C (3:19)

And if the facts go to where the Washington Post article takes it, well, then we'll have to go from there. But if it was as if the article said, that is a violation of the law of war. When people want to surrender, you don't kill them. And they have to pose an imminent threat. It's hard to believe that two people on a, on a raft trying to survive would pose an imminent threat.

B (3:43)

Potential investigations from the Republican leg committees once again highlight an increasingly common occurrence, although one that's perhaps not common enough. That is, there is now daylight between Donald Trump and his near sycophantic supporters in Congress. That is where we start the hour with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator, let me first ask you if you have any independent knowledge of the events as described by the Washington Post.

D (4:18)

I have no knowledge, at least of potential classified facts. We have seen the Office of Legal Counsel memorandum, and I've demanded that it be released to the public. But it's still classified, and therefore there's really nothing that I can say about it, except I was really seriously dissatisfied and disappointed in the legal reasoning. And I think the American people have a right to know what is in that memorandum. But even more, all of the facts surrounding these 23 strikes on boats, blowing them out of the water, killing more than 80 people, including those two who were clinging to their boat after it was virtually destroyed. What happened here, Nicole, clearly was either a war crime or a murder or both. And Hegseth really has to go. It's his direct or indirect orders that there be lethal kinetic strikes on all these boats that resulted in these deaths, and he has to be held accountable. So he needs to either resign or be fired, at the very least put on leave while there are investigations ongoing. And there should be prompt, penetrating investigation, not just asking questions, not just vigorous oversight, as both the leaderships of the two armed Services committees have said. But as a member of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, I believe there has to be a prompt, penetrating investigation and action.

B (5:56)

Senator, I'll leave the OLC memo aside for a moment, but as you're suggesting, it's contains classified information, but you are calling for it to be declassified and made public.

D (6:11)

It must be declassified and made public. And so must be all of the facts surrounding these apparent kinetic strikes without legal justification. The videos, for example, of that second strike that killed the two survivors has never been made public. The American people deserve to see it. And all of the facts surrounding the pardon of Juan Orlando Hernandez, a proven drug dealer who was responsible for 500 tons of narcotics coming into this country, the hypocrisy of pardoning him, all the facts surrounding that hypocrisy need to be made public.

B (6:56)

Let's deal with what has been reported by the Washington Post. They make clear, and Pete Hegseth goes on Fox News the morning after and confirms, for his own part, his live participation in monitoring the strikes that are covered by the Washington Post. Washington Post is reporting, according to two sources familiar, that Pete Hegseth ordered that, quote, everyone be killed. We've had two people today, Andrew Weissman, who was the general counsel at the FBI and a former military legal official, make clear that the military's own manual for men and women of the military in the section on how to make sure you never commit a war crime gives us a specific example that you do not shoot at people who are, quote, shipwrecked. Does this, in your view, meet not only the technical definition of a war crime, but does it also include the specific example in the Army's own military's own manual for how to make sure where the line is in terms of not carrying out a strike that would be illegal and inhumane.

D (8:07)

It is so clearly and blatantly a violation of the manual of the technical provisions, but also of basic rules of armed combat. And every private in the United States army, every midshipman in the Naval Academy is taught these basic rules. And in fact, the United States has prosecuted Germans and Japanese after World War II for killing armed combatants who are out of the fight, either because they're wounded or disabled or disarmed. It is a violation of basic tenets of military law, and there's a reason for them, Nicole. It's not just our humanity, not just because we think it's militarily wrong or morally offensive, but these rules protect our own troops. If our adversaries or enemies fail to observe these rules of war, our own troops are put in danger. And our killing people in this way, murdering them or committing war crimes, is a matter of our own national security. It puts our troops in legal jeopardy. Those pilots or airmen and sailors who are out there in the Caribbean right now are put in legal Jeopardy. And so headset is really compromising our command structure, good order and discipline. Again, violations of the Uniform Code of Military justice, which are military men and women observe scrupulously and are held to account when they violate it.

