. The Constitution rest requires that Congress approve a war, and the president's called it a war. The secretary of war has called it a war. And yet, sadly, my Republican colleagues are failing to show the backbone and spine that is necessary to impose constitutional restraints and pull back from an expanding burgeoning war that threatens to put American sons and daughters in harm's way.

A (24:54)

Six American sons and daughters have already lost their lives. We learned the identities of four of them last night from Florida, Iowa, Minnesota and 56% of the country to about 70% of the country opposes a war in Iran. What is Plan B if this resolution today fails?

H (25:16)

I fear we are at the precipice of a major expansion that would involve our putting American troops on the ground in Iran. The reason I fear it is that the objectives continue to be undefined, confused and contradictory. The administration seems to be making it up as it goes along, test marketing a war that is going to be deeply unpopular when the casualties tragically mount. I'm a dad who has two sons who have served, one as an infantry officer in Afghanistan, the other is a Navy seal. I know what it's like to stay awake at night wondering how your sons are doing. And I have been a state official when the body bags and the funerals came back to haunt us during Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The failure to define strategy is different from possible success in tactics. We may be seeing success in the bombing, but so long as the administration continues to think that regime change is an objective here, they are heading down the path of American sons and daughters being in the line of fire in Iran. We can't count on others to do it if we want to change regimes. Bombing at 30,000ft has never changed a regime, and it can't be done without some presence there.

A (26:50)

So you're saying that based on the briefings you've heard, that one of the objectives that you're hearing is regime change, as Donald Trump has said publicly, and that your understanding is that that can't be done without US Troops on the ground?

H (27:07)

Donald Trump has shouted the quiet part out loud. He has said he wants to see regime change. His personal animus and vanity are driving this war in a way that is absolutely unconscionable and ought to outrage the American people. As angry as we are, many of US on the floor of the Senate voting today. And yes, my fear after that briefing has only mounted because the failure to rule out putting troops on the ground with the president saying that it is one of his objectives, means that all those other goals, such as destroying Iran's missile capacity or its nuclear arms program or its terrorist activities throughout the region, all of them bad things, we want to stop them. But considering that ultimately he wants to destroy the leadership of this regime and replace it with something else, means that it's a real danger that our troops will be there.

A (28:19)

Paul Rykoff, let me bring you in on the the publicly contradictory messages about all three. Why we went, what the objectives are and how the war will be waged seem unsustainable. What are your thoughts about holding them accountable in some way? To simply answer the questions for what has already come to pass?

G (28:49)

Not having one rationale also is a strategy to ensure you're not held accountable. And you can wait for something to land. This is like yellow cake and weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's a bad guy all over again. But I think your question to the senator is a central one. What is Plan B? He didn't answer you. Respectfully, Senator, you did not answer because they're about to have a War Powers act vote on a war that's already happening. Last night he hit a whole new country in Ecuador. They haven't addressed that, and he's talking about hitting Cuba. So at what point are they going to get ahead of this runaway train? They're always chasing it, and everybody's angry, everybody's upset, everybody's fearful. But what is the strategy to stop it? And I think that is the question that remains for Senator Blumenthal and for every member of the Senate right now.

A (29:32)

Senator, I'll give you the last word.

H (29:36)

Well, we're going to continue this battle. This vote is not the last that we will have. The War Powers Resolution will be raised again, I believe Republicans will be held. Remember, today, every Republican will be on record. And if this war continues, they will be held accountable for these votes. We will have votes as well, possibly on a supplemental. But keep in mind, we're in the minority. Our tools are limited. Let's direct the outreach at Republicans who really deserve to be held accountable. They're the ones who are voting, my guess is almost unanimously today. And they deserve to be held accountable. That's what will be on the ballot this November. It should be a matter for every one in this country to be asking their representatives, their senators, will you take a stand, Senator?

A (30:32)

Richard Blumenthal, first of what I'm sure will be many of these conversations. Thank you for having it with us. All right, cop, thank you for your contributions this hour as well. After the break, there's new exclusive reporting. We're going to bring you here. For the very first time, FBI agents are sounding the alarm about Kash Patel's pattern of finding himself under fire because of his own behavior and then how he lashes out at agents. Carol Lennig joins us next on that. Don't go anywhere. Turning now to brand new Blockbuster reporting, an MSNow exclusive from CarolineIG and Kendallanian about an explosive pattern that begins with FBI Director Kash Patel under fire for eyebrow raising headlines and ending with him lashing out to fire experienced FBI staff and agents. As we learned this week, that includes those with expertise in counterintelligence, global espionage and Iran. Today, Carol and Ken report this quote. In four key instances, Kash Patel's decision to fire FBI agents and staff came within hours or days of unflattering accounts emerging about him and his competency to run the FBI. They add this quote, inside the FBI staff and agents have been tracking this pattern and growing concerned that Cash Patel is jeopardizing the FBI's mission as a byproduct of trying to eliminate his bad press and shore up support with Trump, according to multiple FBI sources who spoke to Ms. Now, the key instances of bad press that they're talking about, these are headlines that you might remember forever. Reporting that Kash Patel knowingly broke the law when firing senior FBI executives. Reporting about flight records showing that Kash Patel misuses the FBI jet to visit his girlfriend. Reporting that described Kash Patel as an unserious leader who had demoralized and weakened the bureau. And most recently, Kash Patel's trip to the Olympics in Italy, again aboard a government jet. We're seen here he guzzled beer and sprayed it all over everyone in the room while partying with the USA men's hockey team. I want to bring in Carol Lennox who's reporting we've been reading from. Also joining us, former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI and national security intelligence analyst for U.S. michael Feinberg. Caroline, take us through this really wider look at a pattern that's become clear.