B (9:51)

So if it is so clear that, as you're saying, it violates the, quote, basic rules for combat, things even midshipmen are aware of and learn in their training, the White House today seemed to shift the blame to Officer Bradley, I believe was his name. Would. Would something that so clearly violated their training and their manual, including the very example given for how to avoid inhumane and illegal treatment of someone injured in a US Military strike. Would someone like Officer Bradley have to get permission from someone above his rank to carry out something that is the exact example in their manual of what not to do to people injured in a US Military strike.

D (10:38)

Admiral Mitch Bradley was the head of the Special Operations Command, the Joint Special Operation Command, known as soc. The kind of order that he gave was part of that permission structure. Because in Hegseth in effect saying that the approach had to be to destroy the boats, to kill everyone on them, as apparently he's reported to have done, then Hegseth has to bear both legal and moral responsibility. But Admiral Bradley may be in effect made the fall guy here by the White House. Apparently, it's trying to shift blame, not uncharacteristically, but the responsibility should go to the very top. And that's why I've said Hegseth must resign or be fired or put on leave while these investigations go forward.

B (11:36)

Would you like to speak to Admiral Bradley about the facts? Before too much of the White House spin operation, they talked about him today. Would you like to speak to him with bipartisan members of Congress asking questions under oath?

D (11:54)

Great question, Nicole. Yes, very definitely. As a former prosecutor, I certainly would want to talk to Admiral Bradley to know how that order was issued from him in the United States, where his command is, to the actual command on the ground, so to speak, at sea, on the USS Ford or wherever it was. But we're unlikely to have that opportunity before he is debriefed by the military. I am hopeful that Admiral Bradley will have the moral fiber to come forward with the truth. He should be a witness in a hearing conducted by the Armed Service Committee of the United States Senate, along with others who were involved in those decisions in real time as a result of, again, Hegseth's instructions, his intent that there be lethal and kinetic destruction of civilians. We don't even know who they were, how they were recruited. Or coerced to be on those boats, what they were carrying, where they were headed, who was paying them. And there are ways to go after narcotics trafficking. I strongly support interdiction by the Coast Guard, more resources assigned to them so they can do that job more effectively. Arrest them. Don't let them go. As apparently happened after one of the October strikes, two of the survivors were repatriated to Ecuador and Colombia without any interrogation. If this were a serious effort to interdict narcotics, they would put the Coast Guard out there, they would arrest them, they would try to follow the chain and the money to where the top of the narcotics traffickers network was an organized crime syndicate, no doubt headed by people like Hernandez who they just pardoned. It makes no sense.

B (14:00)

Senator, one last question for you've been so generous with your time. Pete Hegseth on Fox and Friends makes clear that he was watching the operation live. Would the Senate Armed Services Committee in a bipartisan fashion considered a records and video preservation request to the Pentagon to make sure that none of the evidence of what happened on the day of the strike is destroyed?

D (14:23)

Absolutely right. Very necessary that there be preservation of documents, chain of custody. All this stuff that prosecutors know is essential to prove a case and find the truth. That ought to be the goal here on a bipartisan basis, to know what actually happened. And let me issue a challenge to my Republican colleagues. If you care about narco trafficking, you should want the truth. If you care about our national security, you should demand the facts and full disclosure to the American people. As this investigation goes on, it ought to be right away, prompt, penetrating, no holds barred, let the chips fall where they may.

B (15:07)

Senator Blumenthal, thank you very much for joining us today and for fielding all of our questions.

D (15:13)

Thank you.

B (15:14)

Joining us at the table, California Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell. He's also running for governor of the state of California, the great state of California. And Princeton University President msnow political analyst Eddie Glad is here. Your thoughts on whether, well, the answers are knowable. There are some investigations that Congress undertakes where you begin and it's not clear that you'll get to an answer exactly what happened and who issued what command to whom at what time is knowable. Pete Hegseth himself provided that evidence on live television by saying he, quote, watched the operation live. Do you think we'll get all the evidence?

E (15:51)

Yes. The do nothing wall that has protected Donald Trump in Congress seems to be cracking. Whether it was Marjorie Taylor Greene with Epstein and her belief that we shouldn't be engaging in pointless wars to some of the bipartisan statements calling for an investigation. That's how bad and obvious this seems. And by the way, he's not denying that he committed a war crime, like, certainly not in the statement he's put out or what he has said publicly. And so I do see that it's becoming so overwhelming as far as how lawless this administration has become, that they can't avoid it. They want to avoid it. I know they don't want to pop their heads up because they get whacked by Trump or his allies, but that's where we're heading right now. But I have to ask, you know, being a part of the Russia investigation and the Ukraine investigation, we had, like, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman come forward. We had Fiona Hill come forward, who is going to be the courageous American who says, enough is enough. I'm not going to let this happen. I'm going to come forward. There's whistleblower.

B (16:56)

Well, I mean, today, Caroline Levitt seemed to blame Admiral Bradley. I mean, maybe that's a candidate to come forward and tell us at least just the truth, what happened.

E (17:05)

If he has a story to tell, he is protected under whistleblower protections to come forward, especially if he was coerced by the Secretary of Defense. But, you know, stepping back here, when you talk to Americans, when I talk to Californians, going to war with Venezuela ranks about 200th on the list of priorities. So you have the president, like, losing focus of what he told people he would be focusing on. You have, in this instance, they can't even justify why these individuals are being targeted. Everyone wants to get rid of narco traffickers. They can't even prove to us that that's who they are. You have resignations taking place, you know, in the lawyers who work at the Department of Defense, which again, implies there are at least some individuals who are not comfortable. So I see an opportunity here to get Republicans to come forward, but it has to be a strength in numbers. Let me just give you one example. When Matt Gaetz was nominated as Attorney.

B (17:55)

General, why do you think that Republicans, I mean, they didn't care about America not releasing congressionally approved funds to an ally in Ukraine. They didn't impeach him for inciting a deadly insurrection that was such a threat. I mean, I rolled the tape over and over. They all ran for their lives. So they too, felt threatened. Why do you think this would be different?

E (18:15)

They don't want to be. No one wants to be the tallest poppy in the field. And so I go back to the gates. Nomin as attorney general, which was batty crazy. And it was killed. But no one can say which Republican killed that nomination because enough of them spoke up about it and that they created kind of a strength and numbers approach. However, Marjorie Taylor Greene with Epstein, she's the tallest poppy in the field. She gets whacked, she leaves Congress, he wins. So the lesson is you have to build first, quietly, a coalition that's big enough, strong enough that he can't single anyone out. So they have a model of doing it before. That has to be the model going forward.

B (18:49)

Gates was an investigated child sex trafficker. This is about the honor and the integrity of the United States military. You think it takes safety in numbers? You don't think there's anyone brave enough to stand up?

E (19:00)

I talk to these people, Nicole, and they tell me that their spouses are saying, don't put a target on our backs. I don't want our kids harassed at school. I don't want to go to the country club and be alienated. 36% get a different job, if that is your concern. But that is their fear. So they have to have an environment where they feel strength in numbers. And by the way, Hakeem Jeffries might be the speaker by the end of the week. Like their margins are so thin that they're losing members quickly.

B (19:26)

I want to bring Eddie in on this. I have to sneak in a break before I do that. Also ahead for us, Donald Trump says he released the results of an MRI he got, but he doesn't know what part of his body was scanned by the mri. We'll just leave that right there for you. It is, though, part of a stream of revelations. This one came from Trump himself. But there has been reporting about the man who is our oldest president ever. He's hardly the picture of stamina he'd have us believe. We'll bring you that reporting. Also ahead, how Donald Trump's FDA is now cracking down on life saving vaccines and specifically the ones that saved the lives of millions of Americans during the COVID pandemic. The latest claim, presented without any evidence, has doctors crying foul and demanding proof. We'll tell you about that. We'll sift through the disinformation deadline. White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

C (20:21)

While he's never seemed to do much else right, for most of Donald Trump's career, bullying people has worked out for him.