I (33:05)

Thanks, Nicole, for focusing on this. You know, as you know from covering this yourself in a way and tracking what's been going on at the Justice Department and the FBI, we can sometimes become a little bit numb to these serial purges. There have been story after story that we've broken here at Ms. Now or that some of our colleagues and competitors have broken about FBI agents and staff being fired by Kaj Patel since he took office in February of 2025 as the director. But what we started to look into was the seemingly eerie coincidence or coordination, depending on your perspective, between moments when Kaj Patel is personally in hot water and moments when these FBI agents are having their careers ended unceremoniously, often without any cause or justification given to them about why they're being fired. I would like to emphasize that there are people at the FBI, we learned in the course of this reporting, who have also noticed this trend. But we tried in our reporting to focus very specifically on those moments that when Kaj Patel is in big trouble and within days or hours even he is firing a group of people who work for him and his own staff. And we found these four instances that had this eerie overlap. Kaj Patel, through a spokesperson told Ms. Now, told me and Ken that firings are based on investigations and findings of impropriety and nothing more. I just think it's important to say what they say is happening.

A (34:50)

Let me go through them again. And I love that we can, especially with Michael here look at this. I think of it as like a crater that they've created at the FBI and without putting them together, it's hard to understand just how deep it is. And I guess what I want to ask you to talk about on the other side is, I mean, he's perpetually in trouble. And so I want to know from both of you where the bottom might be of that crater. But let me just go through the examples again. In mid September, Keshe Patel faced a string of media reports about a lawsuit claiming he knowingly broke the law when he fired three top FBI officials. I believe they countersued. So this is what happened immediately afterward. Within a week, Kash Patel ordered the firing of 10 FBI agents who were pictured five years earlier, taking a need to show solidarity with people protesting the police killing of George Floyd. Second example, in October. So a month later, a social media influencer revealed flight records that show Kash Patel took the FBI jet to see his girlfriend sing the national anthem at an event at Penn State. Fired. The day after the news broke, a 27 year old FB 27 year FBI veteran named Stephen Palmer who headed the critical Incident Response group that oversees the FBI jet fleet. The third example, January 22, 2026. So about six weeks later, New York Times published an article quoting former current FBI employees describing Kash Patel as an unserious leader who had demoralized and weakened the FBI. The next day, Kash Patel ordered the firing of six agents who were based out of the FBI's Miami field office, as well as a handful of senior agents. I think those had had some role in the Mar A Lago documents case. Example 4 Last month, February 2026, stories about cash Patel flying on the FBI jet to the Olympics in Milan. On February 24, the day after a video emerged of Patel partying in the hockey team's locker room, a new account emerged from a whistleblower who said Cash Patel's use of the director's jet for a personal trip to Florida in December and his confusing orders delayed an elite FBI evidence team from reaching the scene of that mass shooting at Brown University to handle some of that evidence on December 13th. And then February 25th. The next day, Keshe Patel ordered the firing of at least 10 FBI agents and support staff who'd worked on the investigation. Examining Trump's withholding of classified records, Carol, you know, one could be a coincidence, two could be a unlikely pattern. Three is obviously a practice. Four seems like an obsession. Is there anything that the FBI Agents association or Congress can do to protect the remaining agents?

I (37:42)

So far, no. I mean, obviously, as you know, there have been these countersuits which look like they are at least in some measure going to be successful because it's improper to fire someone without cause. And in the case of, for example, that lawsuit that prompted more firings, the lawsuit about the firings involving former Acting Director Driscoll and two other senior officials, they essentially said, we were told we were being fired for a political reason without just cause. We were told that we were going to have to be removed to please the White House. That is the claim in the lawsuit. But your larger question, Nicole, is, you know, what is going on here. And it is true that Kash Patel is often in the news because of insider accounts that are emerging about problematic behavior or use of the government plane for personal travel that doesn't appear to follow any protocols for how previous directors used a government taxpayer funded jet. Going to see a men's hockey game in the main, and a few security meetings in Italy, for example, has really upset a lot of people inside the FBI, embarrassed them. And as these insider accounts emerge, the result is overwhelmingly that more agents are fired, which FBI sources tell us they believe is an effort to basically change the channel, an effort by Patel, in their view, to further ingratiate himself with Donald Trump and protect his job. The problem for those sources and for many in The FBI is. It is undermining the actual bureau and the critical missions that they perform.