A (20:32)

But not now, because I won't let it happen.

C (20:39)

The American people won't let it happen. President Trump is trying to silence me.

E (20:46)

Threatening to kill me for saying what is true.

B (20:54)

We're back with Congressman Smallwell and Eddie Glad. So the congressman is describing what every Republican does in the face of Donald Trump. They shrink, they cower, they react to their fear, which is normal. It happens. I'm not sure it's consistent with public service or why you would go serve your constituents if you're not going to do what you think is right when it comes to foreign policy or terrorists, but we'll leave that there. I trust you're right on that. Other people, when confronted with, in his words, a bully, gather strength, you know, like a storm. And Senator Kelly, since he issued the video, since Hegseth announced an investigation into him, since they accused him of more and more slanderous things since they attacked his medals, Trump, who drafted the dodge with a bone spur, has working for him. Pete Hegseth, who attacked the organization of metals that Senator Kelly's won, has gathered strength by the hour, it would appear, as he's now going toe to toe with an administration that Democrats and Republicans now think there's a very strong likelihood has committed war crimes.

C (22:04)

And I think it's important as an example that you can go toe to toe with a bully when you know you're right, when it's not about politics, when it's not about posturing and performance, but it's about a basic set of commitments that you're willing to stand up for. And so Senator Kelly knows that what Hexseth ordered and what Donald Trump is ordering is illegal. He knows that it is generally dishonorable and inhumane, the things that he pledged an oath for. He understands it. So it seems to me that when you know you're right and you have the courage to stand on it, then you could face any bully anytime, and they know they're not. And so the question is, what do you do in that space? And I think Senator Kelly is modeling for us what it means to stand up to folk who want to, who want to literally run over us in the name of their own interest. In the light. Yeah.

B (22:58)

What's amazing is for all of the flurry of all the Trump stories, the second term has been reduced to something so much more simple than the first term. It's, there's one set of rules for us and another one for everybody else. And they've been outed by Marjorie Taylor Greene. They've been sort of their betrayals on the economy are now everybody understands that this is not an economy meant to serve the kinds of men and women who voted for Trump wanting more economic security than they felt over the last four years. I wonder where you feel like we are in terms of people being onto what a grift and a scam Trumpism is.

C (23:38)

I think it's becoming clearer that this is a complex and efficient grift. I also think it's clear to some people that the folk in the Trump administration, this second iteration, are not really concerned about politics, that many of them view their task as existential. They think that they're saving the country. Irrespective of what the American public believes to be good for them, they think that they're doing something good for them. You know, they have this notion of forced liberty, you know, the way in which they're even imagining freedom as tied up and bound up with their own authoritarian position. So I think it's a combination of things. Donald Trump is allowed to grift while these folk who have a certain vision of the country go about doing what they're doing. Even as we're talking about this, Nicole, all the trains are still running. They're still undermining the basic foundations of democracy across government right now as we speak. And so we can focus, as we rightly should, on this. But Pete Hexseff told us he was.

A (24:41)

Going to do this.

C (24:42)

Remember when he gathered all the generals and admirals at Quantico, master sergeants, he said, we're going to release the shackles on our troops hands and we're going to do X, Y and Z. He actually said it. Then he went out and acted on jags and inspector generals. And I mean, he's been releasing himself to do this. I mean, they've been saying it all along. So I think, yes, the American people are coming around, but I don't believe these people give a damn.

B (25:08)

They're Republican.

E (25:09)

Yeah.

C (25:09)

Or the Trump administration.

B (25:11)

Do you think something has shifted?

E (25:15)

Yes. It happened early November when Democrats won from statewide in Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, all the way out to California. It's demoralized Republicans. They now see themselves going into the minority, the writings on the wall, that it's a matter of time before it is Speaker Jeffries. But what Democrats have to do, you know, more than just intend to go in the majority, is to declare now what being in the majority looks like, because we have to. We may not undo the drug deals that were done with universities or law firms or entertainment companies that the president has done, but we may deter the next one if they believe us when we say, get to know Jamie Raskin, Robert Garcia and Benny Thompson, who are going to be the chairs of Judiciary Oversight and Homeland Security because you're going to spend a lot of time in those committees. And I hope everything you've done is clean because it's all going to come out Republicans right now, though, to your point, they don't believe we'll do it. They think they're invincible and either Trump will save them, Elon Musk will pay for their election, or in some way they'll reduce access to the ballot and they'll win that way. And even if that doesn't work, if Democrats are in the majority, we're not willing to do what it takes to hold them accountable. We have to start showing that now. And we may actually deter corruption that could take place between now and being in the majority.

B (26:36)

All right. When we come back, there are new revelations today from the White House that raise more questions than they answer about Donald Trump's health and very fitness for the job that he holds. We'll bring that reporting next.

A (26:51)

Start your day with the MSNow Daily Newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust, standout.

C (26:57)

Moments from your favorite shows, and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news.

A (27:02)

Sign up @MS. Now.

B (27:08)

There's some brand new reporting to tell you about and more questions in that reporting and Donald Trump's reaction to it about his health and his stamina and his energy. And they have touched a nerve bigly. Donald Trump, who is the oldest person to ever be elected president, has as recently as last month appeared to fall asleep during an event in the Oval Office. There's also the swollen ankles, which the White House has talked about, the makeup he seems to apply to bruising on the back of his right hand, which cameras have captured, something his doctor says is caused by aspirin and, quote, shaking hands. Okay. But now Donald Trump says he'll release the results of what has become a mysterious mri. He told us he had it in October. The White House said it was part of a routine physical. Donald Trump said that the results of his MRI were, quote, perfect. But when asked by a reporter yesterday about what body part the MRI examined that resulted in that, quote, perfect result, Donald Trump said he has no idea. You have to watch if you want.

A (28:10)

To have it released.

C (28:11)

I'll release it.

B (28:12)

Yes, please. Can you tell us what they were looking at?

D (28:15)

For what?

A (28:15)

Releasing?

B (28:16)

No, no, no. What part of your body was the MRI looking at?

D (28:19)

I have no idea.

A (28:19)

It was just an mri.

D (28:21)

What part of the body? It wasn't the brain because I took.

C (28:23)

A cognitive test and I aced it. I got a perfect mark, which you would be incapable of doing.

D (28:28)

Goodbye, everybody.

C (28:30)

You too.

B (28:31)

I went in the tube, but they didn't check my head because it's all good. What? Today the White House announced that Trump's MRI was of his heart and abdomen. Something he would have known, but forget it. He says his physician characterized the scan as normal. All this comes amid some comprehensive news reporting about Trump's decline. An in depth analysis of the intersection between hard data and what we the people can see with our own eyes. Shorter work days, obvious signs of fatigue. Sleeping, for example. Facing what the New York Times describes as, quote, the realities of aging in office, end quote. A criticism Donald Trump so frequently made of his predecessor from that reporting that got under his skin, quote. Nearly a year into his second term, Americans see Trump less than they used to. According to the New York Times analysis of his schedule. Quote, Trump has fewer public events on his schedule and is traveling domestically much less than he did by this point during his first year in office in 2017. Although he is taking more foreign trips, he also keeps a shorter public schedule than he used to. Most of his public appearances fall between noon and 5pm on average. Donald Trump has defended his stamina and virility and attacked that Times reporting and the journalists responsible for it, suggesting he's never worked so hard in his life. That I do believe I want to bring in Ms. Now medical contributor Dr. Ven Gupta. He's a pulmonologist and global health policy expert. Expert. Congressman Swalwell and Eddie Glad are still with us. Dr. Gupta, what do you see? Obviously, we can't diagnose Donald Trump, but what to you is very obvious as a physician in the public purview.