A (39:33)

To say nothing of the war we're now in, the hot war in the Middle East. I want to bring that into the conversation on the other side of a short break with both of you. Stay with us. We'll all be right back.

B (39:46)

Why have I asked my electrician I found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster? I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires, I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet nibbles after his untimely end.

G (39:56)

This is very strange, Angie. The one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com

E (40:01)

this is a Monday.com ad, the same Monday.com designed for every team. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free.

A (40:17)

Bubba Wallace here from 2311 Racing. You know what's slower than a pace

H (40:21)

car waiting at the car wash? That's when I fire up Jumbo Casino.

A (40:25)

It turns these slow minutes into fast fun. With new games every week, you'll never get bored. Next time you're stuck in the slow lane, speed up with Chumba play now@chumbacasino.com let's Chumbo.

C (40:37)

No purchase necessary BGW group void where prohibited by law. CTNC's 21/plus sponsored by Jumbo Casino.

A (40:47)

We're back with Carol and Michael. Michael Feinberg, I know a lot of this rings true, but just again, bring me to the consequences of this pattern.

F (40:56)

So the biggest consequence is that we have already lost decades, if not centuries of subject matter expertise, investigative acumen and sound operational judgment. And it shows no sign of abating simply because Kash Patel shows no signs of moderating his behavior. To be a more metaphorically sober director of the FBI, I also think it's important to note one, that I want to really comment on something Carol said, which was when she quoted the FBI spokesperson that nobody is dismissed except as the result of investigations. We know that's demonstrably not true because the people who have been fired have been terminated. Without the benefit of an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation, There has been no determination by OPR or the Office of Disciplinary Appeals about their situations. In other words, these are summary firings. These are not the result of any policy or procedure.

A (42:11)

Carol, where does this go? Where's this heading?

I (42:15)

That's a great question. You know, I think Some of what we are learning in a very kind of cold and dry way is that the only way that someone who runs a cabinet office in this administration is held to account is if Donald Trump, the president of the United States, is dissatisfied with their performance. And Kash Patel has been a unflagging, incredible ally of Donald Trump's, a staunch supporter willing to carry out his bidding, even though the FBI is supposed to be independent from the political wishes of the president. And I don't think, I mean, sort of, to paraphrase Mike, I don't think that there's going to be a bottom for a while because this many people have been fired. The argument that Kash Patel has made in many of the cases is that they were not loyal and that they engaged in some sort of impropriety by investigating open source evidence of a potential crime as assigned by their supervisors. And overwhelmingly, it's because they were investigating Donald Trump or had some roles in one of the Trump investigations, either for his concealing and withholding classified records or his effort to interfere in the election. I don't see a bottom for a while unless the president of the United States gets fed up with this.

A (43:49)

Carolina, it's another stunning piece of reporting from you and our colleague Kendallanian. Thank you for bringing it to us. It's up right now on our website. Michael Feinberg, you'll be back with us in the next hour. After the break, how Kristi Noem's spending limits at the agency she leads delayed disaster aid for weeks. New report is found. We'll bring it to you next. A stunning new report by Senate Democrats reveals that a directive by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem led to delays to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in recovery aid for victims of natural disasters. Among those delays named in the report, aid for the victims of July's deadly flooding in Texas. The death toll there was well over 100 people, many of them children, who were at a sleepaway camp along the banks of the Guadalupe River. Survivors of Hurricane Helene in multiple hard hit counties in western North Carolina are still waiting for the federal government to make good on its promise to pay back millions of dollars that local officials have spent or allocated for recovery. This report dropped just weeks after news broke that Kristi Noem has been crisscrossing the country on a luxurious private jet and once got mad when her blanket wasn't moved from one to the other. DHS is in the process of buying it for $70 million, far less than the 46 million it owes to one of North Carolina's hardest hit counties. We'll stay on top of this reporting after the break. Five Republicans joined Democrats today in issuing a subpoena for Attorney General Pam Bondi in its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. That rather surprising development when DEADLINE White House continues after a quick break. Stay with us.

B (45:37)

Why have I asked my electrician I found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster? I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires, I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet nibbles after his untimely end.

A (45:47)

This is very strange, Angie.

G (45:49)

The one you trust, define the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com.