A (30:14)

Nicole, good evening. I was struck when a few weeks ago he was actually announcing a health care policy. He was at some of the weight loss, the companies that were developing the weight loss drugs in his Oval Office, somebody fell down. Looks like they may have had a fainting episode. And he didn't really seem like he had an awareness of his surroundings, didn't really respond the way you would expect somebody to respond that situation. And you know, whether he was tired, fatigue, had some inattention, that really stood out to me. You, I think, beautifully teed up. What we know because transparency in this case to me is it's been hard to come by, but narrower work hours, fatigue in public situations, I think that all does relate to, whether they want to admit it or not, declined functionality as he's aging and maybe the stresses of the job. I would also say what happened today? What did not constitute an appropriate transparent release of an mri. Really. They just added a few extra words, put it on letterhead, and. And that was the release. It's unusual, Nicole, to get a selective MRI of the torso as a primary screening tool. You know, we live in a world, of course your viewers will know this, where if you're very well healed or you're watching TV or driving down the street, you'll see signs. Advertisements for full body MRIs were all being peppered with this to some degree. We see the advertisements. So either he got the full body MRI and they're just releasing the results of his torso, his cardiac results and his abdominal results, or they got a specific cardiac abdominal MRI for specific reason. And regardless, I'm not familiar with this approach of just releasing the torso results of a selected MRI for those specific body parts. It doesn't really comport, nor does it really make sense. Lastly, to say he constantly refers to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MOCA for short, as some sort of defense that everything's fine. From a dementia standpoint or cognitive decline standpoint, it's a blunt tool, it's not perfect. And in no way means that we shouldn't be asking probing questions because we should be.

B (32:26)

I mean, let me start with his head that he keeps talking about his head. He's been taking the MOCA test performatively for as long as I've been covering him, 10 years. He did it with a Fox News reporter, I believe, the first time. And it was, you know, woman, man, tomato, tamale, ask me, ask me. And he wanted to repeat that. He could remember a sequence of four words, just the mocha test is a screen. Is a screen. Right? It's like a first step for what? For cognitive decline or dementia. Or can you just explain what it is and why it would even be on his radar and why he takes it so often and talks about it?

A (33:05)

Well, you know why he takes talks about it so often. And in some ways this is an imperfect, blunt screening tool. Exactly to your point, do you do somebody that gets screened with it, do they have any issues with recall? Nicole? Basic sort of short term memory issues that could be hallmarks of accelerated cognitive decline. Moca, Montreal Cognitive Assessment can pick up on that, but again, it can't pick up on secondary causes of cognitive decline, perhaps, perhaps more nuanced issues that might be going on. If you're the chief executive of the United States of America, there's a lot in the way of cognitive performance, your executive functioning that MOCA in no way is going to test for or assess for. So in some ways he's sitting there citing a tool that is very imperfect when you're really wanting to go off and say, I'm cognitively very intact. Nothing here is happening. You would never cite passing the MOCA repeatedly multiple times in a year as proof of that, that is. And as an ineffective tool to do what he's wanting to do, which is to show the world that there's really nothing to look at here.

B (34:14)

Yeah, I mean, I think repeating again, we only have what he says in public to go by. Congressman, it is a very opaque part of the Trump story, but I don't think that describing your results on a dementia screen over and over again and then reenacting them is the flex. He thinks it is. He thinks it's like, like up there with Obama was a legal genius at Harvard to say, I keep passing the moca. Want to hear me do it to Molly? Man, woman, potato.

E (34:46)

It's like my 4 year old who tells me he didn't get into the cookie jar. When you're telling me you got into the cookie jar.

C (34:54)

Right.

E (34:54)

With the cookie jar over and over your face. Yeah, that's exactly what it is. By the way, I wish the president well in his health. I want him to be around for the ballot box asks, ass kicking that's coming his way next November. I want him to understand it's a rejection of his cruelty and his corruption. But more than that, I think the country elected him and I'll respect that. But at the very least, if you are the oldest elected president, you could at least have competent people around you. Right. And as we talked about, you have a defense secretary who's being accused of war crimes. You have an FBI director where these domestic terrorism attacks keep occurring, and all he's doing is going after the president, political enemies. You have a Homeland Security director in.

B (35:33)

A woman's FBI jacket, in a size.

E (35:36)

Medium women's FBI jacket, and then a Secretary of Homeland Security who is cruelly having, you know, our immigrant community chased through the fields where they work. I think the American people would give him a pass on his age if they at least thought he was carrying out the promises, lowering costs on day one that he had made or being.

B (35:56)

As transparent about his MRI as he is about his moca, or that he.

E (35:59)

Expected the prior president to be about his health.

B (36:02)

Yeah, there's, there's the hypocrisy as well. Congressman, thank you for spending so much time with us here at the table. Eddie, I'm going to ask you and Dr. Gupta to stick around. When we come back last Dr. Gupta about the FDA's disturbing new stepped up assault on life saving vaccines and the damage it risks doing to the country.

E (36:48)

Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, why is this Happening? Why are health care costs rising so much?

A (36:54)

Covid was the instigation. It's what created the political opportunity and it was certainly part of the rationale. I mean, during a pandemic, getting people health care, everybody agrees you should. Well, almost everybody agrees you should do that. But it sort of turned out that, you know, in addition to that, there was this other motivation. And not only was there another motivation, but we got to run a little experiment. Are Democrats right that if you put a little more money into this, it will become wildly more popular? Lo and behold, they were right.

E (37:19)

That's this week on why is this Happening? Search for why is this happening wherever you're listening right now and follow.

B (37:27)

This may be an understatement, but medical experts are alarmed as the FDA prepares to get stricter on vaccine approvals. Based on what? It's not clear. According to an internal email obtained by msNow, the nation's new vaccine regulator, championed by the vaccine skeptic And Health Secretary RFK Jr cites, as the Washington Post puts it, quote, his team's conclusion without detailing any evidence that corona virus vaccines had contributed to the deaths of at least 10 children, end quote. NBC News adds that the memo, quote, did not include the children's ages or medical histories, timelines or any documentation for the deaths he references. The FDA's findings have not been published in a peer reviewed journal, but they do scare the you know what out of moms and dads everywhere. We're back with Dr. Gupta and Eddie. Dr. Gupta here, I just want you to lay out the facts. It was a terrifying time to be a parent. You were desperate for information and you wanted your kid safe. But just do some level setting on the facts about COVID and kids.

A (38:33)

Absolutely. And I think your top notch team put together a graphic for all your viewers that I'm gonna reference here. This has been looked at. What are the side effects of the vaccine versus the side effects of infection with COVID 19 in kids 5 months to 18 years of age. Luckily, there was a large study just published, published about three weeks ago in the Lancet, one of the leading medical journals in the world. And for your viewers, what you're looking at here is the risk of clots in the body, other inflammatory or vascular side effects from getting the infection, which clearly the Risk is a lot. Those bars are a lot larger. If you're infected and you're a child with COVID then a very small risk potentially with the vaccine. That risk with the vaccine attenuates at four weeks and pretty much goes away after that first month. These risks from the infection, Nicole, lasts up until a year. And you never hear it from the vaccine head at the fda, RFK or any of his other deputies about the actual risks of these viruses that these vaccines are meant to protect against you. All you hear is about them cherry picking data, which is what they're doing and trying to scare people. Show us the data. If there legitimately is a link, show us the data. They should have led with that. But they're not even talking about this. They didn't talk about this really high quality, highly published data in the Lancet that really lays out what are the risks of getting infected versus the risk of getting vaccinated if you're a child. So I think that data speaks for itself. Two, I just want to say they announced these vaccine changes, Nicole, on a Friday of a holiday weekend because they were quite dramatic. They're saying that they need more evidence that's code in this case for basically not having an annual flu shot. They're saying that they need to run large scale studies that are completely unnecessary to prove the flu vaccine every single year. Keeps you out of the hospital. We've used a technique, Nicole, for decades called immuno bridging, where the platform to develop a vaccine is proven safe and effective, keeps you out of the hospital. The vaccines that is, that are developed using that platform, but that every single year, the updates to that vaccine don't have to go through that same process because there's no point, because otherwise we wouldn't have access to those vaccines every single year.

B (40:51)

It is sort of the lowest form of trumpist politics to plan people's fears. People aren't. We didn't, I didn't go to medical school. People trust their doctors and it feels like one of the most cynical things they do trying to get in the middle of that relationship between patients and doctors.

C (41:10)

Absolutely. First, let me just say that my heart goes out to Dr. Gupta. I know that he lost his mom recently. So I want to keep you in my prayers as you, as you continue.

B (41:18)

To grieve and thank you for being with us while you are so.

C (41:22)

But I also want to say, remember, we just have to recall all those days when you would read lives well lives of those well lived, because we know we lost them all those empty chairs that folk have to deal, that they dealt with just recently in Thanksgiving, folk who aren't there, folk who lost their babies. And so it's not only just cynical, I think it's monstrous. And, you know, when you ask yourself the question, what policies have these people pursued in these nine months, what policies actually benefit everyday people, actually help folk? And the only thing, nothing. Zero. So I just want to, you know, you know, just remember your tears. I want to remember the empty chairs and I want to remember what we went through and folk who lost loved ones and lost their babies and let that be the basis for our judgment of what they're doing now.

B (42:28)

Make me cry again. Every one of those people was, you know, blowing up the world and the universe of everyone who loved them. Thank you both so much, Dr. Gupta and Eddie. God, thank you. After the break, a unanimous ruling against one of Trump's handpicked U.S. prosecutors. We'll bring you that story next. So it turns out, funny thing, Donald Trump's former defense attorney, Alina Habba has been serving unlawfully, illegally as a U.S. attorney in New Jersey. That is according to a new ruling today from a federal appeals court. The three judge panel rejected the extraordinary steps the Justice Department took to bypass Senate confirmation and keep Alina Haba in the top spot in a ruling that could impact other Trump appointees nationwide. It is a similar issue that led to the dismissal of the cases against Letitia James and Jim Comey last week. We're going to keep an eye on that case as it's possible it makes its way all the way to the Supreme Court. One more break. We'll be right back. I am someone who doesn't usually want to meet my heroes or the people I've admired for a long time, but I broke that rule. For this week's episode of the Best People. I had a chance to sit down and talk to Emmy award winning actress Claire Danes about her incredible career and her brand new Netflix show, the Beast in Me, as well as her as Carrie Matheson in Homeland and what it was like, what it is like for her to be a mom and a powerful award winning actor and to live in this moment we all occupy. You can listen to the entire conversation by scanning the QR code on your screen or wherever you get your podcast. You can also watch the full interview on YouTube by scanning that QR code on your screen right now or heading to Ms. Now thebestpeople. If you listen, let me know what you think on Bluesky or Instagram. Thank you for letting us into your homes today for the show. We are grateful.

A (44:32)

Ms. Now presents season two of the.

C (44:34)

Blueprint, hosted by Jen Psaki. In each episode, she talks to leading Democrats about how they plan to win.

A (44:40)

Again, including Texas Congressman Greg Cassar, who.

C (44:44)

Chairs the Progressive Caucus Congresswoman Sarah McBride of Delaware, the first openly trans person elected to Congress and Moore, who are helping to shape shape the future of the party.

A (44:54)

The Blueprint with Jen Psaki, Season 2.

C (44:57)

All episodes available now.